Yup:
A lot of sound and fury, but it doesn’t signify nothing. It tells the Iranians that the thing the president values most is the talks themselves – not stopping their nuclear program, not cutting their regional ambitions down to size, not defending American allies. The Iranians understand that Obama’s greatest desire is to be able to say that his central foreign policy promise – that he can settle conflicts through diplomacy – is finally, five years on, being fulfilled.
For their part, the Iranians know that with the talks set to begin, they have what amounts to a blank check from the White House to make mischief. They know that Obama will now say and do little lest Iran play its trump card – leaving the talks. Obama is thus playing cuckold, willing to absorb repeated public humiliation so long as his partner doesn’t leave him.
That’s been clear since he first ran for president and said he’d go to talk with Tehran “unconditionally.”
“Liberals” (and by “liberals” I mean of course “tax-happy, coercion-addicted State-humpers”) have an odd, schizophrenic relation to peace anyway. They profess to love peace, and yet they love coercion. You are never going to have a truly peaceful world when coercion (in this context, the aggressive use of force) is held as a valid way of dealing with people. In that sense, No Liberty, No Peace.
Yes, it’s pretty darn bad. The big Drudge headline today is an LA Time story about the Iranian claim that there is a secret 30-page side agreement, which the US State Department denies. Many years ago if such a disputed account arose, I would’ve assumed the Iranians were lying and the US government was telling the truth. Nowadays I’ll just take it as a given that there is a secret 30-page side agreement, because that’s how Obama and Kerry roll.
The alternative to talking with Iran is going to war. Critics of the diplomatic approach should be more forthright about their reasons for preferring a military solution.
The alternative to going to war with Iran is having Iran go to war with you, and your allies – but with nukes.
So we’re doomed to have a war with Russia, China, Pakistan, North Korea?
If Obama and the Democrat’s position is that they are cool with Iran having nuclear weapons, then they need to honestly represent that view to the American public and our allies.
“The alternative to talking with Iran is going to war. ”
Klassik Obama “There are those who say…” strawman.
And just as imbecilic.
There are lots of alternatives and always have been. Obama simply refuses to use them.
Like when he didn’t help the revolutionaries on the streets….
Or like not loosening up the sanction which HE HIMSELF says were working……
Or making them stronger……
But no – Obama loves being president..all Waygu beef and Wednesday evening concerts….
But actually working hard to achieve a goal?
Nahhhhhh
Like when he didn’t help the revolutionaries on the streets….
Nothing short of war would have helped those revolutionaries enough to win.
Or like not loosening up the sanction which HE HIMSELF says were working……
Sanctions aren’t an alternative to diplomacy, they’re part of diplomacy.
But actually working hard to achieve a goal?
Obama’s gotten the entire world on board with a sanctions regime that brought Iran to the table. The idea that Iran would give up its nuclear ambitions if Obama just worked longer hours is ridiculous.
“The idea that Iran would give up its nuclear ambitions if Obama just
worked longer hourstalked more is ridiculous.”FTFY
Its a farce. Iran has no intention of giving up nuclear weapons and Obama has no intention to do anything about it. Lets stop the games claiming Obama is actually trying to do something other than CYA.
“Obama’s gotten the entire world on board with a sanctions regime that brought Iran to the table. ”
Oh really? Then why were other major countries breaking the sanctions with Iran? Why were Western European countries appalled that Obama lifted the sanctions?
You’re making the same contradictory statement that Obama makes.
“The idea that Iran would give up its nuclear ambitions if Obama just worked longer hours is ridiculous.”
ANY hours would be a nice change.
Yet another “There are those who say …” strawman. It isn’t just long hours. Its having a foreign policy to begin with – one that is well thought out and well executed. It’s building a team of serious people who really know something about Foreign Affairs and the region. It’s about not being played like a sucker by the Iranians (the bomb), the Russians (Syria). It’s about understanding that there’s more to governing than a nice speech.
No, Susan Rice knows nothing; Kerry knows nothing.
How about, “Because allowing the Iranians to have Nukes will eventually lead to war anyway and it will assuredly be far worse than dealing with them now would be”?
Or maybe, “Because any ‘diplomatic solution’ that ends with a nation that uses “Death to America!” as a national slogan being allowed to grow prosperous while simultaneously producing nuclear weapons is a pretty stupid idea”?
How about, “Because allowing the Iranians to have Nukes will eventually lead to war anyway and it will assuredly be far worse than dealing with them now would be”?
Unfortunately, “dealing with them now” (nice euphemism for mass death) would not keep them from getting nukes, it’d only postpone the date.
“Because any ‘diplomatic solution’ that ends with a nation that uses “Death to America!” as a national slogan being allowed to grow prosperous while simultaneously producing nuclear weapons is a pretty stupid idea”?
Whereas spending trillions of dollars and thousands of lives to invade a country that shouts “Death to America”, ensuring that the slogan endures for generations, is a really great idea?
China used to be our mortal enemy. Was it wrong for Nixon to go to Mao, one of the greatest mass murderers of all time, and allow China to grow prosperous while simultaneously producing nuclear weapons and ICBMs? Should we have “dealt with them” instead?
Whereas spending trillions of dollars and thousands of lives to invade a country that shouts “Death to America”, ensuring that the slogan endures for generations, is a really great idea?
Only the voices in your head proposed doing that.
I’d be interested to hear your estimate of the cost in lives and dollars to destroying Iran’s nuclear programs by military means.
Thank you for that wisdom, Mister Chamberlain.
Just one question: If the “peace in our time” deal the Ketchup Prince and the Antisemite in the White House have pulled out of their fourth point of contact ends in “mass death” a due to Iranian nukes… will you at least have the moral and ethical courage to commit suicide in remorse for your partisan support of jihadi murder? Or will this be one of those no responsibility, history-begins-yesterday moments too?
“China used to be our mortal enemy. ”
Used to? It is one thing to claim that our views toward China have changed but it is another thing entirely to say their views towards us have changed.
“The alternative to talking with Iran is going to war.”
What is the end game here, is the goal simply to talk or is it to get Iran to stop developing nukes? Talking is easy, getting Iran to actually stop developing nukes is much harder than holding a meeting and caving to all their demands.
“Critics of the diplomatic approach should be more forthright about their reasons for preferring a military solution.”
What happens when diplomacy fails? Advocates of a diplomacy only approach need to be honest about what it means that their efforts fail. Letting Iran have nukes is a valid if short sighted view but lets have that debate in the open and stop with the subterfuge.
A useful exercise is to role play the situation from the Iranian POV instead of taking the ethnocentric approach the Obama administration is using. They know he has no credibility and that his red lines mean nothing. Talking wont convince them that they don’t want nuclear weapons but it will buy them time. But even if the talks fall apart, they know Obama wont do anything.
Does Obama even believe that his strategy can succeed or is this like his Afghan War Strategy where he is just going through the motions to keep the voters off his back for being such a terrible President? We know what the Iranians think…
What is the end game here
The end game is a system of nuclear facility inspections that keeps Iran’s time-to-bomb as long as possible, along with a diplomatic thaw that gives the Iranian people more access to ideas and products from the rest of the world. And perhaps a reduction in Iranian aid to Assad, Hezbollah and Hamas.
Advocates of a diplomacy only approach need to be honest about what it means that their efforts fail
It means we get a nuclear Iran, and that the cost of invading Iran goes way up. But invading Iran was never going to be cheap, and it never was going to keep them nuclear-free for long.
But even if the talks fall apart, they know Obama wont do anything.
They know that if they turn down a reasonable deal, the Security Council will continue to back sanctions, and Iran will continue to suffer.
“The end game is a system of nuclear facility inspections that keeps Iran’s time-to-bomb as long as possible,”
So it is to delay them getting nuclear weapons not to actually stop them. Don’t you think the Iranians can see through that like the rest of us?
“It means we get a nuclear Iran,”
Well, no kidding. This is what people don’t like and why Obama can’t be honest about his intentions.
“They know that if they turn down a reasonable deal, the Security Council will continue to back sanctions, and Iran will continue to suffer.”
They will have their nuclear weapons and what is to stop them from using them against people who use sanctions? Why would Obama continue with sanctions when he doesn’t care if they have nuclear weapons? Also, the sanctions clearly have not stopped Iran.
“It means we get a nuclear Iran, and that the cost of invading Iran goes way up.”
If Iran gets nukes, they will use them on Israel and Washington, you fucking blithering lying idiot! Begone with you! At long last, go!
If Iran gets nukes, they will use them on Israel and Washington, you fucking blithering lying idiot!
Deterrence doesn’t work any more?
It works until it doesn’t.
Deterrence doesn’t work against a culture of suicide bombers who want to become martyrs. The Iranian regime will not be like the Soviet chess-players, the Chinese students of Sun Tzu, or any other halfway rational regime.
Deterrence? “Halt! or I shall say halt again!”
Iran has made no secret of its goal. They now have a delivery system, and have stated over and over that they will use a nuke on Israel as soon as they can. They want Armageddon, idiot. Deterrence only works on someone who doesn’t want to die.
Begone, troll.
“Deterrence doesn’t work any more?”
Deterrence is a two way street which is why Obama is fine with Iran having nuclear weapons. Weakening our country on the international stage is a big part of Obama’s policy goals but it bites him in the butt when he tries to flex on countries like Syria.
Ed, calm down.
If Iran gets nuclear weapons, yes, several million Israelis will die in big nuclear fireballs, and to most Democrats that’s obviously a huge plus.
BUT, Iran will also nuke most of the major US cities which are just Democrat vote fraud bases. You take out New York, Boston, Chicago, Washington (and enivrons), Baltimore, Milwaukee, Detroit, Miami, Memphis, LA, San Francisco, Seattle, Portland, Denver, St. Louis, New Orleans, Toledo, and Philadelphia, and all their states will flip to such an extent that the Democrats will become a third party about two years before it disappears entirely, and the big battle will be between Republicans and the Tea Party.
This foreign policy outcome is called plan Yellow, aka “John Kerry is actually a narcissistic blithering moronic traitor who would lose to a three year-old at Jeopardy, Monopoly, poker, chute-and-ladders, or peek-a-boo, but he could beat Obama.”
“This foreign policy outcome is called plan Yellow,…..”
Known in the 30’s as “Case Gelbe”
“The end game is a system of nuclear facility inspections that keeps Iran’s time-to-bomb as long as possible, ”
Oh yeah that has always worked (/sarc). And that would REALLY work with this President. Other countries in the region fully understand the folly of that approach.
Why can’t you?
“It means we get a nuclear Iran, and that the cost of invading Iran goes way up. But invading Iran was never going to be cheap, and it never was going to keep them nuclear-free for long.”
Only you imagine that the choice is either invade Iran or let them have nukes.
The alternative to talking with Iran is going to war.
In a similar situation, Winston Churchill said, “You were given the choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor, and you will have war.”
The Obama administration sure is putting in a lot of work rehabbing Bush’s image.
Forgot where I saw this, but someone suggested that someone should fix Yoko up with a mullah, so a few years later the mullahs would break up.
Here’s something to tickle Baghdad Jim’s funny-bone:
http://www.thelookingspoon.com/conservative-education/5114-24-cartoons-and-photoshops-that-show-the-folly-of-obama-s-policy-on-iran.html