Give the Islamist regime in Iran some credit. They can read between the lines as easily as anyone in Washington. Having seen the spectacle of the Obama administration’s refusal to set red lines about Iran’s nuclear program despite impassioned pleas from Israel to do so, the ayatollahs understand they have been sent a signal that the president is open to another round of hopeless negotiations over the issue. That’s the upshot of the informal meetings taking place in Istanbul between the Iranians and European Union foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton. Ashton headed up the West’s delegations in the P5+1 talks held earlier this year but, like President Obama, appears to have learned nothing from the experience. As Laura Rozen reports in The Back Channel blog, the Iranians may have again convinced the West that they should give the talks yet another try. According to Rozen, “The path going forward is ‘open,’ one western diplomat said.”
That’s excellent news for the Iranians, who may now be able to look forward to more negotiating sessions with the Western consortium at which they can drag out the process even further without giving an inch. But it’s bad news for anyone who wants to actually stop the Iranians from achieving their nuclear ambition.
The P5+1 talks earned the Iranians several months more during which their centrifuges could keep spinning and turning out more enriched uranium for their weapons project. This illustrates why the Israelis are so intent on red lines.
This year’s diplomatic minuet over the Iranian nuclear program wasn’t the first time Tehran played the West for suckers.
The Bush administration vetoed any Israeli attack on Iran and outsourced diplomacy on the question to the Europeans. But despite the warm relations that France and Germany supposedly had with their Iranian business partners and their offer of a deal that would have allowed Tehran to have a nuclear program, no deal was ever struck.
President Obama came into office acting as if the Bush attempt at diplomacy never happened and wasted a year on a foolish attempt at “engagement” with Iran and two more on assembling a weak international coalition in favor of loosely enforced sanctions on Tehran. Talks were held and deals even struck, but the Iranians always reneged on any deal. The president’s fourth year in office was marked by more sanctions that had no effect on Iran and the P5+1 talks that merely bought Iran’s scientists more time.
The Israelis and other savvy observers understand that Iran’s goal in the talks is not even a favorable agreement that would enable them to finesse their way to a bomb the way the North Koreans did. Rather, their intention is to stall until their stockpile of nuclear material is large enough and stored in invulnerable underground bunkers that would render any attack pointless.
That’s why what is needed now is a presidential statement about red lines rather than another P5+1 fool’s errand. Anything other than a warning that force will be used if Iran doesn’t halt its enrichment program is a sign not so much of patience but that the president will go back on his pledge not to “contain” a nuclear Iran.
No one who is not an Iran apologist can possibly argue — at least not with a straight face — that more talks with Iran under these circumstances will serve anyone’s interests but that of the Islamist regime. Those who have argued that the administration should be trusted to stop Iran must speak out urgently about what another round of P5+1 talks will mean: more months for Iran to get closer to a bomb and a bridge to a second term reversal of policy on the issue by President Obama.
Couldn't Obama at least threaten the Ayatollahs with cartoons? n n"The option of releasing cartoons depicting Muhammad walking a dog remains on the table."
MM, nWhat always turns a chickenhawk into a dove?. n nTHE DRAFT
Always? Really? n nA draft would not be a bad thing. It would take the steam out of those (mostly on the left) who want to fight 'nuanced wars' with ridiculous rules of engagement (a la Petraeous) that get our young people killed. n nWe might make better use of our training and technology to win wars quickly and without American casualties rather than 'win hearts and minds'. n nLastly, it would make those on the left worry more about the real war against America as opposed to the fictitious War on Women, War on Choice, War on Contraception, etc . . . .
u201cA draft would not be a bad thingu201d. Letu2019s see what your buddies on the chickenhawk right have to say. I think youu2019re by yourself on this issue.
rexfod, did you think of that all by yourself or did you read it somewhere?
Let's also draft people into the police force in dangerous neighborhoods. And if they don't want to go (even though others are perfectly willing to volunteer), then we should brand them chickenhawks for wanting the criminal laws enforced.
Rationalized and spoken like a true yellow bellied chickenhawk;always cowering in fear behind the volunteers.
Unless your own life is on the line, you are not entiteled to an opinion, right? n nIn fact, you should have no right to vote for anything or on anything if you are not risking your life on the outcome. n nMakes sense? n
Itu2019s a question of value,say comparing the worth of your opinion on war to David Hackworthu2019s. LOL
What unit did you serve in soldier?
Suddenly you were a volunteer? That's not what you said the other week.
People that have never served donu2019t have a clue. I was drafted,which showed an ID number beginning with US;I converted to RA status after I was enlisted(volunteer). This required a six year commitment,3 active,and 3 reserves. This was a while ago,so Iu2019m sure everything has changed,but if youu2019re curious,go find out. I doubt if youu2019re curious.
Thank you for your service to our country, but you are still an idiot.
Donu2019t thank me,Iu2019m looking for some Chickenhawks to serve,but like Neil Young looking for that HEART OF GOLD,Iu2019m getting old.
Between "No Red Lines" and Mike Mansfield's statement that the US will not or support an Israeli strike in any way, Obama has told Iran that they should proceed full steam ahead with a nuclear weapon. Iran won't be able to complete their work before the election and likely not complete it before Jan 2013 so after Obama's inauguration Iran will announce they have completed an actual nuclear weapons test. Obama will then use that as pretense to abandon Israel. Make no mistake. Obama wants to go down in history as the President that oversaw the final holocaust of the Jews.
Make no mistake. Obama wants to go down in history as the President that oversaw the final holocaust of the Jews. n nThis may be the theme of Romney's final speech on Nov 5th.
No more than Chamberlain wanted to. And making one more likley, just like Chamberlain. (Counting down to the chicken hawk response in 3 — 2– 1 –)
you miss the point about Romney. Yeah, he offers what he takes to be pain-free bromides on the pro-Israel side of the ledger but his interest in foreign affairs is minimal. He won't go big rhetorically on the MIddle East, which is why there was only limited follow-up when his e-mail? press release? on Egypt ran into unjustified flack. Permitting Team Obama to divert attention from an AQ-associate murder of their ambassador and the smoking ruin of their Benghazi consulate onto, first Romney's reaction and then Romney's May fund raiser. But Romney is helpless to reclaim his name because he has the attention span of a gnat. His high concept was that the economy would semi-automatically give him the White House, two blocks in either direction from that scenario he's in terra incognita. Israel, Middle East, whatever–he talks the tough game he gets from his foreign policy handlers, but don't be fooled, on the ground it's all the path of least resistance.
Obama wants to see a holocaust? Probably not. The dismantling or overrunning of Israel? Definitely.
The Myans are right , it is the end of the world, I am agreeing with rexford on this one! n
Why would Obama want to see the overrunning of Israel? And what's your evidence that he does? This is apocalyptic fantasy.
Why would Obama want to see the overrunning of Israel? And what's your evidence that he does? This is apocalyptic fantasy. n
Obama wants to see a holocaust? Probably not. n nProbably not/LOL n nYou guys slay me.
It's not a bad idea, but I leave threats to others and besides it would be illegal. nOf course, if you get your way, the Iranians will slay all of us, yourself included.
Is there any doubt, whether by design or consequence, Obama’s Iran policy, if he’s reelected, likely, will inevitably devolve to containment, regardless of his stated intention to stop Iran’s nuclear program?
Is there any doubt that Obama's Iran policy, whether by design or consequence, if he's reelected, likely, will devolve to containment, regardless of his stated intention to stop its nuclear program?
And is there any doubt he would do as poor a job at containment as he has done in every other foreign policy debacle?
What's the criterion for a good job here? The only basis for a containment policy is the logic MAD, or some refinement of it, such as "you attack us or any of our allies and we nuke you."
MAD requires credible threats or retaliation by a party with the means and will to retaliate. It also requires an adversary who fears retaliation. n nThis is harder to do when you are dealing with state leaders who welcome mass martyrdom, or who may give small portable nuclear devices to their proxy non-state actors, and when influential apologists for terrorist murderers are operating within your own government and press. If Iran were to ship nukes to Hizbollah and Hizbollah rh"L were to use them, how long would it be before the usual chorus of enablers and apologizers sing on cue that there was no proof who set the bomb, or that the bombers acted at Iran's orders or even with Iran's approval or knowledge, and that retaliation against Iran would be immoral? n nIf Iran acted directly, the same villains would sing that retaliating against Iran wouldn't bring back all those who were killed, and would only mean more innocent deaths.
One, Iran doesn't welcome mass martyrdom. That's an apocalyptic fantasy. Two, small portable nuclear devices are so far beyond Iranian capability that they inform no practical relevant argument. Three, if Iran were to act directly, the same villains could stage an opera for all it mattered, Israel would incinerate Iran, which is why that likelihood- a direct attack-seems cost unbearable and beneft nil for Iran, I.E., the logic of MAD.
Iran is blaming both the US and Israel. If we see Obama bragging about it and endangering intelligence assets friendly to the US, Israel or both, we'll know the Iranians were right.
Only an ultimatum and a blocus will do. No bullets initially.