skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Can America live with an Iranian nuclear weapon? This question was recently posed to President Obama during his first interview as President. Obama responded only generally, expressing disapproval of an Iranian bomb but not the flat condemnation that is standard from American officials. The interview was conducted by the Dubai-based Al-Arabiya Network. "Will the United States ever live with a nuclear Iran? And if not, how far are you going in the direction of preventing it?" asked the interviewer, Al Arabiya Washington Bureau Chief Hisham Melhem.
"You know, I said during the campaign that it is very important for us to make sure that we are using all the tools of U.S. power, including diplomacy, in our relationship with Iran. Now, the Iranian people are a great people, and Persian civilization is a great civilization. Iran has acted in ways that's not conducive to peace and prosperity in the region: their threats against Israel; their pursuit of a nuclear weapon which could potentially set off an arms race in the region that would make everybody less safe; their support of terrorist organizations in the past -- none of these things have been helpful."
Perhaps a generic meandering response was calculated. During the campaign and transition periods, Obama's condemnations of an Iranian nuclear weapon were more direct [Meet The Press, December 7th 2008]:
"[T]heir development of nuclear weapons would be unacceptable"
The question is: what does Iran think about this response? An overture to establishing diplomatic ties? The opportunity to forge a fresh, healthy relationship with the West? Perhaps ...
Perhaps their response here is the same as their response to Clinton's overtures last week?
Maybe Iran is reading between the lines. If Iran's stated goal is to rid the region of God's chosen people then why would they suddenly abandon this effort just because the West, the great Satan, wanted to be friends? Perhaps Iran will interpret this as weakness and step-up its plans to unleash hell?
Obama is doing things the way he said he would. Let us see what happens next.
Incoming Secretary of State Hillary Clinton testified this week that the Obama administration will seek direct engagement with Iran, in hopes of convincing Tehran to "abandon its nuclear program and become a constructive regional actor." Iran's leaders had no comment, probably because they were still laughing too hard to speak. Later, with no apparent sense of irony, Clinton said Barack Obama would not agree to engaging with Hamas until it renounces violence, recognizes Israel, and respects previous agreements between Israelis and Palestinians -- in short, until it changes precisely the behaviors exhibited by Iran, only on a smaller scale and without a nuclear program. We can only suppose that's what Leftists mean by "nuance."
President-elect Obama's lapdogs in the press described the new approach as a "sharp contrast to President Bush's policy of refusing to deal with countries that did not first meet conditions set by the United States." For the record, the United States handed over all direct negotiation with Iran to the Europeans in 2003, at the behest of those wise liberal graybeards that knew better. Since that time, there has been only one "demand" placed on Iran: that it stop enriching uranium in order for diplomacy to move ahead. In the last year, the Europeans abandoned even that request. The most recent request by the G-8 was merely that Iran stop installing new centrifuges at Natanz, never mind what Iran was doing with its 5,000 operational centrifuges. Iran's answer to the G-8 was the same as it had been to the P-5+1 in 2007 and the EU-3 in 2005: No.
I am afraid that Iran is merely trying to run out the clock on the Bush administration, hanging on for a more gullible and naive American leader with whom to dance. Barack Obama has given the clearest possible indication that he is that leader, one who believes that the charisma that made the Germans swoon and a thrill go up Chris Matthews' leg can also make Iran's lunatic regime see the error in its ways and become a "constructive regional actor."
My bet is on Tel-Aviv. This is where the first mushroom cloud rises. A close second would be New York City. By the time this happens we will be too far down the road to effectively change course. It is simply days away.
