Obama Promises A Rerun

Barack Obama sat down with the New York Times to discuss his views on Iran, and how he has the policy that will unlock the stalemate with the mullahs. However, what the Times and Obama fail to realize is that Iran has heard the proposal before from the US and others. They didn’t take it when we offered it then, and they don’t appear prepared to do so now, either:

In an hourlong interview on Wednesday, Mr. Obama made clear that forging a new relationship with Iran would be a major element of what he pledged would be a broad effort to stabilize Iraq as he executed a speedy timetable for the withdrawal of American combat troops.
Mr. Obama said that Iran had been “acting irresponsibly” by supporting Shiite militant groups in Iraq. He also emphasized that Iran’s suspected nuclear weapons program and its support for “terrorist activities” were serious concerns.
But he asserted that Iran’s support for militant groups in Iraq reflected its anxiety over the Bush administration’s policies in the region, including talk of a possible American military strike on Iranian nuclear installations.
Making clear that he planned to talk to Iran without preconditions, Mr. Obama emphasized further that “changes in behavior” by Iran could possibly be rewarded with membership in the World Trade Organization, other economic benefits and security guarantees.
“We are willing to talk about certain assurances in the context of them showing some good faith,” he said in the interview at his campaign headquarters here. “I think it is important for us to send a signal that we are not hellbent on regime change, just for the sake of regime change, but expect changes in behavior. And there are both carrots and there are sticks available to them for those changes in behavior.”

It sounds great. In fact, it sounds so great that it’s hard to believe that neither Obama nor Michael Gordon or Jeff Zeleny recall that the EU-3 and the US made precisely that offer to Iran in the summer 2005 round of negotiations between the Europeans and Iran. The Bush administration even made the offer publicly in support of the European peace initiative, and even talked openly of restoring diplomatic and trade relations with Iran.
Did it work? No, it did not. Iran had more interest in pursuing nuclear weapons than in WTO membership or normalized relations — because Iran considers itself at war with the United States. It doesn’t want normal trade; Iran wants regional hegemony over the Middle East, after which it can demand trade on whatever terms it likes with the entire world.
Interestingly, the Times never mentions the previous WTO offer in its piece on Obama’s proposal. In fact, a search of the Times website doesn’t turn up any reference at all to it. The Financial Times managed to report it in May 2005:

During an EU-Iranian meeting in Geneva this week, the British delegation, led by Jack Straw, foreign secretary, made last-minute phone calls to convince Washington that it was important to maintain a common front towards Tehran.
“It was a last-minute thing that could have broken down if the Americans had stepped back [from their commitment on the WTO],” one diplomat told the Financial Times.
After the US confirmed that it would lift its perennial veto on WTO accession talks, Tehran agreed to maintain a freeze on its nuclear programme until early August, by which time France, Germany and the UK will produce new proposals for a settlement.

Basically, Obama wants a rerun of 2005, despite its lack of any success in stopping the Iranian march to nuclearization. I like reruns, too, but I draw the line at Jimmy Carter-style ignorance.
Obama’s naivete gets revealed in his assertion that Iran has acted “irresponsibly” in Iraq. To our eyes, of course they have, but only if one thinks that Iran wants to have normal relations with the US. They don’t. They want us out of the Middle East, leaving our allies unprotected, in order to better project their own power. Attacking American troops through proxies allowed them to stoke political pressure to retreat from Iraq here in the US, which would have brought them closer to their goals. That can be called many things, but “irresponsible” is not among the first adjectives that comes to mind.
It comes as no surprise that neither Obama nor the Times realizes that the WTO offer had already been made by the Bush administration and rejected by the Iranians. It does come as a surprise that people take either one very seriously on foreign policy.

39 thoughts on “Obama Promises A Rerun”

  1. “I like reruns, too, but I draw the line at Jimmy Carter-style ignorance.”
    I’ve thought for a while now that electing Obama would be the equivalent of re-electing Jimmy Carter. He is that clueless.

  2. Obama’s historical ignorance is appalling. Either that or he’s counting on the ignorance of the American voter.
    “It’s worth noting that Iran formally made its application to the WTO in July 1996; the clerical regime, with Khamenei and Rafsanjani firmly in command, bombed the Americans at Khobar Towers three weeks earlier. If there is a contradiction between terrorism and trade, it is one that escapes Iran’s clerical vanguard.”
    see–
    The Myth of Moderate Mullahs
    It’s still Khomeini’s Iran.
    by Reuel Marc Gerecht
    Mr. Morrissey, you nailed it when you said “It doesn’t want normal trade; Iran wants regional hegemony over the Middle East, after which it can demand trade on whatever terms it likes with the entire world”
    To shake hands and make nice with the US would same as flushing a Koran down the toilet. THe Iranian Revolution is based on destroying America an what we represent.

  3. All the discussion is likely academic, since the chances are Iran will make the first nuclear test before the next presidential inauguration (here comes a bonus: it is all Bush fault).
    It is not the first time the MSM are creating their version of history. A couple of years back I exchanged a few emails with “The Economist” on when really India performed the first nuclear test. 1978 didn’t fit with their interpretation of the nuclear arm race in the area, so they invented 1998 (I think) and stick to their own, improved version of history. I still keep the emails…

  4. So, according to Barack Obama, if you are “anxious” about the foreign policy of the United States, the correct response is to kill American soldiers and generally commit acts of war against the United States.
    And the proper American response to that is no-strings-attached negotations with the intent of appeasing the Iranians on whatever issue they want to be appeased on.
    Tell me again, how was this idiot ever considered a serious candidate? This is the first and hopefully last time I will ever say this: thank God for Hillary Clinton. Without her, Barack would undoubtedly be the Dem front-runner and what a mess we’d be in then.

  5. Kathy from Austin
    No, a child isn’t expected to know better. That’s why we don’t let children occupy the Whitehouse.
    No, he’s a Democrat; htey started working on surrender 50 years ago and haven’t stopped since.

  6. “So, according to Barack Obama, if you are “anxious” about the foreign policy of the United States, the correct response is to kill American soldiers and generally commit acts of war against the United States.”
    Of course. That’s straight from the State Department play book. “Why do they hate us?” handwringing. What can we do to be friends?
    In contrast, if you’re an ally of the US (e.g. Israel), you get your teeth kicked in.
    Wonder why we have all the enemies, when all of the incentives coming out of the State Department, seem to reward our enemies and penalize our allies.

  7. The question no MSM journalist would dare ask Obama:
    Senator Obama, to what extent, if at all, does your father being a Muslim and your upbringing and schooling as a Muslim in your youth impact your sympathies, ideological predispositions, affinities and policy stances in regard to the Muslim community and Islamic nations?
    Fair question, therefore don’t count on MSM to bother wading into that swamp.

  8. Iran is a study in lying to itself in some ways.
    Part of what drove them was they blamed the US for the secularism of Iran under the Shah.
    Examining that, even though there were many changes when they took over it is now many years later they are taking extreme measures against gays and other issues and tightening the rules on hair styles and women’s dress codes.
    Did the Koran get a revision in the last year or so, I think not.

  9. Kenton McCarthy says, “Senator Obama, to what extent, if at all, does your father being a Muslim and your upbringing and schooling as a Muslim in your youth impact your sympathies, ideological predispositions, affinities and policy stances in regard to the Muslim community and Islamic nations?”
    ———————————-
    That is such an ignorant statement. Should people ask your children, “Does your father being ignorant and spreading falsehoods, impact your sympathies, ideological predispositions, affinities and policy stances?” Obama was never raised as a Muslim. His father left him early in his life and he was raised primarily by his white grandparents from Kansas.

  10. Some of you also appear to be ignorant of the fact that after Iran helped the US in our battle against the Taliban, they offered in 2003 to engage in talks with the US and to settle long term disputes with the US and Israel. Rumsfeld unilaterally rejected their overtures.
    The Iraq war has lead to increased Iranian influence in the region by removing the main detterent to them (Saddam). One of the many easily forseen consequences to this war that Bush chose to ignore.

  11. Obama falls into the trap of assuming that every other nation’s foreign policy is merely a reaction to America’s foreign policy. Iran is acting out it’s own foreign policy — to spread its influence in the region and to be a world power. That isn’t a reaction to America, or Bush. Iran has supported Hezbollah & Islamic Jihad &c. in the region ever since the 1979 revolution, way before the US had any troops closer than a few guys patrolling the Sinai penninsula as per the Egyptian – Israeli peace treaty.
    Barack is woefully naive. That’s about the only point in Hillary’s favor — she isn’t naive.

  12. So, just one shot at diplomacy, and if it doesn’t work, send in the troops?
    Good thing the Bush administration didn’t follow this thinking when engaging North Korea.

  13. Tom:
    Bush ended up falling back on the same combination of bribes and concessions that he criticized the Clinton administration for making.
    What was the result? While we were making nice diplomatic efforts to “solve” the problem of nK nuclear weapons they were busy proliferating nuclear weapons technology to Syria and God knows where else.
    Why is it that some people never seem to believe what totalitarian governments say about their objectives? They always “know” that this just for “internal” consumption and that they really want the same things that we want. The level of hubris is amazing.

  14. Triangulating Iran

    From the NYT: In an hourlong interview on Wednesday, Mr. Obama made clear that forging a new relationship with Iran would be a major element of what he pledged would be a broad effort to stabilize Iraq as he executed…

  15. Jerry — Why is that conservatives never learn? People may disagree with their countries’ leaders, but when attacked by a third party they will unconditionally support their government.
    There is a large number of Iranians who are pro-American and who are being supressed by their government. Instead of encouraging their efforts at changing the country from within, let’s go to war with Iran and force moderates in Iran to support their government. Great idea.

  16. Teresa:
    I asked you once before and you never answered so I will ask again.
    Do you believe that the Iranian government rhetoric about their desire to acquire nuclear weapons and their objective to destroy an American ally Israel are merely rhetoric to placate “extremists” or is in fact an honest statement of their regional political objectives?
    Please explain your answer and also please show some originality and stay away from preplanned so-called leftist talking points.
    (I offer Tom an opportunity to give a go as well)

  17. If you’re wondering why Iran rejected this offer you need read only the Captain’s own post:
    “Meanwhile, the US intends on focusing its efforts on democratization and mobilizing the growing groundswell of discontent with the mullahcracy in Teheran. As Iran comes ever closer to the tipping point, the Bush administration wants to be sure that the American touch that triggers it is as light as possible.”
    You can give with one hand and take with the other, but don’t call it a good faith negotiation.

  18. >It comes as no surprise that neither Obama nor
    >the Times realizes that the WTO offer had
    >already been made by the Bush administration
    >and rejected by the Iranians.
    Ed, I really think that the Democrats (Obama) believe that the reason those offers in the past have failed is precisely because they were made by the Bush Administration. I don’t know if it is arrogance or naivete, but it seems that democrats truly think they are the party of peace and that outlaw regimes will react more favorably to them than the war-mongering republicans. They really think that Clinton and Albright had some kind of success with North Korea and we all know how that turned out.
    The Dems keep talking about diplomacy-diplomacy-diplomacy as if their brand would garner better results than the current administration. It is really sad to realize that they have apparently confused appeasement with diplomacy and have no understanding of our enemies.

  19. Theresa,
    Jimmy Carter didn’t go to war when the Iranian regime took 500 hostages.
    How’s that one working out?
    Guess that bought us a lot of “moderate” support.
    The sort of “moderate” support that supports the execution of 16 year old girls for the crime of being molested.
    We can wait 1000 years for the “moderates” in Iran to topple the Mullahs. The few that do challenge the Mullahs have been tortured, shot and imprisoned.
    Without a peep of objection from the neo-totalitarian left, BTW.

  20. Jerry:
    The hard right elements of the Iranian government, represented by MA, certainly want nukes as a means of gaining respect and power in the region. Perhaps they would use them in a first strike against Israel, as crazy as they would be. There’s no way to know and we don’t need to agree on that question.
    The more practical issue is that they don’t want nukes so bad they would sink their economy over it. Thus building a coalition that includes the Russians, the Chinese, and the Saudis, becomes of prime importance, and the clock is ticking.
    The administration’s bluster has hamstrung us into a situation where we must use military force, or risk losing face. In the bluffing game, big nations are at a disadvantage, and the Iran-U.S. diplomatic standoff has illustrated that dynamic beautifully.

  21. “Iran’s support for militant groups in Iraq reflected its anxiety over the Bush administration’s”
    Of course, Iran has supported “militant” groups throughout the mideast long before Bush 43 was a blip on the radar.
    But it’s still Dubya’s fault.

  22. All the discussion is likely academic, since the chances are Iran will make the first nuclear test before the next presidential inauguration (here comes a bonus: it is all Bush fault).
    It’ll never happen. Remember several weeks ago when the Israelis unilterally took out those Syrian assets with no warning? Get ready for a rerun of that event and Osirik, because it’s coming in the fairly near future.
    Israel will never under any circumstances permit Iran to complete the bomb, because to do so means their country is finished. They’re the first target, not the U.S.

  23. NoDonkey, acknowledging the moderate element of Iranian society is not the same as waiting for it to ovethrow the mullahs. It won’t, anytime soon. But we still have to foster it while pushing sanctions more intelligently. Then moderate elements will be a big force in bringing internal pressure to bear for relinquishment of a military nuke program.
    The “waiting for the moderates to topple the mullahs” is a popular strawman on the hard right.

  24. Obama and others are playing to an audience that for the most part can’t even find Iran on a world map. They are relying on decades of indoctrination on being non-judgemental in order to get that same audience to rally behind them.
    Negotiate?
    To what end?
    Who are the key players?
    What is their constituency?
    What is their ability to achive their goals?
    What is their ability to establish influence and power to achieve those goals?
    What is their relative strength among their constitutencies?
    What are their demands?
    What will they willingly part with?
    What will they part with with some reluctance?
    What will they never part with to the point of death?
    There are some world leaders who would rather see their countires disappear in a cloud of flame and smoke before giving in an inch. There are others who will stop short of this, but at the same time make it very costly for any other player to come close to that end. There are some world leaders who would never risk the immediate well-being of their populations at any cost. There are some leaders who hold on to power by their finger tips. There are some who hold on to absolute power absolutely.
    Obama, and others, make a large mistake when they view negotiating and talking as an end in and of itself, not a beginning. They also make a large mistake when they talk about the legitimate concerns/needs of an opposing actor in the vacuum. “Liebensraum” was a legitimate concern by one actor at one time. Having hegemony over a greater co-prosperity sphere was a legitimate concern by another. Imposing world peace globally under a unitary centralized policial belief was another legitimate concern at one time.
    We are not talking about sitting around on the living room floor dividing up candy from Trick-or-Treat night.
    Iran has been talking for well over a decade. So have we. So have the Euros. There are several actors in this Iran play with a lot to lose, and there are some with nothing to lose. There are actors who are more than willing to let one or two or three other actors lose large in order for themn to win large. China and Russia are such actors presently.
    But merely talking accomplishes what?
    Yes, there are some who suggest that talking is better than war. With rational actors, with commonality of beliefs, this is true.
    But with irrational actors this is playing into their game plan. Iran is one such irrational actor.
    Their aims, goals and fully ennunciated objectives have been made clear year after year. Obama, and others, choose to ignore them and impose their own matrix over what they believe they think Iran might have said.
    Go ahead, Obama, talk to the Iranians. Take as long as you wish.
    But before you do, what are you willing to give up freely? What are you willing to give up with a bit of reluctance? What are you never willing to give up to the point of death? And, by the way, are all the rest of the 300 million here in the U.S. fully in tune with your vision and willingness to give up any of it?
    And while you are talking, what is happening elsewhere? While you are talking to the Iranians, what are they doing to promote their own goals, aims and objectives? And what if they are still talking when they achieve those aims, goals and objectives? Clearly you will have won the majority of debating points…but at what cost?

  25. “Then moderate elements will be a big force in bringing internal pressure to bear for relinquishment of a military nuke program.”
    How much “moderate” power is there? I mean, c’mon. The Mullahs hung a 16 old girl in the street for adultery. They stone people there. That’s about as extreme as it gets. Stuff like that doesn’t even happen in Alabama. Legally, anyway.
    I don’t think the Mullahs give a hoot in hell about the “moderates”. And their “President” puppet is an “The World Will End in (Fill in Date Here)” kind of guy. He’s not the kind of guy you place out front, if the “moderates” have any influence at all. He’s a “I’m a certified lunatic and I’m going to tell you so you know”, kind of guy.
    And when it comes to analyzing the Iranians, I’d take Homer Simpson over Obama:
    Marge : Can we get rid of this Ayatollah tee shirt? Kohmehni died years ago.
    Homer : But Marge, it works on any Ayatollah: Ayatollah Nachbudah, Ayatollah Dahadi. Even as we speak, Ayatollah Rasmarah and his cadre of fanatics are consolidating their power.

  26. Biwah
    Your analysis is right out of the 1980s when the same cast of characters warned Reagan that the latest Soviet Premier (Brezhnev, Chernenko, Andropov, etc) were closet moderates who had to hold back he extremists.
    Your argument that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad represnt the leader of an “extremist” faction is variant of that argument. The ruling Mullah’s in Iran are the real power in Iran and have been since 1979. If Ahmadinejad were not carrying out the program endorsed by the Grand Ayatollah Khamenei then he wouldn’t be President of Iran.
    Iran has consistently pursued a polity to dominate the region and empower terrorist organizations like Hezbollah to control Lebanon and attack Israel since the 1979 revolution. This is a consistent theme in Iranian policy.
    Your faith in the moderates’ ability to change the system is ridiculous. Have you bothered to read in the papers about how the government treats moderates? Oh yeah, you get your news from the MSM don’t you?

  27. Jerry says, “Do you believe that the Iranian government rhetoric about their desire to acquire nuclear weapons and their objective to destroy an American ally Israel are merely rhetoric to placate “extremists” or is in fact an honest statement of their regional political objectives?”
    ———————
    I have no doubt that Iran wants to acquire nuclear weapons. So do most of the countries of the world. However, I do not believe that you can give me a single example of Iran working in an irrational manner — one which endangers THEIR national interests — in the last 30 years. They know — as we do — that Israel has nukes and second strike capabilities. I don’t believe they would attempt to strike Isreal and insure the utter destruction of their nation.
    I see no problem in negotiating with Iran in order to come to some agreement about things that would be in their national interest short of nuclear weapons. We sure didn’t turn down their help in dealing with the Taliban in Afghanistan. Apparently the Bush administration found them quite sane at that point.
    On the other hand, a military strike at Iran at this point would probably insure that they flood Iraq with weapons and soldiers endangering our military, close the straits of Hormuz causing world oil prices to climb precipitously, and pull the US into a dangerous confrontation with the Putin and the Russians. Oh, that’s right, your hero George Bush looked into Putin’s eyes and saw he was a good guy. No worries there.

  28. If I hadto guess? Obama stands as much chance as being elected President of the United States, as Ralph Nader. Hubert Humphrey. George McGovern. Eugene McCarthy. And, Dukakis. I’ll even throw in Gore. And, Kerry.
    But Obama does ONE THING. He attracts Blacks; and perhaps some muslim votes. He’s no Dr. Dean, though. Who did attract the base; before he was zipped off-stage.
    The other thing? We will know by Febrary 5th, when we have “monster primary Tuesday.” And, we see if people prefer “walking over” and voting for a name on the other side of the divide.
    An old game. Back when Ike was first coming up; and had to dance through the primaries (where he swore to people he was a Conservative), the true conservative was Taft. Taft got buried.
    Then, Adlai Stevenson got buried (twice), in the “nationals.”
    Well, Americans do great political theater.
    I expect the show to remain interesting, because the pot’s being stirred by professionals. It’s good business for advertisers and marketeers. And, they feed the mainstream. Yes. When there’s money to be made, Barnum wasn’t the only one with his eye on the cash register.
    Oh, if you want a GREAT laugh, today! OT.
    The Jerusalem Post is running an article, that arabs, who watch Al-Jazz-Ira, are getting told the USA delivered nuclear blows to the syrian sites. And, two of them were taken out. All the Jews did was “halp.” By flying jets in to “protect” the USA aircraft.
    Well, so far, Olmert and Ehud Barak, remain mum.
    Though, yeah. There was that “apologetic routine. Must have been stolen from Jackie Mason, though. “Head to foot,” “rear-to-front,” I apologize, for doing nothing, in every direction.

  29. I love the Chamberlain-style assurances from “progressives” that Iran can be trusted to act rationally and responsibly.
    What these idiots forget is that the reason we supported Iraq in the Iran-Iraq War was because Iran had declared itself the central exporter of violent Islamic jihad.
    The current president of Iran has said several times that the world must convert to Islam and accept Iran as its leader.
    Iran is now supporting global Islamic terrorism, and it is pursuing nuclear weapons. It has built up Hezbollah and Hamas into near-armies, for the express purpose of taking over Lebanon and attacking Israel. Iran is also making territorial claims on Sunni Arab Gulf states, threatening to take them by force.
    But we should trust the Iranians, because they’re not going to do anything dumb.
    The only dummies are the people who’ve buried their heads in the sand rather than face the unpleasant fact that we’re already at war with Iran, a war that we need to win.
    These same dummies also said that if we attacked Iraq, the Iraqis would rally to Saddam, which of course they didn’t. The Iraqi army refused to fight, for th most part, and the population didn’t take up arms.
    I’m betting the same thing would happen in Iran.

  30. Here’s a reassuring quote for the Chamberlain ostriches who insist that Iran wouldn’t attack Israel with nukes:
    http://tinyurl.com/24zblh
    Iranian Cleric: Muslims Could Nuke Israel
    Ruling Iranian cleric Ayatollah Ali Akbar Hashemi-Rafsanjani declared Friday that the Muslim world could survive a nuclear exchange with Israel–while accomplishing the goal of obliterating the Jewish state.
    “[The] application of an atomic bomb would not leave anything in Israel–but the same thing would just produce damages in the Muslim world,” Hashemi-Rafsanjani said, in quotes picked up by the Iran Press Service.
    “If a day comes when the world of Islam is duly equipped with the arms Israel has in possession, the strategy of colonialism would face a stalemate,” he posited.

  31. Pssst – Tom W., Rafsanjani is one of the “moderates” Obama is depending on.
    “The former president, who is considered more moderate than current hard-line President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, defeated Ayatollah Ahmad Jannati, an extremist within the hard-line camp.”
    http://archive.gulfnews.com/articles/07/09/04/10151350.html
    Y’know, Hermann Goering was kind of a moderate Nazi. We should have sat down with him prior to meddling in WWII.

  32. Teresa:
    I see that you have given as good try as possible.
    Iran’s so-called rational behavior is based upon their observation that they can literally get away with murder without intervention from the West. Whether it is their use of Hezbollah to murder Jews in Argentina to their instigation of the mini-war to the murder of regime dissidents in foreign countries Iran has gotten away without paying price. At this point they believe when push comes to shove the West will back down and let continue to get away international murder and mayhem. This concept the Iran is a rational actor is another leftist meme. Iran acts as rationally as Hitler did when he invaded Poland. He had good reason to believe that Poland’s allies would do nothing if he attacked. After all why would Britain and France sell out democratic Czechoslovakia and defend autocratic Poland.
    I see you have avoided answering the question about Israel. Why is this? You need to understand that at the very least a nuclear Iran buys immunity from retaliation from their continued use of Hezbollah and perhaps Hamas to work out their plan to destroy Israel and its people. At some point Israel would no longer tolerate a threat to its existence and strike out at Iran undoubtedly sparking a regional nuclear war. Iran in possession of nuclear weapons is not a threat if Iran acts like normal nation. Iranian rhetoric and behavior shows that they are not a normal nation.
    I would like to disabuse you of any notion that the Iranian leadership cares one whit for the Palestinians. Persians view Arabs as an inferior subject people. They wouldn’t really care if the Palestinians died alongside the Jews as collateral damage.

  33. Among voters, there’s bile, rising.
    A lot of people, who’ve already spent time “holding their noses” … might make an Independent run possible?
    What if Gore wants to pitch?
    In other words, Gore doesn’t think he owes the right time of day to the CLinton’s.
    He also thinks he was “denied.”
    He’s got a Nobel, now.
    Oh, and he’s loaded! I think he’s made something like $150-million … selling his movie …
    What if he comes in “to spoil?”
    He doesn’t touch Rudy.
    But if he could get 8% of the vote … He’d have matching funds. You think he’ll sweat for this?
    I’m just not sure, that once we through with our “early primary” … that this kettle of fish just doesn’t go and spill all over the floor.
    The news media? They’ll follow anything that brings headlines. Even Brittney Spears.
    Just when you think you’ve figured out there’s gonna be two candidates; perhaps the lady and the Italian guy … Something’s gonna come sailing out of left field.
    Because? It won’t be seen as strong choices.
    Yeah, Ron Paul will be up there, too. Just to keep the pack interested in throwing red meat.

  34. Theresa or any leftist troll,
    You say:
    “I don’t believe they would attempt to strike Isreal and insure the utter destruction of their nation.”
    and then you say:
    “I see no problem in negotiating with Iran in order to come to some agreement about things that would be in their national interest short of nuclear weapons”
    Well if Iran can be deterred and is thus no serious threat to the US, Europe, or Israel then why should we negotiate with them? According to the left an Iranian nuclear arsenal is as much of a danger to us as the British nuclear arsenal.
    So why should we offer them carrots to halt a nuclear program that is no threat to us?! Do you people realize how dumb you sound?

  35. “But he asserted that Iran’s support for militant groups in Iraq reflected its anxiety over the Bush administration’s policies in the region, including talk of a possible American military strike on Iranian nuclear installations.”
    Apparently Mr. Obama, and a lot of his supporters, have forgotten that Iran’s current government came to power by the use of militant groups. That government maintains that power through the use of said groups. They are trying to extend that power into other countries by the use of said groups (think Syria and Lebanon). Just how can Mr. Obama expect to convince Iran stop supporting the very people it’s ruling party needs to achieve, maintain, and expand their influence? We’ve been trying that approve since the 70’s and it hasn’t worked. More of the same isn’t a valid policy. We need a policy that actually works.

Comments are closed.