Obama & Ahmadinejad: Trust But Don't Verify

Barack Obama is prepared to sit down with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the man who is supporting Muqtada al-Sadr and other anti-American Shiite forces in Iraq.

Should Barack Obama be elected President of the United States this November, we can expect him to climb aboard Air Force One and fly to Tehran to initiate a conversation with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Obama is prepared to meet with a man who is supporting Muqtada al-Sadr and other anti-American Shiite forces in Iraq. These forces are killing American soldiers.

Obama is prepared to meet with a man who is supporting Hezbollah, a terrorist organization that as I write this is trying to overthrow the democratically elected government in Lebanon. A quarter-century ago, Hezbollah was responsible for the deaths of 241 American soldiers at their barracks in Beirut.

Obama is prepared to meet with a man who is leading the effort to develop a nuclear bomb while at the same time declaring that Israel should be “wiped off the map.” For good measure, he said the Holocaust is “a myth.” On the occasion of Israel’s 60th anniversary, the man with whom Obama so desperately wants an audience referred to the Jewish State as “a stinking corpse.”

In an interview with 60 Minutes correspondent Steve Kroft in February 2007, Obama said that not talking to Iran and Syria “flies in the face of our experience during the Cold War. And Ronald Reagan understood that it may be an evil empire, but it’s worthwhile for us to periodically meet to see are there [sic] areas of common interest.”

Ronald Reagan did not meet with Leonid Brezhnev, Yuri Andropov or Konstantin Chernenko. He did not meet with these Soviet leaders because they were not committed to allowing their people to live in liberty. In Mikhail Gorbachev, Reagan found someone who had some humanity in him and wanted to reform Communism. Even though Reagan and Gorbachev had a great rapport, Reagan knew that Gorbachev was still committed to and part of the Communist way of life. With Ronald Reagan, it was trust but verify. With Barack Obama, it is trust at face value.

I do find it interesting how some liberals express a newfound respect for Reagan. Take this case in point. Earlier this week, I was corresponding with a singer/songwriter who enjoys a modest amount of fame. She is an ardent supporter of Obama. The singer/songwriter pilloried Hillary Clinton for pledging to “obliterate” Iran if it attacked Israel. For his part, Obama said Hillary sounded too much like President Bush. The singer/songwriter, while deploring Ahmadinejad’s language, believed that our leaders should not stoop to their level. She added that Reagan was far more elevated in his language.

Funny, but I don’t particularly recall the Left being overwhelmingly enamored with Reagan after he publicly declared the Soviet Union “an evil empire” in March 1983. Anthony Lewis of the New York Times called the speech “primitive” and said his rhetoric was “a mirror image of crude Soviet rhetoric.” When I pointed this out to the singer/songwriter, she replied that she was busy raising a 2½-year-old and did not have time for further discussion. I’m sure she would have reacted similarly had I pointed out that Richard Cohen of The Washington Post called Reagan “a religious bigot” or that The New Republic declared that the speech left friend and foe alike “with the impression that the President of the United States was contemplating holy war.”

Barack Obama might acknowledge the Soviet Union was an evil empire. But I am sure a younger Barack Obama held a similar view of Reagan’s evil empire speech while attending Columbia University in the early 1980’s. It is amazing how the passage of a quarter-century can change the impression of a man and his message. Maybe there’s a chance liberals will view George W. Bush with a similar fondness in 2033. Perhaps by that time the singer/songwriter will have more time to discuss politics.

But until then we must ask why Obama wants to talk to Ahmadinejad and what America gets out of such a conversation. Like many liberals, Obama wishes to restore America’s reputation in the world, whatever that means. By the world, are liberals talking about every other member state in the UN? Or do liberals simply mean socialist governments in Europe? Or perhaps just the Muslim world? If it is the latter, why on earth do we want to restore our reputation with countries that execute people for engaging in homosexuality? Restoring our reputation in the world doesn’t actually accomplish anything other than make liberals feel good about themselves.

Obama insists that he would offer Ahmadinejad a choice. His platform on Iran reads:

If Iran abandons its nuclear program and support for terrorism, we will offer incentives like membership in the World Trade Organization, economic investments, and a move toward normal diplomatic relations. If Iran continues its troubling behavior, we will step up our economic pressure and political isolation. Seeking this kind of comprehensive settlement with Iran is our best way to make progress.

Never mind that Bush Administration withdrew its objections to Iran joining the WTO nearly three years ago and that negotiations to join the WTO are ongoing. Does Obama honestly think membership in the WTO will serve as an inspiration for Iran to renounce terrorism, disband Hezbollah and re-establish diplomatic ties with the United States? But let us, for argument’s sake, suppose Iran accepts these conditions. How does WTO membership stop Iran from pursuing its nuclear program and supporting Hezbollah and Shiite militias in Iraq in a clandestine manner? It is interesting that Obama prides himself as a candidate whose opponent will not be able to say he “gave George W. Bush the benefit of the doubt on Iran.” Yet Obama seems entirely prepared to give Ahmadinejad the benefit of the doubt on Iran. Once again, Obama trusts but doesn’t verify. While this policy might make us more popular outside the United States it will do little to serve America’s interests.

If you think about it, you might ask how President Obama traveling to Tehran to meet with Ahmadinejad is any different than former President Jimmy Carter’s recent meeting with Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal in Damascus. There is one difference. Obama won’t wait until after he has left office to debase his reputation on the world stage.

How about the urgency of NOW??

Iran & Venezuela use oil tankers to manipulate global markets9 May 2008
Do you wonder why the price of oil has skyrocketed of late? Purportedly the governments of the Islamic Republic of Iran and the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela are engaged in a major covert effort to keep the world’s oil tanker fleets from carrying petroleum to the thirsty global markets that need it. This is according to reliable sources who monitor the tanker industry, and sources within the American law enforcement community. The Iranian government has leased and engaged the bulk of the available supertankers, and smaller vessels and is storing oil in ten of them in the Persian Gulf, and keeping others idle whilst under lease or charter. The government of Venezuela is allegedly assisting Iran in this manipulative practice, which has resulted in the tripling of the daily charge for tanker use since April, because of a fifty per cent drop in vessel availability during the next thirty days, this is according to authoritative industry sources. Is this the functional equivalent of a declaration of economic war against the United States? What will the response be, and when will it occur?

Here is what we know so far:

A large number of tankers lie at anchor in the Persian Gulf, and elsewhere, all leased by Iran and Venezuela, and all therefore unavailable to carry oil for other prospective charter clients.

Iran has also commenced to lease tankers in the spot, or single-trip, market, where it had previously used only its own vessels. This of course, is a delberate act to tie up additional tankers. Its transparent claim, that it is storing grades of oil which have low global demand, cannot be taken seriously, as all levels of quality are urgently needed for the increased consumption rate.

Venezuela has a clasified agreement with Iran that requires it to engage available tankers, in support of the Iranian objective, which is to delay, and ultimately, deny oil shippers transport to needy consumer markets, thus driving up oil prices to stratospheric levels, and benefitting both countries financially. Notwithstanding its own oil revenues, Venezuela’s economy is in a shambles, and its government has distributed both large amounts of dollars and free or discounted oil, all to fund radical political movements in Latin America. It is in desperate need of more money, and this dark maneuver could accomplish this, though at a high cost to the rest of the world.

The Iranian scheme will not only disrupt global markets, it could cause serious economic distress in both North America and Europe. Since we know that the US government is aware of the scheme, it should also be assumed that they have planned an adequate response, whether it be major regulatory sanctions, universal economic sanctions, limited military action, or even general war.

At this point, country risk evaluators must assume the worst, and create contingency plans to respond to any of these possiblities, no matter how remote the chance that they may occur.

http://www.world-check.com/articles/2008/05/09/iran-venezuela-use-oil-tankers-manipulate-gliobal-/

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.