Obama has a problem in Iran

[JerrySeinfeld]

This short article in the Washinton Post is an interesting and very clear reality of the pickle facing Obama in Iran.

Excerpt:

It's not that Obama preferred a victory by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. He probably would have been happy to do business with Mir Hossein Mousavi, even if there was little reason to believe Mousavi would have pursued a different approach to the nuclear issue. But once Mousavi lost, however fairly or unfairly, Obama objectively had no use for him or his followers. If Obama appears to lend support to the Iranian opposition in any way, he will appear hostile to the regime, which is precisely what he hoped to avoid.

Obama's policy now requires getting past the election controversies quickly so that he can soon begin negotiations with the reelected Ahmadinejad government. This will be difficult as long as opposition protests continue and the government appears to be either unsettled or too brutal to do business with. What Obama needs is a rapid return to peace and quiet in Iran, not continued ferment. His goal must be to deflate the opposition, not to encourage it. And that, by and large, is what he has been doing.

If you find all this disturbing, you should. The worst thing is that this approach will probably not prevent the Iranians from getting a nuclear weapon. But this is what "realism" is all about. It is what sent Brent Scowcroft to raise a champagne toast to China's leaders in the wake of Tiananmen Square. It is what convinced Gerald Ford not to meet with Alexander Solzhenitsyn at the height of detente. Republicans have traditionally been better at it than Democrats -- though they have rarely been rewarded by the American people at the ballot box, as Ford and George H.W. Bush can attest. We'll see whether President Obama can be just as cold-blooded in pursuit of better relations with an ugly regime, without suffering the same political fate.

Wow. Talk about painting yourself into a corner. Obama's known for his ambiguity, but I don't know if even his fence-walking speeches can wiggle him out of this one. Better to keep quite and...wel.... "Hope".

Edited June 18, 2009 by JerrySeinfeld

[bush_cheney2004]

Wow. Talk about painting yourself into a corner. Obama's known for his ambiguity, but I don't know if even his fence-walking speeches can wiggle him out of this one. Better to keep quite and...wel.... "Hope".

I think you're right about this...President Obama and sidekick Hillary will not be able to half-ass this one. This is the real show and miss-steps followed by apologies simply won't do.

PS - Sec'y Clinton ain't no Doktor Kissinger or Jim Baker.

[KrustyKidd]

His goal must be to deflate the opposition, not to encourage it. And that, by and large, is what he has been doing.

His goal as President of the US should be to promote freedom in all it's forms no matter which candidate benefits. That means freedom to demonstrate peacefully, freedom to have fair and honest elections where hand marked votes in a country such as Iran are tabulated in a mere two hours before a winner is declared.

In short, there is nothing nefarious about promoting freedom and, as the unoffical leader of the free world, he should weigh in rather than remain silent. 'Evil occurs when good men do nothing.'

[GostHacked]

As soon as Iran gets the bomb, the US will take a strike off the table. See North Korea. They are both playing the US as suckers. Which is more of a threat:

NK has the bomb, working on delivery system.

Iran has delivery system and is working on the bomb.

[bush_cheney2004]

..... Which is more of a threat:

NK has the bomb, working on delivery system.

Iran has delivery system and is working on the bomb.

Easy.....Iran...because Israel isn't anybody's sucker.

[Oleg Bach]

Easy.....Iran...because Israel isn't anybody's sucker.

Are you saying that the whole world can be pushed around and they will take it because they are all suckers? AND Israel is not a sucker because if you try to even imagine attacking them they will sucker punch you first?

[bush_cheney2004]

Are you saying that the whole world can be pushed around and they will take it because they are all suckers? AND Israel is not a sucker because if you try to even imagine attacking them they will sucker punch you first?

No...obviously the USA is romping and stomping all over the damn planet. Somebody else said the US was a sucker for DPRK and Iran, even as they are surrounded.

Israel will do whatever it has to....remember, it was Israel who successfully bombed Iraq's nuclear plant (Osirak) after Iran screwed the job up.

[August1991]

Here's the error:

Obama's policy now requires getting past the election controversies quickly so that he can soon begin negotiations with the reelected Ahmadinejad government.

Obama is no fool and surely he knows that this Iranian government is no more legitimate than any other. He will deal with whatever government seems to have contrtol of the Iranian State.

If you look carefully at Obama's remarks at the press conference with Berlusconi in response to the situation in Iran, Obama has done the same as Bush Jnr (albeit with a little more sophistication and possibly with more success). He has gone over the heads of the mullahs and speaks directly to Iranians.

[Oleg Bach]

No...obviously the USA is romping and stomping all over the damn planet. Somebody else said the US was a sucker for DPRK and Iran, even as they are surrounded.

Israel will do whatever it has to....remember, it was Israel who successfully bombed Iraq's nuclear plant (Osirak) after Iran screwed the job up.

Maybe Israel is useful after all - imagine if Iraq and Sadam had brought a nuclear weapons program to fruition? Also: And I never thought I would say this - But Bush's campaign in Iraq may have set a freedom virus loose in the middle east - that is now infecting Iran.. USA stomps and romps - but are really not into acutally using nuclear weapons - N Korea - has nothing to lose - America has everything to lose - still ---- I am sure they have developed nice tiny clean nukes - nukes that take out a city along with it's crazed self appointed king ...but would China be offended - I guess you have to get "permission" from China...but if you did offend China..boy - Israel might be a bit of a pesk - but China ----holy shit - in the long run they have nothing to lose either....I mean there are a trillion of them.....oooooh no...sorry China - I did not thing your people are expendable - GOD I felt so Israeli there for a moment.

[bush_cheney2004]

...but if you did offend China..boy - Israel might be a bit of a pesk - but China ----holy shit - in the long run they have nothing to lose either....

Stay tuned.....Bush didn't blow up the world, but maybe Obama will....LOL!

Yes We Can !!!!!

[Oleg Bach]

Stay tuned.....Bush didn't blow up the world, but maybe Obama will....LOL!

Yes We Can !!!!!

Stop - you are scaring me --- you know I trust your vision and judgement...Here is the problem with those feel good liberals who attempt to instill their philosphy in primative and barbaric places ----- MEN - do not like it when you send worms to negotiate - I can not help but think that your average tough guy dictator could never take Obama seriously...You can order a sniper to shoot a few 18 year old Somali pirates - by picking up the White House phone...that is much different than standing up and convincing some war lord with a nuke to put down the gun as they say ---he's to boyish -- I don't believe he is street wise enough - I don't care if he walked the meanstreets of America on his way to violin lessons....I will put if figuratively ----Can Obama fight - If you can not wage combat on a personal level (street fight) then I doubt if you can do it on a presidential level --- I doubt if he can take care of himself or us....he's stikes me as the type that will cower ----while he is in a frozen state duing a crisis ---BIDEN will take over and Biden is a cold leather liped right wing lunitic ..who will nuke..cos's he's been brought up and trained to dispise humanity.

[bush_cheney2004]

.... I doubt if he can take care of himself or us....he's stikes me as the type that will cower ----while he is in a frozen state duing a crisis ---BIDEN will take over and Biden is a cold leather liped right wing lunitic ..who will nuke..cos's he's been brought up and trained to dispise humanity.

Hard to say....some people prefer leaders with many degrees but there are times when big brass balls are better. What usually happens for US presidents is that they rise to the challenge and are reminded why the Star Spangled Banner is a war song!

No Soviets around any more to mitigate actions.....America 1, Axis of Evil 0.

[AmericanPop]

On the surface, it might seem as if Obama won his campaign in a similar fashion to Carter. Both promised proactive 'Change' and littered their rhetoric with moral undertones. The problem with Carter was that his foreign policy goals were entirely incompatible with the geo-strategic realities of the time. The Iranian Revolution brought these inconsistencies to the limelight. While his human rights agenda demanded he discontinue support for an oppressive Shah regime, his sense of realism warned against jeopardizing America's Middle Eastern 'policeman'.

Obama's Cairo speech was consistent with his campaign for 'Change', but like Bill Clinton, Obama knows that promoting 'Change' is very different from actually ensuring it. But Clinton entered the presidency at a time when the electorate was in no mood to deal with foreign policy adventures. The current political climate is different, and it can be witnessed by the way the media is reacting to Obama's inaction.