Filed under: Afghanistan, Democrat Corruption, Foreign Policy, Iran, Iraq, Islam, Israel, Politics | Tags: Diplomatic Ties, Saudi Arabia, U.S. Foreign Policy
And on the Foreign Policy front, all is not well either. So how is that vow to “repair America’s frayed alliances” supposedly frayed and battered by the Bush administration working out?
The Kingdom is not keeping secret any longer its disgust with the administration’s policy drift in the Middle East. Prince Turki al Faisal, the former Saudi ambassador in Washington explained his view of the deal Washington struck with Moscow over Syria’s chemical weapons.
“The current charade of international control over Bashar’s chemical arsenal,” the Prince told a London audience, “would be funny if it were not so blatantly perfidious, and designed not only to give Mr. Obama an opportunity to back down, but also to help Assad butcher his people.” It’s a rare occasion when a Saudi royal has the moral standing to lecture an American President, but this was one of them.
The Saudis asked the U.S. to beef up our naval presence in the Persian Gulf against a potential Iranian counter-strike, only to be told that we didn’t have the ships. Mr. Obama was nonchalant about our shrinking Navy. But there are consequences for our actions on the international scene.
If you look at foreign newspapers, it is surprising how much of their “news” is devoted to America and what we’re doing, whether it’s fads or politics or policy. Americans, on the other hand, probably because we live in a big country with major cities across the U.S., don’t really pay much attention to what is going on elsewhere. Part of that is simply language. Most other countries learn English as their second language, Most Americans take a language course in high school, but never learn to speak one.
Mr. Obama has been quite clear that he wants the U.S. to be just another nation among other nations, not a superpower. He opposed the Iraq War as a “dumb war” with no understanding of why we were there, and assumed that the only reason for being in Afghanistan was to “get” bin Laden, which he couldn’t quite bring himself to order when it came to it, until forced into it. We had won the Iraq war, but V.P. Biden could not arrange a status-of-forces agreement, and when al Qaeda in Iraq returned and started killing Iraqis, their foreign minister begged for us to return, but too late. The War in Afghanistan was to be conducted “nicely,” with our troops training Afghan recruits with unloaded weapons to show our niceness, which got a lot of our troops killed. I would be willing to bet that Mr. Obama has never seen a military movie, nor read either any military history, nor any of the great military novels. I may be wrong.
The troubles with Saudi Arabia have been developing for some time. David Ignatius wrote that “Saudi officials in Riyadh that they told him that they increasingly regarded the U.S. as unreliable and would look elsewhere for their security. in 2011.” They were dismayed when we deposed Mubarak and even more so when we backed the Muslim Brotherhood’s Morsi. They are afraid of the Iran/Syria nuclear adventurism, as are many other countries in the Middle East, with reason. The Syrian rebels have learned that there really aren’t any red lines, and any adversary can call our bluff. Obama is more eager to court enemies than reassure friends, as the Poles and Czechs have learned, when we withdrew ballistic-missile defense as a way to appease the Russians.
Fouad Ajami explains the problems of the Obama foreign policy cogently in a piece at the Wall Street Journal today, which may be behind a subscription barrier, but read it if you can.
We must not underestimate the tenacity of this regime and its will to rule. We should see through the rosy Twitter messages of President Hasan Rouhani, and the PowerPoint presentations of his foreign minister, Mohammed Jawad Zarif. These men carry out the writ of the supreme leader and can only go as far as the limit drawn by the Revolutionary Guard. …
The gullibility of Mr. Obama’s pursuit of an opening with Iran has unsettled America’s allies in the region. In Jordan, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates there is a powerful feeling of abandonment. In Israel, there is the bitter realization that America’s strongest ally in region is now made to look like the final holdout against a blissful era of compromise that will calm a turbulent region. A sound U.S. diplomatic course with Iran would never have run so far ahead of Israel’s interests and of the region’s moderate anti-Iranian Arab coalition.
Filed under: Foreign Policy, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Middle East, National Security, The United States | Tags: Middle East History, The Middle East, U.S. Foreign Policy
Secretary of State John Kerry spoke at the 2013 World Economic Forum on the Middle East and North Africa held in Jordan. He unveiled a plan to boost the Palestinian economy. The plan is based on $4 Billion in new funding and seems to carry the endorsement of many foreign leaders. The idea is that we can buy peace in the Middle East. Good Luck with that.
The idea is to mobilize some $4 billion of investment. A team of experts — private citizens, donating their time — are analyzing the opportunities in tourism construction,m light manufacturing, building materials, energy, agriculture, and information and communications technology. The group will make recommendations to the Palestinians. They’re not going to decide anything. The Palestinians will decide that in their normal course of governance, But they will analyze and make recommendations on a set of choices that can dramatically lift the economy.
Former Prime Minister Tony Blair and the folks working with him believe that we can lift the Palestinian GDP by as much as 50 percent over three years. They foresee enough new jobs to cut unemployment by nearly two-thirds — to 8% down from 21% today and increase the median annual wage by as much as 40 %. Prime Minister Blair has always been an optimist. But the Obama administration is determined that the “Peace Process” will work. Obama does not change his mind.
“Secretary of State John Kerry says that it’s now or never for Israelis and Palestinians to reach agreement on a two-state solution. Interestingly, neither Israeli nor Palestinian officials have any idea what Kerry is talking about.” That’s Lee Smith writing at Tablet magazine. A few recent headlines while we were paying attention to other things:
“Assad on the March” Wall Street Journal
“Count Me Out on Syria” Victor Davis Hanson
John Kerry, as the Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, was the man known to have Bashar Assad on his speed dial. Perhaps he’s been doing some re-thinking since Assad has used nerve gas on his people, and turned into a monster. You probably won’t want to read all of those links, but the headlines give you a sense of the state of things.
Here’s another: “Obama’s Iraq Surrender,” Front Page Magazine, May 31.
But a far bigger part of the picture is the accelerating destabilization of Iraq. The breakdown of Iraq, with its far-reaching regional ramifications, is attributable in no small part to President Obama’s abandonment of the U.S.’s mission in the country, a betrayal committed in total defiance of the military establishment’s recommendations, which squandered the hard-won victory handed down by President Bush. As predicted, our precipitous withdrawal has left the once pacified nation riven with sectarian strife, primarily among Sunni and Shia Muslims and the Kurds. As the region descends, the consequences of Obama’s folly are only becoming more obvious: a nation that once stood a chance at being a source of stability in the region is instead rapidly becoming its maelstrom.
Whether or not you agree with that paragraph, the article continues with a clear description of the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire in 1916, and the secret agreement between Sir Mark Sykes of Britain and George Picot of France, with Russia’s approval to create Middle East spheres of influence for France and Great Britain following their victory in WWI. The borders created to satisfy European sensibilities largely ignored the realities of historic ethnic, tribal and sectarian divisions which were exacerbated by the rise of dictators, tyrants and Arab monarchs who maintained power after the French and British withdrew in the middle of the last century.
It’s a good summary of the background of the Middle East, and useful for those of us who struggle to understand what’s going on, the actions of our own government, and what we think about it.
Filed under: Economy, Foreign Policy, Israel, Middle East, National Security, Progressivism | Tags: The "Peace Process", The State of Israel, U.S. Foreign Policy
Barack Obama’s first trip to Israel as President of the United States started off with the presidential limousine breaking down because his people put the wrong fuel in it. A metaphor? Probably.
Mr. Obama has long-expected one of his signature achievements as president would be producing peace in the Middle East by bringing the “peace process” to a satisfactory conclusion. He has believed the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to be the cause of all Middle East problems, and he would just demand they sit down and talk.
Obama had some nice words in a speech to the Israeli people, then talked down to them. Then he had the extraordinarily bad judgment to give a speech in Ramallah on the West Bank, in front of a gigantic banner of Yassir Arafat, He actually said this:
I think it’s important for us to work through this [peace] process, even if there are irritants on both sides. The Israelis have concerns about rockets flying into their cities last night. And it would be easy for them to say, you see, this is why we can’t have peace because we can’t afford to have our kids in beds sleeping and suddenly a rocket comes through the roof. But my argument is even though both sides may have areas of strong disagreement [sic], may be engaging in activities that the other side considers to be a breach of good faith [sic], we have to push through those things to try to get to an agreement — because if we get an agreement then it will be very clear what the nature of that agreement is: There will be a sovereign Palestinian state, a sovereign Jewish State of Israel.
And those two states I think will be able to deal with each other the same way all states do. I mean, the United States and Canada has [sic] arguments once in a while, but they’re not the nature of arguments that can’t be solved diplomatically. And I think we can keep pushing through some of these problems and make sure that we don’t use them as an excuse not to do anything.
Can he possibly believe that the problems between Israel and the Palestinians is in any way similar to our arguments with Canada? His arguments with Stephen Harper over the Keystone XL must have been far more acrimonious than we knew. Talk about trivializing murder! The Palestinians bring up their children to be terrorists, extolling being a suicide bomber.
Israel’s demands have always been simple. Stop shooting rockets at us, and recognize the Israeli’s right to their own state. Obama added:
[T]he United States remains committed to realizing the vision of two states, which is in the interests of the Palestinian people, and also in the national security interest of Israel, the United States, and the world. We seek an independent, a viable and contiguous Palestinian state as the homeland of the Palestinian people, alongside the Jewish State of Israel — two nations enjoying self-determination, security and peace.
A viable and contiguous Palestinian state? There is no peace process. And the troubles between Israel and the Palestinians is not the reason for conflict in the Middle East. I heard on the radio that some 30 percent of Palestinians would prefer to live in Israel.
The State Department announced that they will unblock $500 million in aid to the Palestinian Authority. Congress froze funding for the Palestinian Authority in the wake of the PA’s attempt to unilaterally declare statehood via the United Nations. Despite President Obama’s request to PA President Mahmoud Abbas not to go to the International Criminal Court to seek sanctions against Israel, Abbas, now in the ninth year of his four-year term, had vowed to do so.
Filed under: Election 2012, Foreign Policy, Intelligence, National Security, The United States | Tags: A Strong America Deters Wars, Real Leadership, U.S. Foreign Policy
“If America doesn’t lead, others will.”
That simple declaration in his foreign policy speech today at the Virginia Military Institute, Mitt Romney demonstrated his membership in the reality-based community. If America is perceived to be weak, others will move into the vacuum. President Obama’s hope-based, timid, naive foreign policy has already shown that what he understands as a move to make America just one among the many nations of the world, is perceived as weakness by other nations. President Obama has confused popularity with the public with the national interest.
A central truth of the last 200 years of American history is that American weakness harms us, and harms the world. Tyranny arises when America is weak. Americans may be weary of war, but there are fewer wars when America is strong. The consequences of apology and appeasement are apparent.
Ninety minutes after news of the attack on the consulate in Benghazi reached Washington, Obama, Secretary of State Clinton, JCS Chair General Martin Dempsey and a national security adviser met for an oval office meeting in which they ultimately rejected U.S. military intervention. Instead, they decided to reach out to the Libyan government to ask them to send reinforcements.
Ambassador Stevens had begged for reinforcements. When the U.S. Personnel at the consulate left the main building for what was supposed to be a safe house, the deployment of forces seemed moot. In hindsight, we might have sent aircraft from the base in Sicily. a show of force might have given the attackers second thoughts. The State Department dismissed this option as “unrealistic.” When the ambassador and the other three Americans were killed, Obama headed off for a Las Vegas fund-raiser.
Lt. Col Wood, head of the Special Forces Site Security Team in Libya, says his team left Libya in August, although he met daily with Stevens and security was a constant challenge. He said they tried to communicate the danger to State Department officials in Washington, but officials denied requests to boost security.
In Afghanistan, the Taliban mock the U.S. claiming that NATO forces are “fleeing Afghanistan” in “humiliation and disgrace.” Courageous CBS correspondent Lara Logan delivered a speech to about 1,000 influential people from government, politics, media and the legal and corporate arena, in downtown Chicago. Her message was derived from years of covering our Middle East wars.
There is this narrative coming out of Washington for the last two years, Logan said. It is driven in part by Taliban apologists who claim they are just the poor moderate gentler, kinder Taliban. It’s such nonsense.
Eleven years later, ‘they’ still hate us, now more than ever. The Taliban and al-Qaeda have not been vanquished. They’re coming back.
I chose this subject because one, I can’t stand, that there is a major lie being propagated.
Logan stepped way out of the “objective,” journalistic role. The audience was riveted as she told of plowing through reams of documents, and interviewing John Allen, the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan; Afghan President Hamid Karzai, and a Taliban commander trained by al-Qaida. The Taliban and al-Qaida are teaming up and recruiting new terrorists to do us deadly harm, she reports.
She made a passionate case that our government is downplaying the strength of our enemies in Afghanistan and Pakistan, as a rationale of getting us out of the longest war. We have been lulled into believing that the perils are in the past: “You’re not listening to what the people who are fighting you say about this fight. In your arrogance, you think you write the script.”
Our enemies are writing the story, she suggests, and there’s no happy ending for us.
Intelligence officials are angered by Obama administration cover up of intelligence on Iranian, al Qaeda surge in Egypt and Libya, reports Bill Gertz. Numerous classified reports reveal clear Iranian support for jihadists throughout North Africa and the Middle East, as well as al Qaeda penetration into Egypt and Libya.
Some have been encouraged by Obama’s “kill list” and using drones to attack terrorists as a less costly way to wage war, but not even the White House knows the drones’ body count. Government officials claim they are very-precise killing machines that never miss their targets, but other estimates suggest many civilian deaths, including children. Nobody knows. There is no serious evidence. The administration seems to consider every military-aged male in a hostile region to be a legitimate target. This may have long term repercussions.
Here is the transcript of Mitt Romney’s Foreign Policy Speech to VMI today. It was titled “The Mantle of Leadership.” Read the whole thing. I am encouraged.
Filed under: Capitalism, Election 2012, Foreign Policy, Middle East, National Security, The United States | Tags: All Hat-No Cattle, Moral Relativism, U.S. Foreign Policy
The president spoke to the United Nations this morning. Jennifer Rubin described it nicely:
President Obama is so soaked in the State Department/Western European/ leftist intellectual goo of moral relativism and disdain for core American values that I doubt he understood how offensive were his remarks at the United Nations today.
The Washington Post headline captured the spirit: “Attacks on U.S. missions and diplomats violated ideals.” Mmm. Strong words. He condemns intolerance, We must work towards a world where we are strengthened by our differences, and not defined by them. You can read the whole thing at the links. I did, and do not feel rewarded by the experience. It was about what you’d expect.
He could not come out and say it was a terrorist attack. We are doing everything the Islamists supposedly want us to do. He has gotten out of Iraq. He is getting out of Afghanistan. He has pandered and apologized. It was NOT about the video. The video is and was an excuse. Muslims are rioting all over the Middle East, and even burning Obama in effigy. Why — when he has done everything they want?
Because he is projecting weakness. They don’t think we’ll do anything except make nice speeches about violating ideals.
Can Obama still believe that there is only turmoil in the Middle East because Israel and Palestine haven’t made peace? And who will stop the Palestinians from shooting Rockets at Israel and teaching their little children to hate?
Filed under: Election 2012, Foreign Policy, National Security, The United States | Tags: Nine-Day Asia Pacific Tour, Obama Lectures European Leaders, U.S. Foreign Policy
Headline from Britain’s Daily Mail: “Obama reads riot act to European leaders in late night hone calls and orders them to take more dramatic action on debt crisis.”
President Obama made telephone calls to German Chancellor Angle Merkel, French President Nicolas Sarkosy and Italian President Giorgio Napolitano late Thursday night, demanding more dramatic action to avoid a eurozone meltdown. That must have gone over well.
Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner said “The crisis in Europe remains the central challenge to global growth. It is crucial that Europe move quickly to put in place a strong plan to restore financial stability.”
He added that all of the 21 Asia-Pacific Economic Community were directly affected by the Eurozone crisis and encouraged them to take steps to “strengthen growth in the face of these pressures from Europe.” He revealed that Obama was looking to hitch the U.S. economy to growth opportunities in Asia, where he is embarking on an eight day tour that he hoped would help power the recovery he needs for re-election.
So the president who has racked up more debt than all the rest of our presidents put together believes that the best thing he can take to the Asia-Pacific conference is that he has lectured Europe on their behalf. Think they’ll buy that?
In the meantime, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton spoke to the National Democratic Institute in Washington, saying that “Situations vary dramatically from country to country.”
The Obama administration’s decision to not intervene in Syria and Bahrain stems from a variety of factors, including the perceived risk to U.S. forces, the imperatives of the fight against al-Qaeda, and the need to defend American allies and to keep foreign oil supplies flowing, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said Monday night. …
In Syria, Butcher Assad has killed over 3500 of his own people, but the administration has resisted all calls for intervention. In Bahrain, the ruling monarchy has cracked down on Shiite protesters who are, they say, promoted by Iran.
There will be times when not all of our interests align…that is just reality, Clinton said.
That’s for sure. For the folks at home, Obama is happy to remind us that we are not exceptional, and just one among many equal nations. Then, turnabout, he feels free to lecture the heads of state in Europe as if he were president of the world, with some sort of expertise in economics that gives him the right to chew them out.
American foreign policy must be bewildering for other nations. It is certainly bewildering for me. We celebrated “Arab Spring” which has turned the nations of North Africa over to the Muslim Brotherhood. Uganda has said that the Lord’s Resistance Army has diminished so much that it’s not much of a worry any more, so now we send troops to help. We “keep foreign oil supplies flowing” while shutting down energy and jobs at home. Iran is close to a bomb, and Obama heads out for a nine-day tour. Very, very strange.
Filed under: Foreign Policy, Islam, Middle East, National Security | Tags: Middle East, Turmoil in Egypt, U.S. Foreign Policy
Egypt. David Pryce-Jones, author of The Closed Circle: An Interpretation of the Arabs, writes of the moment in history when things could turn out in more ways than one, and the decisions of a few people settle the fate of millions for years to come.
Crowds all over the Arab world are protesting against the authority under which they live. Like the French before 1789 or Russians before 1917, they want to be rid of their rulers, knowing them to be brutal and corrupt, as indeed they are. Pretty well every Middle East expert and pundit, and certainly the man with the microphone in Tahrir Square in Cairo, supports the protesters without the least reservation. These Westerners all take it for granted that the protesters share their understanding of freedom and democracy, and once they are rid of the brutal and corrupt rulers all will be fine, and Arab societies will be just like ours.
This is evidently President Obama’s assumption. Famous as an anti-colonialist and openly contemptuous of the British for the way they used to order people about, he nonetheless sends an envoy to instruct President Mubarak peremptorily to leave office and start a process of “orderly transition.” He is taking it upon himself to arrange the government of another country. Never mind the hypocrisy, this is as imperious as anything the British ever did.
Pundits assume that the protesters want the same democracy and freedom that we espouse. But not so fast. There is much that we do not understand. and the reporters on the scene are learning that Egyptians do not necessarily assume that we are on their side. Here is some worthwhile reading to help in grasping the problems:
Spengler writes of “Food and failed Arab states” for the Asia Times: “Egypt is the world’s largest wheat importer, beholden to foreign providers for nearly half its total food consumption. Half of Egyptians live on less than $2 a day. Food comprises almost half the country’s consumer price index, and much more than half of spending for the poorer half of the country. This will get worse, not better.” The uprisings in Egypt and Tunisia were not food riots, only in Jordan have demonstrators made food the main issue. But the jump in food prices “is the wheat-stalk that broke the camel’s back.”
Bernard Lewis is the dean of Middle East historians. Many regard a familiarity with his books, articles and ideas indispensable to understanding the Middle East. Jay Nordlinger of National Review relays a telephone conversation from the Middle East. “The fact that this regime,” the Mubarak regime, “has good relations with the United States and Israel only seems to discredit the idea of good relations with the United States and Israel.”
“At the moment, the general perception, in much of the Middle East, is that the United States is an unreliable friend and a harmless enemy. I think we want to give the exact opposite impression:” one of being a reliable friend and a dangerous enemy. “That is the way to be perceived.”
Hernando de Soto, Peruvian economist and the celebrated author of The Mystery of Capital and The Other Path and is president of the Institute for Liberty and Democracy based in Lima. He has been a tireless advocate for private property. More than 90% of Egyptians hold their property without legal title. They thus cannot borrow, build wealth or establish a business. Egypt’s underground economy is the nation’s biggest employer.
92% of Egyptians hold their real estate without normal legal title. De Soto estimates the value of all the extralegal businesses and property, rural as well as urban, to be $248 billion — “30 times greater than the market value of the companies registered on the Cairo Stock Exchange and 55 times greater than the value of foreign direct investment in Egypt since Napoleon invaded — including the financing of the Suez Canal and the Aswan Dam.” In today’s dollars these same extralegal assets would be more than $400 billion.
Filed under: Europe, Foreign Policy, Israel, Middle East | Tags: Improving Relations, Obama "Concerned", U.S. Foreign Policy
Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu has received a letter from 327 members of the U.S. House of representatives — three quarters of the House — expressing concern that “the highly publicized tensions” in US Israeli ties will “not advance the interests of either state. The letter makes no mention of the extent to which President Obama has contributed to the tensions and their publicity, but the letter can be seen as a rebuke to the administration.
When Vice President Biden was in Israel recently, a housing minister announced another step in the approval process for apartments being built in a Jewish sector of East Jerusalem — simply a routine bureaucratic announcement. The Obama administration chose to assume that this was somehow a “settlement”, and that President Obama had the authority to tell the Israelis what they could do in their own country. Another example of arrogant interference in other countries’ internal affairs.
He first insulted the British by summarily returning a bust of Winston Churchill that was on loan to the White House, then made a botch of diplomatic niceties with a visit from British Prime Minister Gordon Brown. He insulted the Germans by ignoring their celebration of the fall of the Berlin Wall, skipped out on the formalities of his visit to Norway to receive the Nobel Peace Prize, angered France, insulted the Danish King in Copenhagen, refused to offer verbal support to the British in their dispute with Argentina over the Falklands, continued to ask for talks without pre-conditions with the butchers of Tehran who are developing nuclear weapons to destroy Israel and the United States — while refusing even verbal support to Iranian dissidents.
He reportedly has formed a “good relationship” with Russia’s Medvedyev, but we have no idea yet of what Obama has agreed to in the nuclear arms agreement he just signed.
Filed under: Foreign Policy, Freedom, History, Islam, National Security, Politics | Tags: Afghanistan, Eastern Europe, Iran, U.S. Foreign Policy
Vice President Cheney gave a speech last night at the Center for Security Policy. Once again, he proved why he is probably the most consequential vice president in the Nation’s history.
An excerpt from the speech:
Most anyone who is given responsibility in matters of national security quickly comes to appreciate the commitments and structures put in place by others who came before. You deploy a military force that was planned and funded by your predecessors. You inherit relationships with partners and obligations to allies that were first undertaken years and even generations earlier. With the authority you hold for a little while, you have great freedom of action. And whatever course you follow, the essential thing is always to keep commitments, and to leave no doubts about the credibility of your country’s word.
So among my other concerns about the drift of events under the present administration, I consider the abandonment of missile defense in Eastern Europe to be a strategic blunder and a breach of good faith.
It is certainly not a model of diplomacy when the leaders of Poland and the Czech Republic are informed of such a decision at the last minute in midnight phone calls. It took a long time and lot of political courage in those countries to arrange for our interceptor system in Poland and the radar system in the Czech Republic. Our Polish and Czech friends are entitled to wonder how strategic plans and promises years in the making could be dissolved, just like that – with apparently little, if any, consultation. Seventy years to the day after the Soviets invaded Poland, it was an odd way to mark the occasion.
You hardly have to go back to 1939 to understand why these countries desire – and thought they had – a close and trusting relationship with the United States. Only last year, the Russian Army moved into Georgia, under the orders of a man who regards the collapse of the Soviet Union as the greatest geopolitical disaster of the 20th century. Anybody who has spent much time in that part of the world knows what Vladimir Putin is up to. And those who try placating him, by conceding ground and accommodating his wishes, will get nothing in return but more trouble.
What did the Obama Administration get from Russia for its abandonment of Poland and the Czech Republic, and for its famous “Reset” button? Another deeply flawed election and continued Russian opposition to sanctioning Iran for its pursuit of nuclear weapons.
In the short of it, President Obama’s cancellation of America’s agreements with the Polish and Czech governments was a serious blow to the hopes and aspirations of millions of Europeans. For twenty years, these peoples have done nothing but strive to move closer to us, and to gain the opportunities and security that America offered. These are faithful friends and NATO allies, and they deserve better. The impact of making two NATO allies walk the plank won’t be felt only in Europe. Our friends throughout the world are watching and wondering whether America will abandon them as well.
Big events turn on the credibility of the United States – doing what we said we would do, and always defending our fundamental security interests. In that category belong the ongoing missions in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the need to counter the nuclear ambitions of the current regime in Iran.
A full transcript of the speech is available here.
Filed under: Election 2008, Liberalism, Military, Terrorism | Tags: Iran, U.S. Foreign Policy, War in the Middle East
In an earlier campaign debate, Barack Obama chastised George W. Bush for not meeting with the leaders of enemy countries, and said that he was willing to meet with Ahmadinejad, Chavez or any of the others without preconditions. He repeated that several times, but lately he has changed the wording a bit. He said that he didn’t say he would meet with them without “preparation,” of course he would need preparation, just not “preconditions.” He meant to differentiate between himself and John McCain who rejects unconditional talks with Iran, and get in a good dig at George Bush while he was at it.
Meanwhile, the issue has been widely discussed in Iran. Reporters from the state news agency asked a high-ranking official for his views on talks with the United States. It seems that Iran has it’s own “preconditions” and a summit meeting is probably not in the cards any time soon.
The Vice President for Media Affairs, Mehdi Kalhor, said that the U.S. must do two things before summit talks can take place. First, American military forces must leave the Middle East. Second, the U.S. must end its support for Israel. Until the United States does both things, talks are not on the agenda.
So that lets Obama off the hook, with some embarrassment, but doesn’t go very far towards solving the problem of Iran. If Mr. Obama wins the election, he may find that solving it is quite a bit more complicated than talking to Iran without “preconditions.”