This report sums up the incomprehensible status of our policy toward Iran:
Defense Secretary Robert Gates, visiting Israeli authorities on Monday, said President Obama “is fully aware that the Iranians may simply try to run out the clock” in negotiations over their nuclear program.
Gates, who met with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak, said during a news conference with Barak that persuasion was still very much on the table to deal with the Islamic Republic’s blossoming nuclear program.
“I think the president is hoping for some kind of response by this fall” at the opening of the U.N. General Assembly, Gates said.
We are about to be played, we know we’re about to be played, and we are doing it anyway? We have no intention of using the variety of diplomatic and economic tools (which the administration saves for poor democracies like Honduras) to tip the balance of power within Iran. The administration is passive in the effort gaining steam in the Senate to enact sanctions. Yet Hillary Clinton insists with great bluster that Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons is “futile.” What’s missing? Well, a coherent plan for denying Iran nuclear weapons.
One is left with two possible interpretations. One may be that despite denials to the contrary that he is living in a diplomatic fantasyland, Obama is convinced of his own powers of persuasion and believes the Iranian mullahs will fall under his spell and give up their nuclear weapons. After all, we are setting such a good example by proposing all sorts of disarmament agreements; the mullahs would be foolish not to go along, right? This supposes the administration is stocked with fools who are oblivious to the nature of the Iranian regime. Possibly.
The other alternative is that Clinton knows Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons is futile because eventually Israel will “take care of it.” This is actually a less charitable explanation than the “they are foolish” option. It supposes a level of timidity, an unwillingness to assume American responsibilities, and a level of deceit. Having bashed Israel for six months and declared that no country has the right to tell another whether it can pursue nuclear power, Obama and his team now are banking on Israel to do their dirty work. They will complain after the fact, of course. Is this possible? Well, unless you think Obama and his team are fools, it is the only explanation.
Now perhaps the Senate will step to the forefront, forcing the administration’s hand to pursue serious and meaningful sanctions. But one senses Obama’s heart isn’t in it. After all, he has Israel as Plan B.
It’s not at all clear that the quote from Brown originated with her. This is a golden oldie of mysterious origin, often credited to various famous people of the past.
Obama should swallow his foolish pride and stop his dangerous initiatives. Don’t hold your breath, though. He’s a true believer in a false ideology.
Off-topic – but a must-read for Commentary readers:
http://jeffreygoldberg.theatlantic.com/archives/2009/03/ari_roth.php#more
Persistence=boneheadedness. Stop spending and stop selling debt to China.
“What he has been persistent about is anything but ambiguous: wealth redistribution across the board…”
I have to quibble a bit here. I have seen absolutely no evidence that Obama advocates wealth redistribution “across the board.” That would include his own wealth, and he seems to hold on to that with a rather tight fist (charitable contributions, anyone?) Surely he will retain his entitlement to nightly portions of wagyu beef in whatever redistribution scheme he concocts.
No, I think we can be sure that Obama’s “redistribution” is not for him. It is your wealth and mine he wishes to redistribute. Or, failing that, to simply destroy.
Well, it sounds like we have a real battle on our hands.
I had thought Obama wanted to be popular and loved, but now I think he has big plans to remake America into his idea of Ameri-socialism, or failing that, Chicago, and he is not going to let up.
Time to roll up our sleeves and show Obama some persistence back.
Joe , thanks for the link. Never heard of that particular Churchill but I guess I’ll put aside a shotgun shell in the most unlikely event she ever knocks on my door and the local cops can’t “protect” me (heh heh).
Apropos the actual topic, I remain stubbornly unconvinced that O is really any smarter than he acts. Even Bob Beckel said he confuses words with reality. If he were a Jewish female I’d call him Tzipi.
I am getting the feeling we are going to see why the great depression lasted until events forced a change in the political focus.
Derek
Materialist,
you’re right. Obama and his elitist allies will of course keep a tight hold on their own wealth. Not only that, but the policies he advocates will help them to glom onto even more. I’m also concerned about who else he’s going to redistribute our money to. His determination of who comprises the needy falls along political, ideological, gender, and racial lines.
One man’s persistence is another man’s stubborness.
The man who can’t hold a job for more than 2 years is going to preach to us about persistence? Don’t insult my intelligence. Obama wouldn’t know persistence if it slapped him in the face.
“I’m a big believer in persistence.”
Yeah, but just not in Iraq.
He’ll fight to the last capitalist.
He believes in transparency, too.
@Seth: I don’t see why we have to limit ourselves by bourgeois notions of cultural identity and gender roles. I’m calling him Tzipi. But I’ll have to come up with another name for Tim Geithner.
I always thought the “insanity” quote was an old AA adage, unattributed.