Posted on 04/06/2015 5:38:08 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
When Republicans criticize Barack Obama’s foreign policy, their critiques usually break down into two broad themes: America’s enemies no longer fear us, and America’s allies no longer trust us. The part about our enemies fearing us is usually a reference to Russia – conservatives believe quite earnestly that Russia’s military expansionism over the last few years is a consequence of Vladimir Putin sizing up the president and determining that he’s a weakling. No less an authority than Peggy Noonan made this very argument just last Friday, lamenting “a Russian president who took the American’s measure and made a move, upsetting a hard-built order that had maintained for a quarter-century since the fall of the Soviet Union—what a mess.”
As for our allies, the claim that they can no longer trust us is typically a reference to Israel and the ongoing spat between Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu over Iran policy and the two-state solution with the Palestinians. Republicans and conservatives aren’t shy about their preference for Netanyahu’s foreign policy vision and even do kooky things like invite him to speak before Congress while he’s in the final stages of a tough reelection fight.
But regardless of whom they’re referring to, Republicans are clear on one point: Because of Obama, America’s friends across the world just can’t take us at our word anymore. And the GOP candidates for 2016 have a plan for how to fix that: On their first day as president, they’ll break our word to our allies.
I’m referring, of course, to the multilateral negotiations on Iran’s nuclear program, in which the United States is partnered with France, Germany, Britain, Russia, and China. Even before the outline of the agreement was unveiled last week, Republicans with ambitions for the White House promised that they would withdraw from whatever arrangement the allied world powers came to with Iran, and that they would do so on literally their first day as president. Assuming that a deal does come together, it will be the product of decades of international pressure and many long months of delicate negotiating. Everyone from Marco Rubio to Ted Cruz to Scott Walker has said they’ll obliterate all that work in less than a day.
I want to focus on Walker here, since he’s been a bit stumbly on foreign policy, and also because he’s gone further than anyone else in attacking the deal. As Greg Sargent noted at the Washington Post, after the framework was released last week Walker renewed his promise to scuttle the deal as president, and was asked by a radio host if he’d still go through with it even if it meant that our trading partners would abandon the international sanctions regime that brought Iran to the negotiating table in the first place. His answer? Yes, of course:
WALKER: Absolutely. If I ultimately choose to run, and if I’m honored to be elected by the people of this country, I will pull back on that on January 20, 2017, because the last thing — not just for the region but for this world — we need is a nuclear-armed Iran. It leaves not only problems for Israel, because they want to annihilate Israel, it leaves the problems in the sense that the Saudis, the Jordanians and others are gonna want to have access to their own nuclear weapons…
That’s about as vacant a response as you can offer, and it makes clear that Walker’s grasp of the issue doesn’t extend too far beyond “Iran is bad.” If an agreement is reached and President Walker does back out of it, then all he’ll have done is make it more likely that Iran obtains a nuclear weapon. He’s already acknowledged that whatever sanctions might be imposed will lack the backing of the international community, which he’ll have alienated with his unilateral action to demolish the diplomatic framework in place. So, as Jim Newell points out, that would leave Walker with two options: pray that nothing bad happens until the Iranian regime collapses, or drop a bunch of bombs.
Would dropping those bombs deprive Iran of a nuke? Well, John Bolton – who places more faith than anyone in the power of bombs to solve problems – says that an enthusiastic application of explosives to Iranian nuclear sites could set the program back a whopping three to five years. The framework under discussion would freeze things in place for at least 10 years. So we’d be putting Americans in harm’s way and pissing off all our friends, all for less than what we’d get than if we stick to our commitments.
But that’s the big plan for renewing the world’s trust in America and getting our enemies to fear us again. On day one of the next Republican administration, we’ll start behaving like erratic and irresponsible fools who renege on our obligations and pursue policies that tip us towards yet another protracted war in the Middle East. And all this will get the world believing in American exceptionalism again.
Somehow for the liberals, it all comes back to the Jews, doesn't it?
What about other allies that can no longer trust us, like Poland and the Czech Republic, who had their defense agreements with the United States gutted?
Or Ukraine, who the current U.S., and European Union, governments allowed to be invaded?
What about Egypt, Iraq, and Jordan, whose governments have had to fight off the waves of radicalized insurgents with the more than tacit approval of the White House?
What about the United Kingdom, who has been snubbed time and time again in the diplomatic world?
What about France, who walked out of the nuclear talks with Iran because they felt like they didn't have a voice to be heard in the negotiations?
That's right, none of that matters. It's just about the Jews. The other nations weren't really our allies anyway. At least not to our current President.
If they thought it was that terrible then why did they agree to it? Because they fear and respect Obama? Really?
They agreed to it because they agreed to it. If the U.S. fails to back it, either through Congressional action or change in administration, they they're still going to go ahead with it. At the end of the day the U.S. may be the only country with sanctions against Iran.
His word, not our word.
“On their first day as president, they’ll break our word to our allies. I’m referring, of course, to the multilateral negotiations on Iran’s nuclear program,...”
Hmmm. So the author thinks Iran is our ally? Typically, you would expect to see allies sharing common goals and shared interests. I would be very curious to see any actual reality based evidence that suggests common goals.
My only speculation is that Iran, Obama and Salon share common goals. I don’t see where America gets into that equation.
What an ignorant article.
“The No Nukes Hollywood Left is certainly silent about this deal.”
The no-nuke left has always been about “no American Nukes.” I don’t think they really give a hoot about other nations having them.
This fools career has been writing for Media Matters and Salon. A career full of telling lies.
I read these Salon articles just to see what crazy people thing. Ones who can’t stop talking and write voluminous screeds.
More liberal garbage. Can someone tell me what these liberals bastards will have to write about when the muslims take over this entire country? Perhaps they will pay more attention when Iran nukes Israel or sharia law is placed into practice at their beloved liberal hell holes. Making ANY agreement with the Iranians will turn out to be a bad deal for the entire world. Who in their right mind would trust Iran?
The same assholes who told Reagan we could trust The Soviet Union!!
Russia and China are our friends?
Only in Berkeley.
It is so incredible someone could be this detached from reality.
They CLAIM to be against nuclear power, not just nuclear bombs. Their silence today proves them to be pinko liars.
“America’s enemies no longer fear us, and America’s allies no longer trust us.”
That’s all changed over the past 6 years:
America’s enemies trust us to do the wrong thing,
and
America’s allies fear us stabbing them in the back.
it is far better to cancel stupid policy immediately rather than continue it
This article is BS and I didn’t even read it.
so the Obama agreement makes it 100% insured that Iran will get a nuclear weapon. Walker backing out of the deal will make it what? 110% insured?
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.