I guess this means the Bush's foreign policy was failure since all of these issues were progressing right under his nose...
Thanks for clearing that up!
Curious you'd find that funny since it's basically an admission that Obama's foreign policy is a failure too.I guess this means the Bush's foreign policy was failure since all of these issues were progressing right under his nose...
Thanks for clearing that up!
This whole deal of talking tough when the reality is they know that we know that they know we won't do because of the Bush cluster is pretty lame.
I'm all for U.S. not being world police, (F the rest of the world is a F-N-1 policy) but we all know where this game is going on a nuclear persistent N Korea. It's only a matter of time before hits the fan and we all know we will take the peaceful approach until then.
Either go black or white. Grey does nothing in this situation.
8 yrs vs 6 months.. equal terms..
Damn, even the hardcore libbies at Slate think Obama should take a stronger stance w/ Iran.
Disengagement with Iran
It's time for President Obama to rethink his policy of "engagement" with Iran.
Given the near-certainty that Iran's election was fixed and the do ented fact that protesters are being brutalized, there is no way that Obama or Secretary of State Hillary Clinton could go to Tehran and shake hands with President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, much less to expect that any talks would be worthwhile.
The issue here is not one of realpolitik vs. democratic idealism. Rather, it's a question about what course of action is simply realistic (in the conversational, as opposed to ideological, sense of the word).
A classic international realist, in the tradition of Henry Kissinger, might shrug off the call for a revision in outlook and policy. After all, it's nothing new or unusual for the United States, or any other power, to cultivate diplomatic relations with illegitimate regimes. If there hadn't been an election, Obama would have proceeded to open a dialogue. And the nature of the Iranian government, which isn't really run by the president, anyway, is basically the same now as it was last week.
But, in fact, something has changed. The blatant fraudulence of the election has mobilized the Iranian people in a way that hasn't been seen since the 1979 revolution, which led to the overthrow of the Shah of Iran. The shah seemed to control Iran back then as tightly as the Islamic mullahs do today. The decisive moment in '79 occurred when middle-class merchants—the heart of the shah's political support—joined the students and the radicals in revolt.
What social group might now play the same role that the merchants played then? This is where today's situation differs from that of 30 years ago. There might very well be no such group. Rural conservative peasants form the main base of support for Ahmadinejad and the mullahs, and there's no reason to believe they'll join the young men and (especially) women protesting in the streets of the capital city.
Unless the violence widens the fissures in Iranian society to an unprecedented—almost unimaginable—degree, the agitation could simply peter out in the coming days and weeks as more and more protesters are beaten, detained, and even killed, with no effect on the regime's survival. In this case, it may well be, as a story in today's New York Times predicted, that the hardliners wind up more firmly in control than ever.
Yet reports have circulated in recent months suggesting that some Iranian clerics, even a few in high places, are displeased with Ahmadinejad's harsh rhetoric and his mishandling of the economy. Some evidence of electoral fraud has reportedly been leaked from dissidents from within Iran's interior ministry.
The supreme leader has ordered the Guardian Council to investigate allegations of fraud—this after publicly ratifying the election's results (without, su iously, observing the three-day waiting period that Iranian law requires)—though it may be that this order is mere subterfuge and that the investigation will be just as fraudulent.
In other words, it is possible (how likely it might be, no one can say) that the popular revolts might sharpen the fissures within the circles of Iran's ruling elite. Of course, those circles are so opaque that few outsiders can tell whether there are fissures, much less what their boundaries are. Does the CIA or the National Security Agency know? I hope so, but I don't know.
his is a common problem in analyzing dictatorships. In the October 1964 issue of a now-defunct USIA-sponsored journal called Problems of Communism, a prominent Kremlinologist named William Griffith, who had extensive CIA ties, wrote a savage critique of the notion, propagated by a few scholars at the time, that rival power factions were quarreling within the Kremlin. Griffith proclaimed that Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev's power was as unchallenged and absolute as Josef Stalin's had ever been. The very month that the issue was published, Khrushchev was overthrown by a rival faction.
Whatever is going on inside Tehran's ruling circles, now is not the time for Obama to engage in outreach. Rather, it's time to up the ante, to make the mullahs—especially those who might be inclined to cast off Ahmadinejad—realize that if they're going to play democracy, they can't rig the deck and violate the will of their people, at least not so blatantly.
Some "smart sanctions" against Iran have had a modi of success in the past: freezing financial transactions and foreign bank accounts; severely cutting back on capital investment; and banning the export of oil-refining equipment, which the Iranians painfully need. The Europeans have been reluctant, out of economic self-interest, to go along with these steps in the past. Perhaps moral shaming, to which they're sometimes more vulnerable than we are, can be piled on.
The problem with former President George W. Bush's policy of "democracy promotion" was threefold. First, it was hypocritical: He supported dissidents in certain countries and dictatorships in others. Second, it sought, at least rhetorically, to impose Western-style democracy without regard to a country's political terrain. Third, in places where a civil society had not yet developed, elections could exacerbate violence and harm U.S. interests. (Case in point: the Palestinian territories.)
The situation with Iran is different. The movement for change is arising from within. What sort of politics the protesters advocate isn't clear. And the protesters seem to be more aligned with Western interests: Journalists who have traveled in Iran and talked with reformers say that they're among the most pro-American people they've ever met.
This is not to say that we should send in spies or special-ops troops to provide covert aid to the protesters or their favored candidate, Mir Hossein Mousavi. The discovery of American fingerprints would spur a backlash, raising memories of the CIA-backed coup of 1953. Nonetheless, it wouldn't be a bad idea for someone with a knack for subtlety to probe the fissures for possibilities of new leaders rising to power.
Meanwhile, according to NPR's Deborah Amos, U.S. officials visiting Damascus in the past few days—in the wake of Lebanon's more satisfying election—have emerged with happy faces from meetings with their Syrian counterparts. The details aren't yet clear, but this might be an opportune moment to start luring Syria away from its Iranian alliance. Without its Syrian middlemen, Iran would have a much harder time influencing events in Lebanon and the Palestinian territories.
Obama has backed the idea of diplomacy with Iran because Iran is too powerful in the region to ignore. Ahmadinejad said, after he was officially declared the winner, that his victory was the harbinger of a further hardening of foreign policy. So if diplomacy is likely to be futile as well as unseemly, an alternative course might be to take steps to make Iran less powerful, its rulers less comfortable. Hold out the prospect of normal relations if a new election, or at least a real vote count, is held. But in the meantime, tighten the screws.
So in other words the only difference between Bush and Obama is time. Glad to see you're happy about that.8 yrs vs 6 months.. equal terms..
Ooh, targeted sanctions....
Get tough!
Why is it that whenever anybody gives suggestions as what to do with Iran they use words like "get tough", "tighten the screws", "get harder on them"? Why so vague? What is it that people really want to see happen?
The right is gonna say sanctions are too light. The left is gonna say war is too extreme. But that seems like the only 2 options that we're throwing around.
Seriously... what is it that people want to happen?
and
War isn't an option. Obama won't consider it as one, which is the right call on his part because frankly we couldn't afford it even if he were considering it. As I see it, here are Obama's options. None are pleasant.Why is it that whenever anybody gives suggestions as what to do with Iran they use words like "get tough", "tighten the screws", "get harder on them"? Why so vague? What is it that people really want to see happen?
The right is gonna say sanctions are too light. The left is gonna say war is too extreme. But that seems like the only 2 options that we're throwing around.
Seriously... what is it that people want to happen?
and
1) more sanctions
2) bluff war
3) buy them off
4) back off
Sanctions haven't worked so far and North Korea is threatening to retailiate if they do get subjected to more sanctions.
North Korea and Iran know that we can't afford a war so that bluff would be called.
Buying them off only encourages them to come back for more. Plus it makes him look bad.
Backing off also makes him look bad because then Iran and North Korea feel emboldened that they stood face to face with the big bad U.S. and we blinked.
It's pretty much a no-win scenario for him. But tough for him. He wanted the job. So Mr. President, what's it going to be?
Obviously "get tough" means a military invasion, so both sides of the political duopoly in these United States can about it for the next 4 to 8 years, with roles reversed from the last 8 years.
There are a lot of ty governments in the world. Maybe the one we have should focus on not being one of those.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
