A Kid-Gloves Approach to Iran Still Stumbles

President Obama has opted to take a very delicate, non-committal stance toward Iran and its elections, saying that he doesn’t want to alienate whichever section of the government comes into power in the face of some of the large diplomatic issues facing the region.  He has not stood in support of the protesters looking for a fair election, but has seemed to step back to await the outcome.  Even some of the main members of the Obama administration would like to see a stronger stance, including Vice President Biden, and Secretary of State Clinton.  Here is an account of the position he has taken:

Senior members of the administration, including Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, would like to strike a stronger tone in support of the protesters, administration officials said.

Other White House officials have counseled a more cautious approach, saying harsh criticism of the government or endorsement of the protests could have the paradoxical effect of discrediting the protesters and making them seem as if they were led by Americans. So far, Mr. Obama has largely followed that script, criticizing violence against the protesters, but saying that he does not want to be seen as meddling in Iranian domestic politics…

But several administration officials acknowledged that Mr. Obama might run the risk of coming across on the wrong side of history at a potentially transformative moment in Iran.

The administration’s concern over how to calibrate the response to the protests in Iran reflects the competing goals Mr. Obama is trying to balance: keeping faith with democracy advocates in Iran while not staking out a position that is so tough that it kills any chance of engagement with the Iranian government on America’s national security interests, including the Iranian nuclear program and Iran’s support for militant Islamist organizations like Hamas and Hezbollah.

For all President’s Obama’s tiptoeing around the issue of Iran’s elections, he has also made the mistake of a comment that almost seems to disregard the election’s importance, and could crucially affect the relationship between the United States and Iran later on:

[President Obama] said in an interview on Tuesday with The New York Times and CNBC that from an American national security perspective, there was not much difference between President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Mir Hussein Moussavi, his closest competitor in the election.

“Either way,” Mr. Obama said, the United States is “going to be dealing with an Iranian regime that has historically been hostile to the United States, that has caused some problems in the neighborhood and is pursuing nuclear weapons.”

The remark struck critics as off key and dismissive toward Mr. Moussavi, when he has become a symbol of freedom and democracy in Iran. “Obama’s posture has been very equivocal, without a clear message,” said Representative Eric Cantor, a Virginia Republican who is the House minority whip. “Now is the time for us to show our support with the Iranian people. I would like to see a strong statement from him that has moral clarity.”

President Obama’s policy toward Iran seems to be weak, with some critical missteps and errors throughout.  If the New York Times is right when it says, “the United States is in a more delicate position than other countries because of its enormous symbolism in Iran, where ‘Death to the United States’ is still chanted at Friday Prayer,” one might think the best foreign policy would be one of strength, rather than weakness.

Obama provides weak response to N. Korea and Iran

There has been a lot of global happenings this past week.  Iran recently had an election where the current president received the popular vote.  But with that popular vote, there are calls of corruption and that the vote was tainted.  Currently, Iran is trying to define itself and figure out how to handle the problem.  How does Obama respond?  He doesn’t want the US to appear as meddling in the affairs of Iran. The problem is that was not the appropriate response.  As stated by the writer at www.stoptheaclu.com

From yesterday

But at the same time, Obama said it would not be helpful if the United States was seen by the world as “meddling” in the issue.

Today

Iran accused the United States on Wednesday of “intolerable” meddling in its internal affairs, alleging for the first time that Washington has fueled a bitter postelection dispute. Opposition supporters marched in Tehran’s streets for a third straight day to protest the outcome of the balloting.

Looks like President Neophyte is getting school (yet again) on how foreign affairs works. Maybe now he will step up and call for freedom, openness, fairness, etc? Oh, sorry, that was me just dreaming a bit.

Obama is new and he’s learning on the job.  This is what we don’t want or need as president.  He is a disgrace.  Now this morning we hear that North Korea has plans to fire a missle in the the direction of Hawaii.  While the missile has a range of 4000 miles and Hawaii is 4500 miles away, that is not acceptable.    Obama doesn’t make any comment.  He can only “hope” that North Korea will return to the “talks”.

What would another country do?  Let’s take Israel.  They wouldn’t put up with it.  They’d launch their F-16’s to take out the launch site and anything else that threatened them.  How about the US?  We stay quiet and hope that we one day will grow a back bone.  Obama is the leader of the United States and he has done nothing with regard to North Korea.  He has done noting in regard to Iran.  He is sitting there hoping things will get better on their own.

Obama Says Iran has Right to Nuclear Energy

In another naive interview given by Obama, he suggested that Iran may have some right to nuclear energy. The only stipulation is that Iran “prove” that it’s aspirations are peaceful.  Obama has now given propaganda material to Iran.  They will use this to say, “See, even the US says we should have Nuclear Power.”  The content of the interview will now make it harder for the US or the United Nations to deter the proliferation of nuclear technology.  But, the comments by Obama do not only affect Iran, it also affects other countries.  Will Obama continue to be dumb?  What will he do next?  Next thing you know he will be traveling to North Korea and saying they have a right to nuclear power.  Obama has set a dangerous precedent.

Obama was quoted saying:

What I do believe is that Iran has legitimate energy concerns, legitimate aspirations…

Legitimate energy concerns?  They’re a member of OPEC.  They have a bunch of oil?  So now they need nuclear?  What are their legitimate aspirations?  To eliminate Israel off the face of the earth?  Obama doesn’t think.  Obama is then quoted saying the following with regard to the time line.

Although I don’t want to put artificial time tables on that process, we do want to make sure that, by the end of this year, we’ve actually seen a serious process move forward. And I think that we can measure whether or not the Iranians are serious.

Does Obama actually think that Iran will comply with US demands? We’ve known that Iran has been working on nuclear technology for a couple of years.  They’ve had plenty of time to show that they are serious.  I think when Obama says serious, he’s going to wait until Iran has missiles fitted with nuclear warheads.

The following is the end of the article.

Obama leaves in the evening on a trip to Egypt and Saudi Arabia aimed at reaching out to the world’s 1.5 billion Muslims. He is due to make his speech in Cairo on Thursday.

Obama sounded an optimistic note about making progress toward resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, although he offered no new ideas for how he might try to secure a freeze on new building of Israeli settlements. The United States has called for a freeze, but Israeli leaders have rejected that.

Asked what he would say during his visit about human rights abuses, including the detention of political prisoners in Egypt, Obama indicated no stern lecture would be forthcoming.

He said he hoped to deliver the message that democratic values are principles that “they can embrace and affirm.”

Obama added that there is a danger “when the United States, or any country, thinks that we can simply impose these values on another country with a different history and a different culture.”

So, we can’t impose our values on another country?  Does the same also apply in reverse?  It appears that Iran and a few of the other countries are trying to impose their values on the United States.  Using this statement from Obama, this means that we should not be lecturing China about human rights violations.  We should not be lecturing Israel on how to handle the Palestinian conflict.  Obama contradicts himself in more than one way in this article.  Obama continues to disappoint and continues to be dumb.

Will Obama Stand With Israel or Trust Iran?

President Obama’s upcoming meeting with Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu could speak volumes about the Obama administration’s new foreign policies, especially how much the United States will continue to be an ally of Israel.  According to an editorial in the Christian Science Monitor, Obama has mostly threatened his friends and made “friends” with his enemies during the early period of his time in office:

The Obama doctrine in foreign policy is to squeeze friends into changing their ways and to disarm American adversaries with charm.  It is a long way from the Bush theme of squeezing enemies and largely ignoring friends. But then, President Bush basically wanted one certain result – no follow-up attack on the US by Al Qaeda. Over seven years, he was successful, although at a cost in lives, civil liberties, and America’s reputation…

As Obama writes this book – call it “How to Influence Friends and Win Over Enemies” – he must remember that such methods are merely tactical. It’s unclear whether they will bring results…  As a professed pragmatist, one more eager to fix America’s problems first without the distractions of foreign problems, Obama at some point may need to confront adversaries more and friends less.

President Obama sent a message to Netanyahu in preparation for his visit to the President along the lines of this new “policy”:

[Obama  demanded] that Israel not surprise the U.S. with an Israeli military operation against Iran. The message was conveyed by a senior American official who met in Israel with Netanyahu, ministers and other senior officials.  Obama did not wait for his White House meeting with Netanyahu, scheduled for next Monday, to deliver his message, but rather sent it ahead of time with his envoy.

Iran’s development of nuclear weaponry poses a huge threat to Israel, as its president has an unswerving hatred for Israel.  Israel’s countermessage as reported in the New York Times is this:

The Israeli government, officials said, has assured the United States that it will not take military action against Iran without first consulting Washington. But it has also signaled that it will give the United States only a year or so to show that its good-will approach is getting results.

Israel is a loyal U.S. ally, with a strongly democratic government.  It is surrounded by mostly Islamic-based governments in turmoil, full of terrorist groups vieing for power who want nothing less than to see the total end of Israel as a country.  Treaties mean almost nothing to militant terrorist groups, as you can read here in an account of Pakistan’s dealings and its internal problems with a Taliban group bent on full government takeover.  Who will Obama trust to meet his demands?  Is he communicating strength or weakness to those who are full of hatred toward Israel and the U.S.?