Follow by Email

Monday, November 25, 2013

Obama, Iran and the Evolution Of US Paper Tiger Diplomacy

Obama cheerleader David Ignatius has written another obsequious Washington Post opinion piece entitled "To reach Iran deal, secret diplomacy that worked" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/david-ignatius-secret-diplomacy-that-worked/2013/11/25/5e2acdce-55f0-11e3-ba82-16ed03681809_story.html?hpid=z3), in which he praises "fearless leader" for his secret negotiations with Khamenei in Oman, which ultimately led to the agreement in Geneva. Ignatius writes:

"Obama began by authorizing carefully concealed meetings back in March, through Oman, the most opaque and discreet nation in the Persian Gulf. The president sent as his personal emissaries two low-key, quintessentially gray men, Bill Burns and Jake Sullivan, the deputy secretary of state and vice presidential adviser, respectively.

. . . .

It was a classic magic trick: While the eye was distracted by the show of the P5+1 talks, the real work was done elsewhere — and presented to the foreign ministers of Russia, China, Britain, France and Germany in Geneva two weeks ago almost as a fait accompli."

Indeed, Obama's deal with Khamenei in Oman, which failed to proscribe completion of Iran's heavy water reactor in Arak intended to produce sufficient plutonium for two atomic bombs each year (no mention of this by a prevaricating Ignatius), was indeed presented to America's P5+1 partners as a "fait accompli." Ignatius would have us know that France and Israel were "miffed" by this backroom deal, but were it not for French and Israeli objections, Obama would have handed Iran an atomic bomb on a silver platter.

In his opinion piece, Ignatius goes on to say:

"Iran and Syria illustrate the immense leverage the United States still has when it uses its diplomatic tools wisely and stealthily.

. . . .

Could the Iranians pocket the modest $7 billion they will receive in sanctions relief and then press ahead in six months toward bomb-making capability? That’s certainly possible. But they would make such a breakout with more chance of a U.S. military strike than before."

This, of course, is pure horse manure on the part of Ignatius. Syria illustrates America's "immense leverage"? In fact, it was Putin who enabled Obama to climb down from his tree and gracelessly abandon the "red line" he had set involving use by the Assad regime of chemical weapons against civilians.

"But they would make such a breakout with more chance of a U.S. military strike than before"? Oh really? In a blatant barb directed against Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, Obama stated yesterday in San Francisco:

"We cannot rule out peaceful solutions to the world’s problems. We cannot commit ourselves to an endless cycle of conflict. And tough talk and bluster may be the easy thing to do politically, but it’s not the right thing for our security."

And so, Obama may have disastrously escalated American involvement in Afghanistan, but he is now signalling - to Assad, Khamenei and the rest of the world - that he is desperate to avoid any threat of conflict.

Obama doesn't care if Iran continues to threaten Israel with annihilation, to arm Hezbollah with tens of thousands of missiles, to send Hezbollah troops together with Republican Guard advisers to Syria to prop up the murderous Assad regime, and to commit barbarous acts of terror around the globe. He also doesn't care if Iran hangs homosexuals, stones to death women, murders Baha'is, oppresses Kurds, tyrannizes Sunnis and Christians, shuts down newspapers, and locks up opposition politicians in Tehran's notorious Evin Prison. After all, this know-it-all community organizer needed to reach an agreement, no matter what the price, which could be deemed part of his legacy.

But how are we to coax Iran back into the civilized world if not by means of diplomacy? This was the theme of Obama's cheerleader at The New York Times, Thomas Friedman, in his most recent op-ed entitled "Oh, Brother! Big Brother Is Back" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/24/opinion/sunday/friedman-oh-brother-big-brother-is-back.html), in which he likened Obama's deal with Khamenei to a "bet on evolutionary change." Of course, there was no mention by Friedman of the murder and torture by Iran of homosexuals, women, Baha'is, Kurds, Sunnis and Christians.

Evolution? In fact, it is the US under Obama which is evolving into a paper tiger.

Similarly, in his most recent New York Times op-ed entitled "Israel's Iran Dilemma" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/26/opinion/cohen-israels-iran-dilemma.html?_r=0),  Roger ("Iran is not totalitarian") Cohen tells us that "Obama and Kerry are ready to entertain Iran’s rehabilitation." Cohen is also careful not to mention the murder and torture by Iran of homosexuals, women, Baha'is, Kurds, Sunnis and Christians."

Iran's rehabilitation"? In fact, it's more like giving a "get out of jail free" card to an international serial killer.

It is now being reported that the agreement with Iran bears the personal imprimatur of Obama, a man with no negotiating experience or knowledge of the Middle East (see: http://www.jpost.com/Diplomacy-and-Politics/Iran-nuclear-deal-bears-Obamas-personal-stamp-333035). Yes, I know, Valerie Jarrett advised him on this issue.

May God have mercy on all of us.

2 comments:

  1. JG, I don't know about you, but over the past few days now I've realized that Obama is far worse, and for more dangerous than I had ever thought. Given that he is the Commander in Chief of the US Armed Forces, that makes him a very dangerous person. It makes the US no longer, at least in the short term, a "rock-solid" ally of Israel.

    This is something I am still having trouble comprehending. Yes, certainly Congress, as a reflection of the people, is highly supportive of Israel. But even Congressmen must give some deference to the President on foreign policy. In fact, as I'm sure you know, the president typically is given *wide* latitude on FP. The bottom line with Congress is that no matter how much they distrust Obama, they need to, at least for now, give him latitude. And we are already seeing that.

    So Obama has revealed himself in the past few days to be utterly indifferent to Israel. I suspect he's actually hostile to Israel -- and fully ready to pursue that. John Bolton says that it was his desire to stop an Israeli strike which motivated his Iranian deal to begin with. I am still trying to make sense of that, although now it perfectly fits in with this "new" very antagonistic Obama as I now see him.

    I feel like the world changed overnight! I sure hope people like yourself and Bill Kristol who reprinted the famous speech given by Churchill just after Chamberlain's Munich agreement can effectively rally us into a serious opposition.

    Oppositions *can* win in the end if they become strong enough. We'll see what happens with our side... (and so I echo) May G-d have mercy on us.

    ReplyDelete
  2. He is as bad as I was afraid of. I think he is a sociopath and most certainly he is an antisemite.
    Yes, I am concerned about his power and I wonder if we have safeguards. What if our "leader" is gone mad or if he is indeed an absolute evil?

    ReplyDelete