If the Obama administration was seeking to reassure the pro-Israel community, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s decision to make a joint appearance with James Baker on PBS’s Charlie Rose was a curious way to go about it. Baker, who earned a reputation as one of the least sympathetic to Israel of all of Clinton’s predecessors, joined with the current secretary in making it clear the Jewish state should under no circumstances be allowed to strike Iran’s nuclear facilities on its own. Baker was right when he said stopping Iran is an American responsibility rather than that of Israel. But coming as it did in the days following the failure of the administration’s latest diplomatic initiative with Iran, the current secretary’s faith in efforts to keep trying to talk with the Iranians and to wait for them to buckle under the weight of sanctions is evidence that neither she nor the president have a clue as to how to stop the nuclear threat.
Clinton’s assertion to Rose that U.S. policy was to “take this meeting by meeting and pursue it as hard as we can” was an indication that the sense of urgency about the problem is clearly lacking. Clinging to the false belief that the president has expressed in the existence of a “window of diplomacy” with Iran, Clinton seems to regard the international coalition she has assembled to pursue the talks and sanctions as an accomplishment in of itself, even though it seems incapable of bringing about a solution to the problem. It is that attitude that makes it hard to believe even after the latest P5+1 standoff in Moscow, this administration will ever come to grips with the fact that the Iranians don’t think they are serious.
Though characteristically harsh about Israel and expressing the sort of “realist” views about foreign policy that marked his own unhappy tenure at the State Department during the presidency of the first George Bush, Baker did assert that it would be America’s job to take out the Iranian nuclear program if “at the end of the day” diplomacy failed. That was a bit farther than Clinton, who made the usual noises about keeping all options open, would go. But the reason why the Iranians acted in Moscow as if they had all the cards in their hands is that they think the Obama administration will never admit that “the end of the day” for diplomacy will ever come.
It is true that at the end of the month, the first step toward the implementation of a partial oil boycott of Iran will begin. That’s the sort of sanction that should have been put in place years ago rather than the foolish charade of diplomacy that characterized U.S policy toward Iran under George W. Bush and the farce of Obama’s attempt to “engage” Tehran. Unfortunately, with the Iranians having already stepped up refinement of uranium and now erasing evidence of their military research, it may be too late for even the toughest of sanctions to force them to back down.
That means months more of futile talks and meetings on Obama and Clinton’s watch will only bring the Iranians that much closer to their nuclear goal, with little indication that they are anywhere close to understanding that the “window” they have been trying to exploit closed even before they tried to open it. And so long as she is partnering with the Russians and the Chinese, Clinton should know by now that they have no intention of ever letting the U.S. prevail on this issue.
Though it would certainly be better for all the parties, especially the Iranians, if they were persuaded to give up before it comes to the use of force, it is time for Clinton to start sounding more like Baker when it comes to threatening Iran. Until the Iranians are finally convinced the president knows that “the end of the day” for diplomacy is about to arrive, there is little chance they will be persuaded that the Americans will ever really lift a finger to stop them.
Equally troubling was Sec. Clinton's statement that "there are those who are saying the best thing that could happen to us (Iran) is be attacked by somebody, just bring it on, because that would unify us, it would legitimize the regime…" n nIn other words, according to Clinton's logic, you could never take military action against Iran since to do so would be to legitimize an illegitimate regime. n nShe then further states, "You feel sometimes when you hear analysts and knowledgeable people talking about Iran that they fear so much about the survival of the regime, because deep down it’s not a legitimate regime, it doesn’t represent the will of the people, it’s kind of morphed into kind of a military theocracy.” n nAbout whom is she speaking about here? Who among legitimate analysts fears for the survival of the Iranian regime? As far not respecting the will of the people, can we at least recall that it was this Administration, with this Secretary of State that did absolutely nothing to help those who were in the streets protesting this "military theocracy"? If anyone legitimized the Iranian regime it, it was President Obama and his clueless Secretary of State.
I dunno man, that Khameni still owes me $225 from a titty bar in Sidon. He kept going on: nu0645u0646 u0646u0645u0649 u062au0648u0627u0646u0645 u0628u0627u0648u0631 u06a9u0646u0645 u0686u06afu0648u0646u0647 u0645u0633u062a u0645u0646 u0647u0633u062au0645. u0645u0646 u062fu0631 u0627u06ccu0646u062cu0627 u062eu0648u0627u0628u0627u0646u062fu0646u0634. u0632u0646 u0643u0647 u0628u0633u064au0627u0631 u0632u064au0628u0627u0633u062a. u062eu06ccu0644u06cc u0633u0643u0633u0649. u0634u0645u0627 u0645u06ccu062au0648u0627u0646u06ccu062f u0628u0631u0627u06cc u062fu0631u064au0627u0641u062a u0648u0627u0645 u0628u0647 u0645u0646 u0645u0642u062fu0627u0631u06cc u062fu0644u0627u0631 u0622u0645u0631u064au0643u0627 u0628u0647 u06afu0648u0634 u067eu0627u06a9 u06a9u0646u061f nSure like to get it back some day.
Obama/Clinton couldn't be more transparent there was in fact never any policy at all. It was all stalling and shadow puppets to push everything into 2013 regardless and by regardless, I mean, get The Bomb, don't get The Bomb, whichever, it doesn't matter. Obama is an electoral animal. Actual governance let alone policy are second or third after thoughts. Obama/Clinton will preside over Iran becoming a nuclear state while he gives speech after speech on how the solution to everything is hire more teachers, cops and firefighters. Assuming those are still jobs "Americans want to do" and he simply doesn't give them all to illegalitos.
Unfortunately, short-term political tactics and electoral strategery is O's *best* point–after that it disappears into a haze of self-conscious autobiographical imposture, compulsive celebrity chasing, and golf. Israel has to factor that in–if cyberwar plus sanctions with more or less bite are enough to keep Iran in a box then there's that–otherwise it's a sticky wicket because a lot of Israeli leaders, guys who actually have the ability to tell underlings do-this, do-that,. don't want to do a preemptive unilateral strike.
I can't believe Obama is going to be re-elected (or can believe it could happen, but only if the entire country has become a nation of sheep), so Obama may get away with doing nothing and pass worse problems off on Romney — BUT, the tone and slant and events and statements used in this article also, for the first time, give me the impression that Obama and company have backed themselves into a corner, and that if he's re-elected, he is going to have to attack Iran eventually. How can he get out of it and not go down as the biggest fool to ever be President?
look at it from Iran's point of view: if they truly believe that nuclear power is crucial to the future of their country, then nothing will talk them out of trying to get it. n nand Iran can clearly see what Europe and the American Left still don't: that Obama is an empty suit, and nobody to be afraid of. indeed, Obama's main concern about the situation is that Israel doesn't do anything. (those pesky Jews and their whining about not wanting to be almost completely annihilated again. sheesh!) n nJewish support for Obama is down to 64% now. c'mon kids, let's make it 50% by this time next week!
Most pro-Israel Americans believe Obama is pressuring Israel not to attack Iran before November to keep that situation from influencing the election. That's true but I also attribute a more sinister motive to Obama. I believe he wants to give Iran sufficient time to bury its facilities to make a strike unsuccessful. n I'm convinced if Obama is re-elected he will institute many radical domestic and foreign policy changes, e.g. his unintended slip about treating Russia more congenially in a second term, and a real crackdown against Israel.