Posted on 06/08/2008 6:03:42 PM PDT by Kaslin
Obama's many conflicting positions on Iran.
The Iranian regime supports violent extremists and challenges us across the region. It pursues a nuclear capability that could spark a dangerous arms race, and raise the prospect of a transfer of nuclear know-how to terrorists. Its president denies the Holocaust and threatens to wipe Israel off the map. The danger from Iran is grave, it is real, and my goal will be to eliminate this threat.
--Barack Obama, June 4, 2008
So begins the great transformation, whereby a dovish primary candidate mutates into a (moderately) hawkish nominee.
It's a tall order in Obam a's case. He must prove that a 46-year-old senator, a talented Chicago pol with a thin résumé and without national security or executive experience, is a plausible commander in chief. He must downplay the kumbaya rhetoric and irresponsible national security votes, and talk tough while inventing shifty rationalizations for prior weakness.
Exhibit A: Obama's June 4 address, quoted above, to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). Read it alongside John McCain's speech to AIPAC, and you'll be struck by the similarities. Both candidates pledged to prevent a second Holocaust. Both said Iran is a major strategic threat. And both promised to deal with this threat through U.N. and non-U.N. sanctions, divestment, and--if necessary--force. But don't be fooled. There are major differences.
McCain told AIPAC, correctly, that for decades negotiations with Iran have failed to win concessions from the regime. This failure has been bipartisan and transatlantic. President Clinton pledged major inducements for Iran to liberalize. He got nothing. President Bush has offered more bounty to Iran in exchange for a suspension of uranium enrichment. Still nothing. The Europeans have been talking to the Iranians for years. They have zilch to show for it. McCain wants to increase pressure until the Iranians understand that their interest lies in reaching a diplomatic solution.
Obama, though, wants his approach to begin with "aggressive, principled diplomacy without self-defeating preconditions."
Sounds nice. Obama, moreover, is
We will open up lines of communication, build an agenda, coordinate closely with our allies, and evaluate the potential for progress.
willing to lead tough and principled diplomacy with the appropriate Iranian leader at a time and place of my choosing, if--and only if--it can advance the interests of the United States.
That's a pretty big "if," coming from the guy who has said he would meet without preconditions in the first year of his administration with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba, and North Korea.
If his non-precondition-conditions are met, what will Obama say to the "appropriate Iranian leader"? This:
If you abandon your dangerous nuclear program, support for terror, and threats to Israel, there will be meaningful incentives--including the lifting of sanctions, and political and economic integration with the international community.
Thus Obama would make an offer that the Iranians have repeatedly rejected, except he would do it in person--at a historic summit, a propaganda coup for the mullahs. Only after they refused the offer--again--would Obama "ratchet up the pressure." We would be back where we started, except the Iranian regime would have denied the leader of the Great Satan's demands in person. This would not only be embarrassing. It would mean more leverage for Tehran.
I have one question for Obama:
Given Iran’s nuclear ambitions, their threats to wipe Israel out, their recent claim the U.S. “will not be around for long”, their attacks on our troops in Iraq (and, I believe, Afghanistan), their provocative actions in the Gulf, their alliances with N.Korea, Syria and Venezuela....
...given all that, what would they have to do to make you call them a “threat”?!
Matthew forgot to add the last sentence which would have put the finer point on his article:
‘And Iran would buy valuable time to complete their nuclear weapons while Obama got back to where we already were.’
“what would they have to do to make you call them a “threat”?!”
OPINION: That’s a good question Timeout.
To some people, closing their eyes, changing words, crossing fingers, hoping against hope —they think the threat will go away.
Reminds me of playing hide-and-seek when I was a child.
Close your eyes.
Don’t peek.
Can’t see anything that way.
The interesting part (at least to me) is Ahmadinejad, some of his clerics and associates who are right up in front, clear and direct with their feelings and actions regarding nuclear issues, Israel, Iraq and the U.S.A..
Willful ignorance is not bliss and I will not ignore Iran.
Let’s hope Bush takes out Iran before he leaves office.
McCain or Osbama do not have the guts!
Those are the same people who get all riled up when a man gets shot by police after threatening them and pointing some unknown object at them in the dark. Police don’t know if it’s a gun or not.
These people think the policeman overreacted.
I believe civilians have an obligation not to appear to pose a threat (real or not) to an armed policeman yelling “PUT YOU HANDS UP!”. Iran is like the perp, overlooked for its role in provoking the threat of war. In my world there would be severe sanctions for a nation’s unprovoked threats against another, whether they acted on them or not. Such is the path to war.
But the world apparently has forgotten the necessity of “pre-emption” since 9/11. So the U.S. goes on, being the “pig cop” in those people’s eyes. In other words, the world has become Al Sharpton.
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.