Click on WORD or PDF for full content
Spengler comments on events in Iran.
In Wonderland, Alice played croquet with hedgehogs and flamingos. In the Middle East, United States President Barack Obama is attempting the same thing, but with rats and cobras. Not only do they move at inconvenient times, but they bite the players. Iran’s presidential election on Friday underscores the Wonderland character of American policy in the region.
America’s proposed engagement of Iran has run up against the reality of the region, namely that Iran cannot “moderate” its support for its fractious Shi’ite allies from Beirut to Pakistan’s northwest frontier. It also shows how misguided Obama was to assume that progress on the Palestinian issue would help America solve more urgent strategic problems, such as Iran’s potential acquisition of nuclear weapons. …
… If Tehran were playing a two-sided chess game with Washington, a moderate face like that of Hossein Mousavi would have served Iranian interests better than Ahmadinejad, as Pipes suggests. But Tehran also has to send signals to the sidelines of the chess match. With the situation on its eastern border deteriorating and a serious threat emerging to the Shi’ites of Pakistan, Iran has to make its militancy clear to all the players in the region. Washington’s ill-considered attempts at coalition building are more a distraction than anything else.
Because Tehran’s credibility is continuously under test, it cannot hold its puppies of war on a tight leash. Hamas in Gaza and Hezbollah in Lebanon will continue to nip at the Israelis and spoil the appearance of a prospective settlement. The louder Iran has to bark, the less credible its bite. Iran’s handling of last weekend’s presidential election results exposes the weakness of the country’s strategic position. That makes an Israeli strike against its alleged nuclear weapons facilities all the more likely – not because Tehran has shown greater militancy, but because it has committed the one sin that never is pardoned in the Middle East – vulnerability.
So does David Warren.
We could begin by blaming George W. Bush for what is now happening in Iran. Not for everything, of course — not even the crazy Left blames Bush for everything. But the whole intention of the U.S. invasion of Iraq was to shake up the Middle East, and introduce some “regime change” into its darkest, most fetid corners.
The broad picture of Saddam Hussein going down — available even to the audiences of tightly-regulated State media — remains, indelible. Precedent is the cutting edge in politics and life; the breaching of taboos. Nothing is possible until it is shown to be possible.
Barack Obama deserves some credit, too. If nothing else, his Cairo speech persuaded those who want an end to tyranny in Iran, as elsewhere in the region, that they are now on their own. The U.S. isn’t going to help them. Instead, as Obama said, the U.S. is going to negotiate in “good faith” — with just such despicable regimes as that of the ayatollahs in Iran.
Quite possibly, in the grander scheme of things, Bush, followed by Obama, will prove a good thing. But if it ends badly, it will end very badly, in Islamist triumph, and perhaps nuclear war. …
And the editors at WSJ.
The President yesterday denounced the “extent of the fraud” and the “shocking” and “brutal” response of the Iranian regime to public demonstrations in Tehran these past four days.
“These elections are an atrocity,” he said. “If [Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad had made such progress since the last elections, if he won two-thirds of the vote, why such violence?” The statement named the regime as the cause of the outrage in Iran and, without meddling or picking favorites, stood up for Iranian democracy.
The President who spoke those words was France’s Nicolas Sarkozy.
The French are hardly known for their idealistic foreign policy and moral fortitude. Then again many global roles are reversing in the era of Obama. …
And Roger Simon.
To those who read this site, it’s no secret that I have never been a fan of Barack Obama’s. Ever since the revelation that the then candidate spent twenty years in the church of Jeremiah Wright, even choosing the title of his memoir from the words of the “Them Jews” reverend, I have had difficulty respecting Obama’s values or character. At best he seemed an opportunist. At worst… well, I don’t want to say. Since becoming President he has done little to reassure me. His principle contribution appears to have been nothing more than spending billions of dollars will-nilly in a manner no one seems to be able to comprehend or track.
So it will be no surprise to readers that I am similarly disturbed at his reaction to the current situation in Iran. …
John Podhoretz wonders if Obama wanted Ahmadinejad to win.
Jennifer Rubin has an answer.
… Get the sense he doesn’t give a fig about which way it turns out? Get the sense all he cares about is preserving the hope of dealing with the regime (a fascistic regime prepared to kill its own people to maintain a fraudulent election)?
No hope. No change. It never dawns that this might be a game changer — either a regime change and/or a complete discrediting of the notion that these are people with whom one can do business. No sense that the American people and the world at large might, because of this, mount a credible series of sanctions and/or reject the notion of extended negotiations.
It is clear what’s up. All he wants to do is talk, so he can’t give offense. Fine — he’ll deal with Ahmadinejad if the regime can crush the protesters. He is an enabler now, a cheerleader against regime change. Shameful.
Michael Ledeen posts on a hospital in Iran.
Debra Saunders has a good idea. Let’s get rid of Sarah Palin, the victim.
… These stories don’t tell voters that Palin has the smartest energy policy or that she’s been a more successful governor than California’s Arnold Schwarzenegger – they tell voters that Palin’s life is a nonstop soap opera.
Republicans who want to win back Washington would do well to look for a winner. Not a victim.
Speaking of too much drama: I wish Newt Gingrich would just go away, too. …
Great post from the blog Patriot Room on why Obama is “poor dad” and thus unable to lead the country out of a recession.
Last night, as I reread Robert Kiyosaki’s 1997 Bestseller Rich Dad Poor Dad, I realized why Barack Obama will be unable to do what is necessary to fix America’s economy. It’s not just that he believes in government intervention in business, although that’s a big part of it. But what makes it even worse is that President Obama is Poor Dad.
For those who haven’t read the book, let me give you the gist so you can follow along. The author uses a fable, loosely-based on his life growing up. The purpose is to compare and contrast the differences between his highly-educated and professional father (who he refers to as Poor Dad) and his best friend’s father, an informally educated, business savvy mentor (who he calls Rich Dad). I don’t wish to debate the merits of the book, which I believe are plenteous if you can distinguish the good advice from the bad. It’s irrelevant here, because I am only going to focus on the advice that is, in fact, generally good and true.
Let’s get into it… …
Click on WORD or PDF for full content