Obama and Iran: a long time coming
Ron Radosh has a good article at PJ today about Obama’s Iran policy, in which he ends by saying that “Obama may go down as the Chamberlain of our time.” I made a related point in my post yesterday when I wrote:
The word “unprecedented” is used so often that it’s become a boring cliche, but it is the correct word to apply to Obama’s attitude towards Iran and nuclear weapons. Even Chamberlain, the best precedent I can think of, appeased Hitler when England didn’t really have a lot of military preparedness and was in a relatively weak position. What’s Obama’s excuse? Nothing.
Chamberlain is the best precedent I can think of, but that doesn’t mean he’s an especially good one (for example, we know far more about the bad intentions of the Iranian government than Chamberlain did about Hitler in 1938). I meant it when I wrote “unprecedented.”
Oh, there have been people willing to sell out their own country before, but offhand I can’t think of an instance in which the leader of a democracy has decided to capitulate to a known, long-term enemy dedicated to its destruction, and to do so with the support of many members of his own party and of the mainstream media, although most of the populace disagrees with him (and yet is seemingly powerless and largely asleep), and without facing the imminent threat of an overwhelming attack by a militarily superior force. If you can think of such an example, please enlighten me.
I can understand Obama much better than I can understand why more people are not alarmed by his actions. And by “more people” I mean in particular the Democrats in Congress, who should be going to the Repubicans and saying they’re ready to join in impeaching and convicting him over this (I know; dream on) and who aren’t even close. The real question is whether, if a bad deal goes through, they would even stand with the Republicans to try to stop it in some way.
Obama has been in office for over six stressful years. This Iranian deal has been a long time coming, and was telegraphed over and over by Obama. For example, even back in February of 2008, a year before Obama became president, I was somewhat alarmed at his seeming belief in the idea that Iran could be talked out of its desire for weapons, and that offering Iran “improved relations with the international community” could change its mind, although he also offered some tough talk about sanctions. By as early as October of 2009 I wrote an article for PJ pointing out what Obama had in mind:
What’s far more likely is that the withdrawal of center funding was designed to be a signal to Iran’s government. What might this act be communicating, other than the weakness of the Obama administration and its tendency to appease repressive governments? It is highly possible that Obama’s intent, at least, is a practical one: that the Iranian leaders perceive there might be something in it for them if they cooperate with Obama. That “something” could come under the general rubric of what used to be known as détente…
The idea behind it would appear to be that such Iranian governmental pragmatists exist and are in the ascendance, that they can be successfully negotiated with, that it will pay large dividends to refrain from embarrassing them by calling attention to the regime’s human rights violations, and that none of this will be read as the Obama administration’s weakness and capitulation. That’s a tall order.
Nixon and Kissinger spent years laying the groundwork for détente with the Chinese, through careful behind-the-scenes maneuvering. Whatever one thinks of their politics, or their ultimate success or failure, both men were experienced old hands at foreign relations and diplomacy. The same can hardly be said for their modern-day counterparts, Obama and Hillary Clinton, who give the appearance of being willing to give up much without laying the proper foundation, or any assurance of getting anything in return…
One thing ”” and perhaps one thing only ”” is certain about Iran, and that is that never before have we faced the potent and dangerous combination of factors it potentially represents: a nuclear-armed state that is at the same time a repressive fundamentalist theocracy at least as concerned with the world to come as the present one.
It didn’t take great prescience or genius to see that, either. It was obvious. That’s what’s so odd about our present situation, in which Obama’s pro-Iran position has only become more extreme and more obvious, and more people ought to be opposing it very visibly and vociferously. Instead, they’re mad about a Republican letter to the mullahs that merely explains the way the American balance of powers works.
[NOTE: See also this.]
“That’s what’s so odd about our present situation, in which Obama’s pro-Iran position has only become more extreme and more obvious…”
Yes, Obama and Kerry’s acts of submission only seem to be getting bolder, whether it’s defending Islam with each new terrorist act, celebrating the Persian new year at the WH, removing Iran and Hezbollah from the terrorist list, or Kerry proclaiming great respect for Khameni’s fatwa…I keep wondering who is representing America in these negotiations?
Neville Chamberlain Was Right
The maligned British prime minister did what we would want any responsible leader to do.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/foreigners/2013/09/neville_chamberlain_was_right_to_cede_czechoslovakia_to_adolf_hitler_seventy.html
See? no problem for the people who “make” history…
That’s what’s so odd about our present situation, in which Obama’s pro-Iran position has only become more extreme and more obvious, and more people ought to be opposing it very visibly and vociferously.
I don’t think we can remove support/non-support of Israel from this discussion and, unfortunately, more and more Democrats are falling into the non-support group — from a February Gallup poll that showed Democrats losing sympathy with Israel:
I actually had a conversation several years ago with a man well placed in D.C. Democratic circles who said that it seemed only fair for Iran to have the bomb if Israel had one. I thought he was simply a fool, but now I fear he may not be all that out of step with his cohorts.
By the way, I find that 59 percent support of Israel among Independents troubling; it should be much higher. Come to think of it, it should be even higher among Republicans as well.
Ann:
I have seen people offer the false equivalence of “if Israel has the bomb it’s only fair that Iran should have it” many times.
That sort of reasoning is either the work of fools, or of disingenuous knaves. Sometimes one, sometimes the other.
As I grow older, it becomes more and more clear to me that the ability to understand and make rational arguments is not a particularly common trait.
Perhaps the proper retort, if someone says that sort of thing, is “I suppose you think it would have been more fair had Germany and Japan gotten the bomb during WWII?” Although I fear the answer of most would be “yes.” That’s how fair the brainwashing in bizarre relativism has gone.
Neo: I can’t think of an instance in which the leader of a democracy has decided to capitulate to a known, long-term enemy dedicated to its destruction, and to do so with the support of many members of his own party and of the mainstream media,
Nixon..
he want to china…
basically he started the closed door public aint going to know the deals of its leaders era…
he did not go to china with an open door, open discussions, etc… and after him, the leaders of the world could cut it up again like Molotov did…
China is still an enemy..
and the soviet reorganization was its seeming collapse
now… one must pay attention to the coordination that is going on… but i cant get people to see that..
in Moscow — where a mysterious fleet of trucks came rolling into Red Square on Friday, 13 March. Putin has not appeared in public for ten days. Sergei Ivanov, Chief of the Presidential Administration of Russia, has not been (verifiably) sighted since 27 February. Sergei Stepashin, the Troubleshooter of the Empire, flew to the Urals some days ago on a pretext — yes, to those strategic mountains where so many underground cities and bunkers are located. Meanwhile, North Korea’s prime minister is said to have secretly arrived in Russia. And so, how do we interpret all this activity?
Sunday, 10 pm Moscow time, in the form of a “bombshell” television documentary on which President Vladimir Putin depicted last year’s Ukrainian Revolution as a violent coup “masterminded by our American friends.”
the rhetoric of russia to its people is hotter than it was in the Cold war… i did try to put up the paper of the soviets that point out you must prepare the population for the fight that comes, as they cant switch gears fast enough… this preperation has been 6 years in the making, waiting for the weakest part or time… the period of election, where the right action can prevent it, and pit the leaders between their own people and the foreign
According to Putin there was good reason to fear an outright American attack on Russia. Sensible to the danger, Putin said he was prepared to arm Russia’s nuclear warheads.
Nyquist: What we have is an appeasing kind of government, and a government that is locked on a path of unilateral disarmament. It is a government that would like to implement socialism in the United States, and is doing so at every opportunity.
“This is my last election, After my election I have more flexibility.” Obama to Medvedev caught on open mike…
“I understand. I will transmit this information to Vladimir.” Medvedev’s response
Open eyes? looking to see about what is not talked about is more productive than looking at pundits that conveniently leave out history that would be inconvenient to their messages or stories, or pay checks, which is the same thing for them.
An incredible stupid lie, even dressed up in the fashion of a Sartor Resartus, by someone pretending to be Professor Diogenes Teufelsdré¶ckh, would still be recognized as a lie (especially to those who retain their common sense). Nyquist
In 2009 Aleksandr Dugin, came out with a book titled The Fourth Political Theory. The book was clearly written for the purpose of justifying a future global war against the United States.
Nobody wants to bomb Russia in the United States because our political crazy people are on the same page as Russia’s crazy people. All these crazy people agree that the country marked for destruction is America, not Russia. Nyquist
I think we’re seeing a few different influences at play here. First, I think people who are essentially non-religious (which includes a rather large number of people who only attend church on Easter and Christmas) have difficulty grasping that folks who are religious sometimes see the world in quite the same fashion. For the latter, something that’s seemingly suicidal can be seen as a good thing due to the effects of their beliefs on their worldview. And I think a lot of the people in DC don’t understand this. They think the mullahs are just as atheistic as our own bureaucrats are, and are just playing the religion card as a justification for power. “They don’t *really* believe all that 12th Imam nonsense! They’re just spouting it for the rubes!”
Second, when things go on in a particular fashion for a long enough period of our lives, we tend to think that they’ll continue to do so. I think this has infected much of DC to the point where they believe that our safety will never stop. They’re like a group of teenagers, confident in their own immortality. Bad things happen in the rest of the world. But they don’t happen here.
One other thing –
I had a somewhat discouraging Facebook conversation with a friend of a friend the other day. My point was that the Senate letter regarding the Iran negotiations was not “sabotage”, or any of the other derogatory terms being flung at it. His response was to attempt to shift the subject to something else. One of those attempts involved a link that “proved” that Iran wasn’t trying to build nuclear weapons. The link in question was to an Al Jazeera America article that was essentially built around the fact that Iran said it wasn’t going to build nuclear weapons. i.e. the fact that Iran said it wasn’t going to build such weapons was adequate proof that the country had no intention of doing so.
The irony is that the type of person who thinks that Al Jazeera and Iran can be taken at their word is likely also the same type of person that automatically assumes conservatives only open their mouths to lie.
Neo: As I grow older, it becomes more and more clear to me that the ability to understand and make rational arguments is not a particularly common trait.
🙂
i learned that by the time i was 9, when i could make better rational arguments than adults… teachers… etc… and it was hit or miss if i got in trouble for it. though i suspect that today i would be slammed more than then. then, they realized that they had little to teach me and gave me a pass so that i did not have to attend classes other than tests… within 5 years i would enter bronx sciecne by sheer effort of a child.
it took feminisms removal of my funding, and racialism, and crypto socialists games to neuter me
now i just wait to die…
i have no life, just wait, and hope it comes fast
there is no hope for anything…
i cant change my sex, my color, or my economics if i cant change the first two…
so… if anyone has mercy enough to pray, pray i am gone… 🙂
“I can’t think of an instance in which the leader of a democracy has decided to capitulate to a known, long-term enemy dedicated to its destruction, and to do so with the support of many members of his own party and of the mainstream media” neo
It hasn’t happened before, it’s a first.
But is Obama capitulating or is he collaborating?
I judge the latter. I base that upon several interrelated factors;
former SecDef Hagel’s letting slip during his Senate confirmation hearings that Obama’s ‘strategy’ vis a vis Iran is one of containment.
While both Obama and Kerry have previously publicly stated for the record, that they know that the real danger from Iran getting nukes is nuclear proliferation (an arms race) in a region of unstable third world nations and jihadist states with the near certainty that, sooner or later, it will result in terrorist groups getting their hands on nukes.
Since they know that and they know that a ‘policy of containment’ cannot address that danger, their pursuit of an inadequate and disastrous ‘agreement’ with Iran HAS to be intentionally motivated by hostility toward America’s national security.
We’re dealing with Benedict Arnolds not Chamberlains.
The congressional democrats and media still support Obama because the alternative is politically untenable. Turning on Obama now would destroy party unity and they place party ideology far above loyalty to the country. So they’re in too deep with no way out.
Nor are they really mad about the Republican letter to the mullahs, that’s simply useful ‘misdirection’.
junior,
People like your friend can’t be persuaded because they don’t want to see. They have their metaphorical eyes tightly shut, fingers firmly planted in their ears and are yelling la, la,la, la, la…
They won’t stop that until reality slaps them upside the head and then… they’ll complain the loudest.
Geoffrey Britain:
Maybe I should have written “appear to capitulate.”
I agree it could easily be a collaboration.
neo-neocon Says:
March 16th, 2015 at 4:30 pm
I agree it could easily be a collaboration.
It is.
Geoffrey Britain –
“They won’t stop that until reality slaps them upside the head and then… they’ll complain the loudest.”
——————-
And blame conservatives.
😛
junior Says:
March 16th, 2015 at 3:47 pm
And I think a lot of the people in DC don’t understand this. They think the mullahs are just as atheistic as our own bureaucrats are, and are just playing the religion card as a justification for power.
Some call it Liberal Cognitive Egocentrism more likely it is collaboration as a result of oikophobia …. Inglorious bastards!
The “P5+1” negotiating with Iran are the 5 permanent members of the UN Security Council. The “+1” is Germany, which holds the current SC non-voting seat.
An agreement with Iran will thus become international law when the SC does its pro-forma vote.
How you like that, you stupid congresspeople?
Neo:
I have seen people offer the false equivalence of “if Israel has the bomb it’s only fair that Iran should have it” many times.
. . .
Perhaps the proper retort, if someone says that sort of thing, is “I suppose you think it would have been more fair had Germany and Japan gotten the bomb during WWII?”
Another possible retort might be: “Imagine that an off-duty security guard gets held up by a punk with a knife. The punk threatens to stab him and kill him and cut him to pieces. The security guard responds by drawing his gun… but then says, ‘Actually, I have a backup gun too. Here you go; let’s keep things fair.’ Makes perfect sense, doesn’t it?”
The crucial difference between Israeli nuclear weapons and Iranian nuclear weapons is two-fold. Israel has had them for decades, and has never threatened anyone with them. Iran has been threatening other countries with destruction for decades… and doesn’t have them yet.
The mannish boy wants another nuclear islamic nation, as pakistan is not enough to counter the evil, colonial west. Dreams of his absent father haunt his soul.
“And by “more people” I mean in particular the Democrats in Congress…”
Sorry. Love your blog. You are a great writer.
You are also in everlasting denial and reality avoidance on this “Democrats” thing. You can’t understand why they don’t impeach Obama for his treachery? It is 100% because they are every bit the America haters that he is.
He came from them for goodness sakes!
Please name the one, just one!, Democrat who is acting as you think they should, as any true patriot would.
It’s crickets from now to doomsday on that one!
And doomsday it will be.
The History Books will wail over this one. How, they will ask, did an entire nation get defeated from within without even realizing it until it was too late? They will pull writings like yours as a sample of how the blatantly obvious remained unbelievable and unaccepted to the bitter end.
The Jews on the cattle cars, didn’t they say, often told themselves all the up to the showers that everything would be okay.
That’s the best analogy here.
Bottom line reality statement: The Republic is lost. On the odd chance we want it back we are going to have to get it back the way they got the first one. Truth is, we don’t deserve it. We did nothing to create it, and we treated what we were given like a trifle.
It will have to be a Yoot’s Movement. They’d be the only ones now, and that sector is not looking very promising.
Oh, there have been people willing to sell out their own country before, but offhand I can’t think of an instance in which the leader of a democracy has decided to capitulate to a known, long-term enemy dedicated to its destruction, and to do so with the support of many members of his own party and of the mainstream media, although most of the populace disagrees with him (and yet is seemingly powerless and largely asleep), and without facing the imminent threat of an overwhelming attack by a militarily superior force. If you can think of such an example, please enlighten me.
I can understand Obama much better than I can understand why more people are not alarmed by his actions.
At the unique point in history where barbarism (it happens to be Islam) has intersected with the technological capacity to destroy the human race, we also have the unique circumstance of the leader of a democracy (or any other form of government?) capitulate to the forces of barbarism because he hates his country so much.
The despicable and ugly creatures from the 30’s – 70’s who hate America have succeeded. The marxist husks – – why should they care what other husks get the credit for destroying America?
They will have succeeded in destroying the entity which stood as a victor over their shriveled souls.
Yay! BO’s daddy and mommy win!
I agree, Mike, though I wish I didn’t. The ONLY thing that animates the Left, including the “liberals,” is hatred/distaste for America and Western Civilization.
I mean, for God’s sake, they have removed Western Civ from college curricula everywhere. And all their “history” courses about America teach loathing and lies. And that’s the work of the “liberals” as much as it is of the outright Reds. They’ve made absolute pets of the moslems, as soon as the bastards unleashed jihad hell on America. Turned them into a fake “civil rights” cause, they did.
That is the one thing, I then realized, that can predict all — all — of their actions: if it hurts, damages, denigrates, or destroys our Republic, they’re all for it. All other alleged causes: gay and women’s rights, human rights! are blown off the playing field if they conflict with a chance to slander and damage America.
That’s where I spied ’em; that’s how I smelt ’em out. When they started to champion and defend islam[!!!] in spite of the fact that the moslems commit all the acts they pretend to abhor — I realized what their Animating Principle is:
America delenda est.
You know, right? that they won’t even use the name “America” or the adjective “American” in their academic tomes. They rip it out, root and branch, in favor of “U.S.” and “U.S. persons,” etc.
Oh, they hate us alright. Even my own sister and two of my cousins. They just assume we’re all wrong, that we’re the creation of the Robber Barons, that the “Buy the World a Coke!” mentality will Fix Everything, and that, “well, honey, you know we haven’t done anything to be proud of.”
Lately, because Hitler (whom they ONLY opposed once he invaded the Soviet Union!!!) is an inconvenient example of evil, they’ve started to rehabilitate him.. Notice that? “Downfall” was a beginning. Notice that they’re now saying “yeah, Chamberlain was right to hand over Czechoslovakia; yeah, Churchill was a warmonger; yeah, we should have stayed out of that one. And the Japanese were our victims because America is so RACIST and all that.”
It’s gotten to the point that the Reds and Pinkos on Facebook either ignore or crap on posts about American heroism even in the Second World War. Because nothing short of total detestation will allow the total razing and replacement they long for.
Yes, “liberals” too. They’re not as vehement about it, but they’re no longer even paying lip service to the greatness of America we all used to acknowledge, a scant 30-40 years ago. It just makes them …. uncomfortable.
junior @3.47 p.m. makes a very good point:
…when things go on in a particular fashion for a long enough period of our lives, we tend to think that they’ll continue to do so. I think this has infected much of DC to the point where they believe that our safety will never stop.
There does seem to be a lack of awareness of the full horror of any kind of nuclear confrontation between nations among many today. Otherwise, wouldn’t we be hearing a lot of talk about the very real danger of more countries acquiring this capability and the need for nuclear non-proliferation? Just how did that very important notion get lost in all the Iran craziness?
As GB and I have reiterated countless times, it’s the citizens.
I hope Obama leaves and this madness abates, because if it doesn’t the only cure will be millions of deaths.
“An agreement with Iran will thus become international law when the SC does its pro-forma vote.” Don Carlos
That’s an interesting angle that I haven’t seen expressed that clearly heretofore.
“International Law, unlike most other areas of law, has no defined area or governing body… international law encompasses a piecemeal collection of international customs; agreements; treaties; accords, charters (i.e. the United Nations Charter); protocols; tribunals; memorandums; legal precedents of the International Court of Justice (aka World Court) and more. Without a unique governing, enforcing entity, international law is a largely voluntary endeavor, wherein the power of enforcement only exists when the parties consent to adhere to and abide by an agreement.”
“I agree, Mike, though I wish I didn’t. The ONLY thing that animates the Left, including the “liberals,” is hatred/distaste for America and Western Civilization.” beverly
Fortunately, I can help with that wish. The assertion that ‘liberals’, as a group, categorically hate America and Western Civilization is provably false.
“According to a new Pew Research Center study, only 40 percent of consistently liberal Americans say they often feel proud to be Americans.”
That finding, along with “just 40% of Solid Liberals, say the phrase “honor and duty are my core values” and that, it “applies well to them” reveals that 40% of ‘solid liberals’ are the duped and indoctrinated low-info voters who actually support traditional classical liberal values… the other 60% of ‘solid liberals’ are the Marxist/Progressives against whom we fight.
And to gain complete perspective, Pew’s definition of “solid liberals” comprises just 15 percent of the American population — a much smaller group than just “liberals” or Democrats.” which when we do the math reveals that just 9% of Americans who self-define as ‘solidly liberal’ rarely or never feel pride in being an American.
So why do the other 41% of Americans in effect support that 9%?
In 1952, Whittaker Chambers published his magisterial, best-selling autobiography, “Witness”. The work argued that America faced a transcendent, not a transitory, crisis; the crisis was one not of politics or economics but of faith; and secular liberalism, the dominant “ism” of the day, was a watered-down version of Communist ideology. The New Deal, Chambers insisted, was not liberal democratic but “revolutionary” in its nature and intentions.
Chambers, long before the collapse of the Soviet Union, had already seen that, “the struggle was no longer between Communism and Western civilization, but one in which Western civilization was destroying itself by betraying its heritage.” In essence, “Communism (Marxist/Progressivism) had triumphed, not in its Marxist tenet but in its concept of man–a concept which the West has accepted.” It goes back to Chambers’s insistence that there are two faiths and the West must make a decision: God or man?
As he wrote in Witness:
“God alone is the inciter and guarantor of freedom. He is the only guarantor. External freedom is only an aspect of interior freedom. Political freedom, as the Western world has known it, is only a political reading of the Bible. Religion and freedom are indivisible. Without freedom the soul dies. Without the soul there is no justification for freedom. … There has never been a society or a nation without God. But history is cluttered with the wreckage of nations that became indifferent to God, and died.”
Ann…re the people who think that if Israel has the Bomb then it’s only “fair” that Iran should have it…
When Germany moved troops into the Rhineland in 1936, many argued that there was no reason for concern. “There is no more reason why German territory should be demilitarized than French, Belgian, or British,” editorialized one British newspaper.
And in 1981, when Israeli jets destroyed Saddam Hussein’s nuclear reactor, the New York Times said:
“Even assuming that Iraq was hellbent to divert enriched uranium for the manufacture of nuclear weapons, it would have been working toward a capacity that Israel itself acquired long ago. Contrary to its official assertion, therefore, Israel was not in ‘mortal danger’ of being outgunned. It faced a potential danger of losing its Middle East nuclear monopoly, of being deterred one day from the use of atomic weapons in war.”
To the NYT in 1981, it was good for a totalitarian Arab state to possess nuclear weapons, in order to deter Israel. Apparently, Barack Obama and his supporters have the same view re Iran and Israel.
The NYT has been a Leftist propaganda organ since at least the 1930s.
But Duranty got a Pulitzer, so it’s all good!
Beverly,
There is no such thing as a monopoly in the longer term. Ideas evolve. The left may seem to have a monopoly on the press and education, but that is an illusion. Don’t like the current systems? Don’t worry, they’re ripe for change. The current business models are unsustainable.
Speaking of Obama selling out the US, what is it with the secret negotiations for a trade deal with Asia and Latin America? Does Obama think this is not going to require Senate approval? Maybe time for another letter.
Mike:
I guess I shouldn’t have written that I don’t understand. Unfortunately, I do understand that Democrats will not turn on Obama no matter what he does—perhaps I should have said I can’t accept it or assimilate it or something of that sort.
It’s hard to explain, but it’s not really denial. The sort of thing where you know it’s happening, but you still pinch yourself at times.
However, I disagree that they are all America haters. Many are, but quite a few are merely in it for themselves—money, power, celebrity. They won’t challenge the party line.
Menendez (who may or may not be corrupt in other ways, although I certainly very much doubt he’s guilty of the crime Holder is charging him with) is one who certainly stood up to Obama, loud and clear. He spoke more strongly against Obama’s Iran policy than even the most vociferous Republican. Look what happened to him!
There are other Democrats who have gone on record as being against Obama on Iran (see this). Not enough of them, though,, and I doubt they’d vote to impeach/convict him for anything he might do.
Mike:
One more thing—that “Jews on the cattle cars” thing is something I’ve read a lot of people referencing lately. It does not take into consideration the reality, and I believe it is a very shortsighted characterization of what actually occurred. I’ve written about it before, here, but I plan another post.
But in the meantime, please see this, as well as this.
A critical mass of America-haters, though Western Civilization haters might be a better term, has been achieved. It is Jonestown, writ very, very, very large, covering both sides of the Pond. It may be infectious, a contagious process of disordered thinking with delusional features. Maybe prions are involved. Remember prions? The cause of mad cow disease.
I jest, of course, but here we sit, dumbfounded by all the nuttiness and evil playing out in every corner of the globe. And we don’t do anything, or perhaps do only a little. Quite inert. They smile and smile as they lie to us, kill us, import diseases for us, take our money, all for our own good.
Neo: “there have been people willing to sell out their own country before, but offhand I can’t think of an instance in which the leader of a democracy has decided to capitulate to a known, long-term enemy dedicated to its destruction”
Maybe not only our country and Israel.
I haven’t seen any causation link, but the correlation is there: did he ‘trade’ Iraq to Iran?
Mike and neo…
The apt comparison is Parliament… how Churchill’s oratory fell on deaf ears… of a crowd that was uniquely well informed, wealthy, intelligent, and politically cynical.
It’s the Parliament of the 1930s that is the parallel… to today’s legislatures.
Heck, even the Knesset seems to be in thrall to ‘surrender diplomacy.’
The collective memory of the WWII calamity is quite literally dying with each GI.
I was SUPER surprised to read of the Mossad’s ‘morals issues’ with holding the insane jihad of the Muslims at bay.
Apparently, it’s emotionally traumatic telling lies to liars… or some such.
Folks, we’re out against feral combatants that absolutely reject all Westphalian norms.
One must deal with the beast of man as he comes.
Don Carlos: “The “P5+1″ negotiating with Iran are the 5 permanent members of the UN Security Council.”
Add that as an alarm-bell reason for setting the record straight on Operation Iraqi Freedom. 3+1 of the P5+1 opposed enforcement of the Gulf War ceasefire mandates by Clinton and Bush. That the parties that opposed enforcement of the UN mandates for Iraq are now making the UN mandates for Iran is telling and worrying.
—
Mike: “Please name the one, just one!, Democrat who is acting as you think they should, as any true patriot would.”
Joe Lieberman tried to stand fast on Iraq. It cost him his party, ended his Senate career, and they got their way on Iraq, anyway.
—
Geoffrey Britain,
What I think Don Carlos is getting at is the US is being neutralized, not that the P5+1 agreement will impose burdens on the US that Congress can reject and/or the next President can drop. Neither action would change the UN-sanctioned path for Iran.
Left one out …
beverly: “Lately, because Hitler (whom they ONLY opposed once he invaded the Soviet Union!!!) is an inconvenient example of evil, they’ve started to rehabilitate him..”
If they can rehabilitate Saddam and his regime – practically overnight – they can rehabilitate anyone and anything.
beverly: “Yes, “liberals” too. They’re not as vehement about it, but they’re no longer even paying lip service to the greatness of America we all used to acknowledge, a scant 30-40 years ago.”
The last genuine liberals were re-labeled “neocons” and again, practically overnight, JFK’s foreign policy was redefined from core liberal tenet to evil right-wing conspiracy.
16 years ago: President Clinton, announcing Operation Desert Fox, the penultimate step to Operation Iraqi Freedom, December 16, 1998:
“Obama may go down as the Chamberlain of our time.”
Perhaps, but, that really isn’t fair to Chamberlain.
I’d also give Chamberlain the benefit of the doubt in that his generation lived through, and many knew first-hand, the horrors of WWI and didn’t want to do that again.
Let’s also not forget that what he was conceding to was German-speaking areas outside Germany becoming a part of Germany. While it looks different viewed through the lens of 20/20 hindsight; I don’t think it was that clear then that later it would become non-German-speaking areas being invaded.
I’d like to think if they had known that Germany (not just Hitler) couldn’t be trusted and that WWII would be much worse Chamberlain and others would have acted differently.
“Please name the one, just one!, Democrat who is acting as you think they should, as any true patriot would.”
Tulsi Gabbard. Breath of fresh air.
Tom Cotton’s actions have cheered me up. This young man has stood up and told the truth. For all the bluster about the letter, it moved the conversation forward quite nicely. And Cotton’s speech on the Senate floor yesterday was terrific:
http://www.thv11.com/story/news/2015/03/16/sen-tom-cottons-full-text-of-ending-americas-retreat-restoring-americas-military-dominance/24872455/
Eric:
The point about the P5+1/ UN Security Council is not that the Iran deal would put the US into a bad position, but that it will sanctify the deal. Sanctify. Libs love the UN.
A century of running children and young adults through Marxist Madrassas has produced a rather large cohort of people who view America and the West through the eyes of our enemies.
Distributed throughout the country in various industries and you have a real problem.
The Republicans either don’t get this, or they are not willing to take steps to counter it.
In just two years we’ll see if the Obama’s “hope and change” is now the dominant and permanent culture of the country.
I just read Tom Cotton’s speech. Holy cow. Many thanks for the link, Sarah!
I have to remind myself that he is a Harvard-trained lawyer, an Army officer and combat veteran of Iraq AND Afghanistan, a recently-retired U.S. Congressman, and now a U.S. Senator… and, to boot, he’s the youngest sitting U.S. Senator at 37 years old.
All those things, and he can write a speech like that. The man has a brilliant political future ahead of him. (And he may yet be our Churchill, at a time when we desperately need one.)
largely asleep
Your phrase describes everyone in my circle of friends and acquaintances. Therefore I console myself (though “consol” isn’t the best word to describe my ambitions therein) through reading literature and history and working hard on my own.
Interacting on the internet with those I mostly agree with in bitter jeremiads I’ve found to be mentally unfruitful. I’m just hoping the USA survives until Nov 2016 and that something crazy does not intervene that affects me directly.
Selfish? No doubt. But a lot of these things take care of themselves. Leftist overreach. Obama meanwhile is safe forever because he’s black.
Not sure how far up the political level this goes, but I thought it wouldn’t be far, but now I’m wondering.
I have some liberal lo-fo relations. When something they pitch goes wrong, they blame somebody, no matter how obvious it was from the get-go that it was a lousy idea.
As the lefties in Seattle are blaming the greedy businessmen for closing down instead of going bankrupt with a $15/hr minwage. I figured that blame shifting would satisfy the lower rungs of lefties and would be used cynically by the higher rungs of lefties. It all fits, you know.
But, seeing what’s happening in DC, it seems EVERYBODY is satisfied with blame-shifting. They really, really believe things will work out well and if they don’t, they blame conservatives which is for them the SAME THING as working out well. So if they blame conservatives, they won’t get radiation poisoning or something. Or if they do, blaming conservatives will make up for it, if not cure it. They wouldn’t be acting this way if they were only posturing for the lo-fos like my relations.
Don Carlos: “The point about the P5+1/ UN Security Council is not that the Iran deal would put the US into a bad position, but that it will sanctify the deal. Sanctify.”
Right.
The Thiessen WaPo piece that Neo linked, the Cotton letter, and Geoffrey Britain’s cite imply the US Congress or future US President has what amounts to veto power over a UNSC resolution.
As you pointed out, that’s off target of the P5+1 concessions if they’re rubber-stamped by the UNSC. The US can back out in terms of US-led enforcement, eg, economic sanctions and military threat, and obligations put on the US. But the US backing out from a by-design defanged role wouldn’t stop Iran from continuing within porous friendly lines of a course that’s UN-sanctioned and actively supported by the other powers.
Richard Aubrey: “it seems EVERYBODY is satisfied with blame-shifting.”
That’s made a strong impression on me, too.
In the case of the issue at hand, as with every other feature of the Iran issue, it reaches back to the Iraq issue.
Bush’s case against Saddam and enforcement procedure for Op Iraqi Freedom were carried forward from Op Desert Fox, the penultimate enforcement step under Clinton. OIF was just the coda of a decade-plus course with Iraq.
Hence, my explanation of the ‘why’ of OIF centers on Clinton, not Bush.
Yet in their narrative, Clinton’s whole-presidency enforcement with Saddam that set the stage for OIF disappears as though Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Powell, Rice, etc, invented OIF from scratch.
Incredibly, the Clinton-redacted narrative of OIF has even been accepted by most on the Right despite that Clinton’s record on Iraq is open source and front-page news.
Similarly, when discussing the current state of Iraq, they redact Obama’s stand-off orientation towards Iraq from the outset of Jan 2009 at a critical stage of Iraq’s development, the pull-out in 2011 against recommendation, and then delaying and inadequately returning to help even as Iraq called out for our help, as though Iran and ISIS were already running rampant in Iraq when Bush left office.
Hence, I emphasize the rapidly progressing state of Iraq at the point that Bush left office and the still-positive progressing state of Iraq over the last year before US peace-operations forces were withdrawn.
And I refer to this:
http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/02/19/irans-shiite-militias-are-running-amok-in-iraq/ .
Their basic argument is the concessional P5+1 negotiations are necessary to avoid Operation Iranian Freedom, which is a faintly implied admission that the casus belli for OIF was in fact Iraqi noncompliance with the “governing standard of Iraqi compliance” (UNSCR 1441) and Bush made the proper decision for OIF based on the operative enforcement procedure.
Yet a major reason Saddam opted not to comply with the UNSCRs, thus inducing OIF, is at least 3 (France, China, Russia) members of the P5+1 fatally undermined enforcement of the UN mandates.
At least 1 of the P5+1 – Russia – has vigorously used propaganda since the Clinton administration to misrepresent the US-led enforcement of the “governing standard of Iraqi compliance”.
Yet instead of being disqualified on that basis to determine the standard of compliance for Iran, the transgressors have been exalted and put in charge.
I’ll keep repeating this: if the Republicans really want to counter the basic argument for the P5+1 concessions, they need to set the record straight on OIF and revaluate the players.
as though Iran and ISIS were already running rampant in Iraq when Bush left office.??
Eric, what if you look to this link, look pause at 4.39 min
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=o6kdi1UXxhY