Fareed Zakaria : You Know, We Are Being Way Too Hard On Iran

I honestly don't understand how some people come by a reputation as a serious thinker. Exhibit Number 1, Fareed Zakaria, who I like to think of as a younger and dumber Tom Friedman.

He knows exactly what the problem with our Iran policy is...Obama won't talk to them.

Early in the 2008 presidential campaign, Barack Obama signaled that he was going to break with the Bush administration’s Manichean foreign policy. The topic was Iran. He explained repeatedly that the Bush policy of simply pressuring Iran was not working and that he would be willing to talk to the country’s leaders to find ways to reduce tensions and dangers. Two years into his presidency, Obama’s Iran policy looks a lot like George W. Bush’s — with some of the same problems that candidate Obama pointed out two years ago.

To be fair, the administration started out in 2009 by making overtures to Iran, which were rebuffed by its supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Then it watched as the Green movement rattled the regime. But the result is that the administration has lapsed into a policy of pressure, pressure and more pressure.

The punitive tactics have paid off in some measure. Iran faces economic problems. But the tactics are also having a perverse impact on the country, as I saw during a brief visit to Tehran last week. The sanctions are stifling growth, though not as much as one might imagine because Iran has oil money and a large internal market. Their basic effect has been to weaken civil society and strengthen the state — the opposite of what we should be trying to do in that country.

The Real Beneficiaries of 0bama’s Middle East Policy

Why would 0bama support a democracy movement in Egypt which removes our last remaining Islamic ally in the region when 85% of the population supports the annihilation of Israel and 90% supports Sharia Law?

Yet he leaves popular uprisings in Iran where the population is much more pro-western totally without so much as a wink or nod?

He plans on leaving Iran without a major counterbalance in the region by leaving Iraq powerless.

He supported terrorists by helping them removing Kadafi.

Add this to the fact that he suggested Israel go back to the 1967 borders before outrage from all sides caused him to walk the statements back.

Who really benefits from this radical change in the US Middle Eastern policy?

There really are two winners: Iran and the Muslim Brotherhood. He has hinted at his support of the Brotherhood by calling them a mostly political not ideological group, but he had to retract those factually ridiculous statements of his administration.

But the fact that he would allow his underlings to make them to begin with speaks volumes.

Those who have called 0bama a Manchurian Candidate might have been correct in this regard to this.

If anyone has a different interpretation that explains 0bama’s motivation, I’d like to hear it.

My theory: Obama is not interested in 'Democracy Movements' unless there is a good chance that they will lead to (s)election of Islamist parties by voters - examples include Tunisia, Egypt, and Libya. Actually, for him, beyond his rhetoric, it is neither about democracy nor for "humanitarian" reasons.

Iran, OTOH, is already ruled by a bunch of Islamists, for the past 32 yrs. They've significantly weakened the country, destroyed the economy, and turned a generation or two into drug addicts & prostitutes, but not a peep out of those who accused the Shah of allegedly "gross" human rights violations. Although, the Khomeinist regime has the *semblance* of democracy, both in its constitution as well as in many of its political processes (checks & balances) - even if it is an Islamic type of democracy - which to someone like Obama is perfectly acceptable.

Re Egypt, Tunisia & Libya, it is still early days. We shall see how things pan out.

In general, I believe, Western policy regarding the moslem world is a continuation of Carter & Brzezinski's "Islamic Green Belt", which saw both the mullahs in Iran & later the Taliban in Afghnistan come to power.

Btw, every single US administration since Carter, at some point & for different reasons, has tried to talk to, engage and/or negotiate with the mullahs' regime, whether openly/directly or through 3rd parties.

With Brzezinski, it is said that it was 'love at first sight' (or was it first bite..). Bill Clinton also declared his "love" for mullahs' regime, because they held elections. Though Clinton's admiration was more for the 'moderate aka reformist' faction of the Khomeinist regime. Never mind that the 'moderates/reformists' never reformed anything of any consequence in the Islamic Republic & are an integral part of the same abominable regime.

2 US presidents had the chance to not negotiate w/ the Iranian regime. Reagan was one, but didn't. George W. Bush was the other. He started out in the right direction, but then changed approach around 2006. I would think Condi influenced that decision in 2006, because the aim, at the time, was to enlist the mullahs' cooperation in stabilizing Iraq by offering them several 'goodies'. Of course, the mullahs somewhat agreed because they knew that the US wouldn't & couldn't remain in Iraq forever, and the Iranians would, eventually, have the chance of becoming the players in Iraq - after all, Iran is next door to Iraq.

That said, I agree w/ this statement from the article, regarding sanctions: "Their basic effect has been to weaken civil society and strengthen the state — the opposite of what we should be trying to do in that country."

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.