Obama, Iran & Peace In Our Time

The single greatest threat to the world is Iran and its drive towards a nuclear arsenal. It took almost eight years to get real international sanctions in place against Iran in an effort to end their nuclear program short of war. And now, Obama has ratified Iran's nuclear program while loosening the international sanctions that were finally starting to bite. Hot Air describes the deal thusly:

When you dig into the details of this arrangement, there’s a lot of frosting and not much cake. First of all, this is not a permanent agreement in any way shape or form. It’s a six month “arrangement” which Iran could simply walk away from at the end (or at any point, really) after receiving a massive fiscal injection in the form of sanction relief. It is also simply a “suspension” of certain enrichment activities, with no dismantling of any of Iran’s facilities. The entire show can be started back up at any time. There’s additional transparency, with more inspectors allowed into additional facilities, which is good, but much like the suspension of enrichment this can be terminated any moment Iran decides not to honor the deal. (As they have done numerous times in the past.) The deal also allegedly limits the level of uranium enrichment the Iranians can reach, but that’s the same bone we’ve been chewing on for years. And finally, we have the Iranians on every cable channel doing an end zone dance saying this is “formal recognition” of their right to enrich uranium, while Kerry and his team are saying the opposite. It’s hard to imagine how solid any “deal” can be when the two sides are announcing essentially 180 degree opposite conclusions on basic terminology.

This is insane. The mad mullahs of Iran are every bit as evil, every bit as bloody, every bit as genocidal, and every bit as expansionist as the Nazi regime of old. And the world, led by Obama, is making the same mistakes as the United Kingdom and France of 1938. With this agreement with Iran, war is now more likely in the long run, not less.

Tweet

Read More...

Summary only...

Samantha Power, Obama & New Adventures In Cluelessness

This . . .

. . . is Samantha Power, an Irish-born former Harvard professor, one of Obama's long time foreign policy advisors and now our nation's ambassador to the UN.

This woman thinks that, well, . . . this:

President Obama's team thought the regime might abandon dictator Bashar Assad over his use of chemical weapons in Syria's civil war.

Samantha Power, the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, hoped that a team of UN investigators — many of whom, presumably, have a longstanding relationship with Iranian leaders -- could write a report that would convince Iran to abandon its ally at the behest of the United States.

"We worked with the UN to create a group of inspectors and then worked for more than six months to get them access to the country on the logic that perhaps the presence of an investigative team in the country might deter future attacks," Power said at the Center for American Progress as she made the case for intervening in Syria.

"Or, if not, at a minimum, we thought perhaps a shared evidentiary base could convince Russia or Iran — itself a victim of Saddam Hussein's monstrous chemical weapons attacks in 1987-1988 — to cast loose a regime that was gassing it's people," she said. . . .

Now, the mad mullahs are the single greatest threat to the West in the world today. The mad mullahs have their hands covered in blood. They are in the midst of developing nuclear weapons - things that dwarf chemical weapons. They are the world's single greatest sponsor of terrorism. They are an authoritarian theocracy that cannot be trusted to act rationally. They have been at war with the U.S. since 1979. Syria is their only Arab ally - and an absolutely critical one, as Syria links Iran to Lebanon and the West Bank.

So how clueless, how out of touch with reality must Samantha Power be, if she can think for even a nanosecond that we can deal with the mad mullahs. If this is the nature of her advice to Obama, we are in deep, deep trouble. This is a degree naivete the world hasn't seen since Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain returned from his 1938 meeting with Hitler to announce that he had secured "peace in our time." This is scary.

Tweet

Read More...

Summary only...

Bill Kristol On Obama and Iran

From Bill Kristol writing in the Washington Post, imploring President Obama to do more than a one off, one minute vignette to support the revolution percolating in Iran:

. . . Doesn't the history of the 20th century, with its wars and genocides and terrorism, teach that "the side of those who seek justice" doesn't easily prevail? That justice needs all the energetic support it can get? That the help of the United States is crucial?

The United States has not even begun to do what it could -- rhetorically and concretely, diplomatically and economically, publicly and covertly, multilaterally and unilaterally -- to try to help the Iranian people change the regime of fear and tyranny that denies them justice.

Regime change in Iran in 2010 -- now that would be change to believe in.

I fully concur and have said so repeatedly.

One could reasonably argue that Obama should have thrown his support to the protestors in the immediate aftermath of the Iranian government's brutal repression of protests in June. He chose not to. But there can be no reasonable argument that now, with the revolution in Iran moving into a new phase, it is very much in the interests of the U.S. to extend decisive support to the revolution on every level possible. If Obama fails to do all he can to help this revolution succeed - and concomitantly bring an end to the most evil regime on this earth before it fully metasticizes in the manner of Nazi Germany by 1938 - than Obama will have committed the mother of all foreign policy blunders. It would be a blunder that dwarfs even the decision by France and Britain in 1937 not to stand up to Hitler and thus avert WWII. Chamberlain and his counterparts in France of the era, Léon Blum and later Camille Chautemps, were weak men, but they had not the clear example of history to inform them. Obama is a weak man, but he has the example of Chamberlain and his contemporaries. Obama cannot plead ignorance. Now is the time to act.

Read More...

Summary only...

Foreign Policy Folly

Obama's foreign policy is a disaster. He has yet to get a major challenge correct, from North Korea to Honduras to Iran. As to Iran, Obama is still holding out hope for talks with the theocracy and now has taken indefensible and wholly counterproductive position that there should be no new sanctions imposed on the theocracy for their brutal repression of the Iranian people.
________________________________________________________

This guy, honest to God, is worse than Neville Chamberlain. This from Haaretz:

The United States is opposed to enacting a new set of financial sanctions against Iran that are due to be discussed in the G8 summit next week, diplomatic officials in New York reported Friday.

According to officials, sanctions against Iran are expected to top the G8's agenda. Sources are also predicting a pointed debate between the heads of the industrialized nations over an appropriate response to Iranian authorities' suppression of reformist demonstrations in Iran led by Mir Hossein Mousavi and other Iranian opposition leaders.

. . . U.S. officials claimed that a tough stance toward Iran could backfire, bringing about an opposite outcome to that desired by those who support such measures.

The Obama administration, according to the diplomatic sources, has discarded the notion of direct talks with Iran. However, the United States is still interested in re-engaging Iran through the renewed discussion of its nuclear program through the five permanent United Nations Security Council members and Germany.

American officials expressed concern that a decision to enact harsh steps against Iran during the G8 meeting could badly hurt the prospect of Tehran agreeing to renew negotiations with the permanent Security Council members. . . .

Read the entire article.

This is insane and insidious in equal measure. How many things are wrong with this? By my count, at least seven.

One, this tells the theocrats not only that their brutality and repression will have no international consequences, but more importantly that Obama will not act out of concern for how overboard the theocracy might react. In other words, Obama is giving the Iranian regime power over our foreign policy. This is Neville Chamberlain territory. This is how France and England of the 1930's responded to Hitler's provocations.

Two, this tells the people risking life and limb to protest this brutal and corrupt regime that they are on their own. They will find no support from an Obama administration that is prioritizing talks with the illegitimate theocrats. As an aside, the Obama administration not only does not support the spread of democracy, but if we include Honduras in the mosaic, then it appears that Obama is willing to actively act against democracies under threat if it somehow serves Obama's personal agenda It is certainly not serving the best interests of America.

Three, there is every reason to believe a revolution that throws the theocrats out of power and dismantles the IRGC would remake the Middle East overnight. It is not a panacea for all ills, but it sure is a panacea for many of them - the nuclear issue, Hamas, Hezbollah, Iraq, Sudan, and Bahrain are at the top of the list. So what is Obama doing to support a revolution? The regime is in deep trouble economically from a combination of Bush sanctions, massive corruption and Ahemdinejad economic mismanagement. A large portion of the population want to see the theocrats out. So why are we not seeking deep international sanctions on the regime in an attempt to push it over the brink?

Four, what in the history of the Iranian theocracy leads Obama to believe that they will respond to restraint and gestures of good will? Iran negotiated directly with us over Iraq - all the while they were killing our soldiers and attempting to Lebanize the country. Indeed, there is nothing in the theocracy's thirty bloody years of existence to suggest that they negotiate in good faith or that they have any intention of altering their behavior, particularly towards us. In a post the other day, Michael Ledeen said:

For those who wish to think clearly about Iran, there are two fundamental facts:

* the leaders of the Islamic Republic of Iran have been at war with us ever since the overthrow of the shah in early 1979;

* the savagery they have unleashed on the people of Iran is precisely what they want to do to us.

There is a third fundamental fact that Ledeen has previously mentioned.

"Iranian resources are largely devoted to the cause of jihad, not to Iran per se. If Iran goes down the drain, but a new caliphate is created, first in the region and then globally, that’s success by their standards.

In other words, the primary motivator of Iran's theocracy is to spread the Khomeinist revolution. Everyone from Khomeini to Khameini to Ahmedinejad has been absolutely clear on this point. And they see no moral constraints on their actions to achieve their goal. Sec. of Def. Gates summed it up perfectly when he said last year that "everywhere you turn, it is the policy of Iran to foment instability and chaos, no matter the strategic value or cost in the blood of innocents - Christians, Jews and Muslims alike." This is a regime with no morality and no conscience, just blind ambition to retain power and to spread itself throughout the world like a cancer. They resemble no nation so much as Nazi Germany in the mid-1930's. And in relation to their prime motivators, failing to impose sanctions will have zero impact on the Iranian regime's behavior. It does nothing to threaten their hold on power, nor their ability to spread their revolution.

Five, what in the history of negotiations on the nuclear issue with the EU-3 or like groups suggests to the Obama administration the unilateral talks will have the slightest impact on Iranian behavior? Indeed, the last such meeting, in July 2008, ended with Iran refusing to talk about the nuclear issue and, instead, making a proposal for a format for an "open-ended, cost-free, high-level negotiating process" that, said one of the European negotiators, “would take a minimum of several years” if implemented.

Six, what makes Obama think that Iran will not act offended and blame the world for their internal dissent wholly irrespective of the the U.S. and Europe do? That is precisely what the theocracy is doing today. That is why Mousavi is being called an agent of the U.S., with calls for his "arrest for treason" in the theocracy's major newspaper. It is why Khameini in his Friday sermon blamed the unrest on the UK, the US and Israel. It is why workers for the British embassy now languish in Iranian prison, awaiting a kangaroo court.

Seven, and lastly, what does Obama think that he can possibly offer Iran to make it change its pursuit of a nuclear weapon. Iran has rejected the entire panoply of carrots the West could offer. The only reason the theocracy might cut a deal now would be if whatever Obama proffered would help the theocracy retain power. In other words, unless Obama is prepared not merely to ignore the brutalized people of Iran, but actively connive in their repression, going forward with unilateral or bilateral talks and refraining from imposing sanctions make no sense.

It would be hard to imagine a more counterproductive foreign policy than that carried out to date by Team Obama. I can recall no President, even Jimmy Carter, being close to this bad. And I am willing to bet we are only seeing the half of it. We know Obama has cut all funding for promotion of democracy in Iran from next year's budget. Anyone want to bet that the CIA and the rest of our covert operators are being instructed to do nothing to support the unrest in Iran? Obama is not merely a weak President, he is a dangerous one.

Read More...

Summary only...

NYT Trying To Shore Up Obama On National Security

The New York Times’s Larry Rother rewrites history and muddles the arguments in a NYT article aimed at shoring up the fatally weak foreign policy proposals of Barack Obama. Rother rewrites Obama’s position on Iran and wholly mischaracterizing McCain’s criticism of the "Hamas endorsement" of Obama. Bottom line, with the Messiah schtick gone, if Rother's article is the best defense the Obamakins can come up with, Obama's problems are huge and unsolvable.

__________________________________________________

Obama’s foreign policy is suicidally naïve. His plans to hold unconditional talks with Iran portend to be every bit as disastrous as was Neville Chamberlain’s decision to hold similar talks with Hitler in the 1930’s. His plan to pull us out of Iraq even as we have all but destroyed al Qaeda and beaten back Iran’s proxies is equally as suicidal. There is a good reason a literal rouge’s gallery of nations and organizations – Hamas, Iran, FARC, Ghadaffi, Castro, Ortega – have given their "endorsement" to Obama.

Obama proposes a weak foreign policy with the first resort to unconditional talks, and rouges' gallery that have voiced support for Obama clearly believe they will be able to prosper under an Obama presidency. Given that each of these "endorsements" come from nations and organizations with goals wholly antithetical to the U.S., democracy, capitalism and the cause of freedom, that should give one great pause. And indeed, it is on precisely that ground that McCain has criticized Obama. This from John McCain a few days ago:

I think it's very clear who Hamas wants to be the next president of the United States. So apparently has Danny Ortega and several others. I think that people should understand that I will be Hamas's worst nightmare. . . . If senator Obama is favored by Hamas I think people can make judgments accordingly.

McCain also is critical of Obama for his promise to meet unconditionally with Iran. Enter today NYT agenda journalist Larry Rother. In his article, Rother writes:

. . . [I]mportant nuances appear to have been lost in the partisan salvos, particularly on Mr. McCain’s side. An examination of Mr. Obama’s numerous public statements on the subjects indicates that he has consistently condemned Hamas as a "terrorist organization," has not sought the group’s support and does not advocate immediate, direct or unconditional negotiations with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Iranian president.

As to Hamas, Rother goes on to show where Obama has repeated condemned that organization. Yes, but McCain has never claimed anything to the contrary. What Rother studiously ignores is the "nuance" that Obama is picking up the enemies of America endorsements because those organizations see a chance to expand without American interference under Obama. Rother is being highly disingenuous in his argument. But then he goes into outright falsehood.

The claim that Obama does "not advocate immediate, direct or unconditional negotiations with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Iranian president" – and indeed, every other enemy of America – is more than a bit of rewriting of history. With a big hat tip to LGF, here is the transcript and the video. See if you can find the nuance.

Democratic Debate Transcript, CNN/YouTube - Council on Foreign Relations.
QUESTION: In 1982, Anwar Sadat traveled to Israel, a trip that resulted in a peace agreement that has lasted ever since.
In the spirit of that type of bold leadership, would you be willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration, in Washington or anywhere else, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea, in order to bridge the gap that divides our countries?
OBAMA: I would. And the reason is this, that the notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them — which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this administration — is ridiculous.

Rother ought to hit Google for a quick fact check before he tries to write a canard such as this. It only makes Obama appear weaker than hs already is. And, in all honesty, I did not think that possible before reading this article.

Read More...

Summary only...

Obama and Peace In Our Time

For some months, as regards Iran in particular, I've been making the argument that Obama's foreign policy resembles and portends to be every bit as disastrous as Neville Chamberlain's (see here, here, here, here). Indeed, Neville Chamberlain's choice to talk with Germany and seek peace in the late 30's missed the last real opportunity to stop, at then minimal cost in blood and gold, a war that ultimately claimed near 60 million lives and destroyed Europe's economy for decades. As I wrote two weeks ago, Obama needs to be asked "What makes you think your plans to hold talks with Iran under the current circumstances . . . would be any less ill advised, counterproductive and disastrous than the attempts to find a middle ground with Hitler in the 30's?" At any rate, Ed Morrisey and others are now making similar analogies to Chamberlain in the wake of Obama's recent speech in which he claimed his foreign policy was in line with that of FDR, Truman and Kennedy.
_____________________________________________________

This from Ed Morrisey at Hot Air:

. . . On foreign policy, Obama said, it was a recognition that the US should talk to its enemies, in the same manner as FDR, Truman, and Kennedy did. At the time, I noted the strange claim and its complete ignorance of history, and today, Jack Kelly continues the history lesson for a constitutional scholar who clearly skipped 20th-century history:

. . . Our enemies in World War II were Nazi Germany, headed by Adolf Hitler; fascist Italy, headed by Benito Mussolini, and militarist Japan, headed by Hideki Tojo. FDR talked directly with none of them before the outbreak of hostilities, and his policy once war began was unconditional surrender.

FDR died before victory was achieved, and was succeeded by Harry Truman. Truman did not modify the policy of unconditional surrender. He ended that war not with negotiation, but with the atomic bomb.

Harry Truman also was president when North Korea invaded South Korea in June, 1950. President Truman’s response was not to call up North Korean dictator Kim Il Sung for a chat. It was to send troops.

Perhaps Sen. Obama is thinking of the meeting FDR and Churchill had with Soviet dictator Josef Stalin in Tehran in December, 1943, and the meetings Truman and Roosevelt had with Stalin at Yalta and Potsdam in February and July, 1945. But Stalin was then a U.S. ally, though one of whom we should have been more wary than FDR and Truman were. Few historians think the agreements reached at Yalta and Potsdam, which in effect consigned Eastern Europe to slavery, are diplomatic models we ought to follow. Even fewer Eastern Europeans think so.

When Stalin’s designs became unmistakably clear, President Truman’s response wasn’t to seek a summit meeting. He sent military aid to Greece, ordered the Berlin airlift and the Marshall Plan, and sent troops to South Korea.

Given the importance that Obama places on this approach to foreign policy — he seldom fails to mention it as an example of the “change” he’ll bring to Washington — one wonders why the media hasn’t pressed him on this rationalization. Obama isn’t merely saying that he’ll reinstitute diplomatic relations with Iran, which would emulate our relations with the Nazis and the Japanese prior to Pearl Harbor. Obama wants to have meetings without preconditions with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who has publicly spoken of his desire to annihilate a key ally of the US, as well as Hugo Chavez, Raul Castro, and any number of thugs and tyrants. When did FDR, Truman, and Kennedy do that? Answer: never.

As I pointed out on Wednesday, even diplomatic contact didn’t help FDR with Japan and Germany. The Japanese used diplomatic negotiations as a stalling maneuver to get its Imperial Navy in place to destroy our Pacific Fleet in 1941. Our diplomatic relations with the Nazis only encouraged America Firsters and Nazi sympathizers like Charles Lindbergh to claim that Hitler had no animus towards the West and that he could be a bulwark against Bolshevism.

Maybe Obama could ask the Czechs how well unconditional talks worked for them during Munich. Neville Chamberlain insisted on holding peace talks to avoid war in Czechoslovakia, which could have defended itself as long as it held the fortifications in the Sudetenland long enough for Britain and France to beat Germany from the rear. Instead, Chamberlain carved up Czechoslovakia without its permission, and six months afterward, Hitler swallowed the rest of it whole. FDR, meanwhile, remained steadfastly neutral diplomatically until 1939, when he began clandestine support for the UK.

Negotiations with tyrants almost always leads to appeasement, which only postpones war until the tyrant is strong enough to wage it most effectively. It results in many more deaths and far more destruction because it gives the initiative and the timing to the tyrants, while building their credibility at home. . . .

That’s what Obama’s “new approach” to foreign policy promises. It’s Neville Chamberlain without the umbrella. It certainly isn’t FDR or Truman.

Read the entire post.

Read More...

Summary only...

Bernard Lewis

Professor Bernard Lewis, the West's premier Orientalist, is interviewed in the Jerusalem Post on a number of topics dealing with the Islamic world, including his thoughts on the effect and desirability of adopting a tactic of negotiation with Islamists.

_____________________________________________________

Bernard Lewis is interviewed in the Jerusalem Post. Some excerpts include:

Lewis: . . . What we are seeing now in much of the Islamic world could only be described as a monstrous perversion of Islam. The things that are now being done in the name of Islam are totally anti-Islamic. Take suicide, for example. The whole Islamic theology and law is totally opposed to suicide. Even if one has led a totally virtuous life, if he dies by his own hand he forfeits paradise and is condemned to eternal damnation. The eternal punishment for suicide is the endless repetition of the act of suicide. That's what it says in the books. So these people who blow themselves up, according to their own religion - which they don't seem to be well-acquainted with - are condemning themselves to an eternity of exploding bombs.

Another example is jihad. Jihad has a number of meanings. Jihad, in the sense of war, is a religious obligation, which means that it is elaborately regulated. Indeed, the laws relating to jihad are quite specific. One should not attack women, children or the elderly, for instance, unless they attack you first. Weapons of mass destruction are also generally disapproved. This is discussed in medieval texts. For instance, poisoning the water supply of an enemy under siege was disapproved, as was the mistreatment of prisoners. In other words, these people are totally disregarding their own tradition.

. . . .

Q: What about the Muslims in the West? In free countries, there are networks spreading radicalism throughout Europe and America, after all.

Lewis: Yes, if you are a Muslim in America or Europe, of course, you would want to give your children some kind of education in their own religion and culture - the way Jews do. And you look around to see what there is, and you find after-school classes and camps, etc. The difference is that these now are overwhelmingly Wahhabi - Saudi-funded - and the version of Islam that they teach is the most fanatical and uncompromising. This has had more of an impact on the immigrant populations in the West than within Muslim countries, because Arab governments have some experience in controlling these things. The European governments have no experience in controlling them, and in any case are far too politically correct and multiculturalist to make the effort.

Q: Is this not cause for despair? On the one hand, there is an attempt to moderate the Arab world, while within free societies radical Islam is allowed to flourish and spread.

Lewis: This is an ongoing struggle. In the West, there are also many Muslims who take the other view, and who work for democracy, peace and understanding.

Q: Isn't the attempt to eradicate the radical elements while encouraging the moderates like finding a needle in a haystack in a country like the US?

Lewis: It is difficult, yes.

Q: Then how is it that you seem and speak like an optimist?

Lewis: I describe my optimism as very cautious and very limited. There is much to worry about, and I don't know where it's going. What I'm trying to say is that the picture is not entirely bad. There are some glimmers of hope within the Muslim and Arab world. A lot will depend on what the Western governments do about it. To quote the wonderful phrase of retired University of Wisconsin professor J.B. Kelly, a great authority on the Arabian Peninsula and a strong critic of the diplomatic approach to Middle Eastern issues, the "diplomacy of the preemptive cringe" is not the way to go.

People of my generation have not forgotten Neville Chamberlain's Munich Agreement with Hitler. That was a perfect example of "preemptive cringe" diplomacy. It was the sort of thing which gave the previously innocent word "appeasement" a bad name.

What we are facing now is the third major threat to the world. The first was Nazism, the second Bolshevism and now this. There are parallels. Germany is a great nation, and German patriotism is a perfectly legitimate expression of the pride and loyalty Germans have for their country. But Nazism was a monstrous perversion of that and a curse to the Germans, as well as a threat to the rest of the world.

The aspiration for social betterment and social justice is very noble. But Bolshevism was a monstrous perversion of that, as well as a curse to Russia and a threat to the rest of the world.

Now we have a third similar situation. Islam is one of the great religions that sponsored one of the greatest civilizations in human history. But it has fallen into the hands of a group of people who are the equivalent of the Nazis and the Bolsheviks. They are a curse to their own people, as well as a threat to the rest of the world.

In all three cases, defeat means liberation.

Read the entire article.

(H/T Joshua Pundit)

Read More...

Summary only...