The Rhetoric of Humiliating Bows and Apology Tours versus Reality on the Iran Issue

[jb1280]

In a world where the media trumped up the Asian trip as full of humiliating moments and failures (accurately covered and debunked by James Fallows' blog http://jamesfallows.theatlantic.com/ [he covers things from currency issues to emission discussions, etc.) and the Right saying that Obama is a neophyte amateur who has gone on global apology tours, we are starting to see some very small, but significant movement on the Iranian issue in a global sense.

"Russia and China Endorse Agency's Rebuke of Iran"
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/28/world/28nuke.html

The demand by the I.A.E.A. board for the immediate suspension of construction at the Qum enrichment plant was the first time it had made such a demand of Tehran. Iran has told the agency that it plans to complete the half-built facility, which is tunneled into the side of a mountain, by 2011.

The vote was 27 in favor, 3 against and 5 abstentions. China and Russia voted for the rebuke.

This is the first such censure in almost 4 years.

Now it is naive to argue that this would automatically transfer to a Security Council Resolution or that such a resolution would have any major impact on the situation on the ground in Iran concerning their nuclear program.

This, however, demonstrates two significant points.

1. The onus is back on the Iranians after the previous administration's failure to place the onus of responsibility on Teheran. Moving forward, there is a higher chance of some semblance of international credibility against the Iranian nuclear program.

2. The Obama administration has clearly advanced the national interest through engaging the other major power centers in the world. Diplomacy is not a sign of weakness, but is an important and powerful tool in the country's international arsenal. Simply, engaging down a diplomatic path with powerful countries (Russia and China) gives us greater leverage down the road should diplomacy fail.

If the Republicans are serious about the point in their "purity test" on containing Iran, they should support the administration down this path as much as possible. They should pressure the administration slightly on the human rights issue revolving around the opposition, but realize that American leverage with that group is minimal. They, do, however, need to fully support this diplomatic framework as a powerful containment strategy for Iran includes all of the following: giving minimal moral support to the opposition to force the regime to focus its efforts internally as opposed to externally; kick the nuclear question down the road far enough that an implosion around the domestic situation might have time to foment; have a strong Euro-American opposition to the nuclear question; lukewarm Russian opposition; and tacit Chinese non-interference. Anything less, and the Republican party continues to demonstrate themselves to be inherently unserious.

[Eraserhead]

Interesting stuff. Good to see the "liberal media" propaganda engine at work again.

[IntheNet]

Originally Posted by jb1280

1. The onus is back on the Iranians after the previous administration's failure to place the onus of responsibility on Teheran. Moving forward, there is a higher chance of some semblance of international credibility against the Iranian nuclear program.

The situation with Iran is far worse now than before; Obama's weak overture of diplomacy toward Iran has failed. Worse, Obama's Sec. of State Clinton failed to win Russia pledge on Iran sanctions. Moreover, Obama has refused to condemn the behavior of the Islamic Republic of Iran on recent election protest crackdowns or the nation's enslavement and subjection of women. Despite Obama's desperate overtures toward Iran, to get into bed with Ahmadinejad via every diplomatic measure known, no improvement in Iran has been observed and Iran's movement toward a weaponized nuclear device creeps every closer.

Originally Posted by jb1280

2. The Obama administration has clearly advanced the national interest through engaging the other major power centers in the world. Diplomacy is not a sign of weakness, but is an important and powerful tool in the country's international arsenal. Simply, engaging down a diplomatic path with powerful countries (Russia and China) gives us greater leverage down the road should diplomacy fail.

Where is the tangible evidence of advancement you cite in terms of progress in Iran; specific to their nuclear weapon development progress? Obama talks a big game, bends over frequently to kiss foreign leader's asses, yet I don't see any tangible evidence his global weakness via diplomacy has achieved squat.

Early on in the Obama administration it was abundantly clear the Obama's Secretary of State was totally unqualified to handle foreign affairs so former Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell was named special envoy for the Middle East. In addition, Richard Holbrooke was named as special representative to Afghanistan and Pakistan. Lastly, the only qualified voice in the State Department toward Iran, Dennis Ross, longtime Iran adviser, was moved out of State over to the White House. If our current Secretary of State is so unqualified in foreign affairs that special envoys do our diplomacy, how can we expect diplomacy to work in Iran?

[jb1280]

Tangible evidence??

Perhaps getting China and Russia to actually support an IAEA censure of Iran.

The more you throw out the hallow rhetoric that you do, the less credibility you have, which is pretty miniscule in my honest opinion.

Please respond to Palin v Beck in the sexism issue.

[jb1280]

Also, the links you posted are clear failures. Things change quickly from June and October.

If we go from absolute "no" on Iranian sanctions with Russia in October to an IAEA censure in November, I would call that tangible progress.

[awmazz]

Originally Posted by IntheNet

Moreover, Obama has refused to condemn the behavior of the Islamic Republic of Iran on recent election protest crackdowns or the nation's enslavement and subjection of women.

I thought you were against all the so-called tax-payer funded social changes by Obama. Now you actually want US taxpayer funded social change from him, but in another nation's domestic affairs? Make up your mind and pick a standard and stick to it. All these double-standards are too confusing.

[Burnsey]

Originally Posted by IntheNet

Moreover, Obama has refused to condemn the behavior of the Islamic Republic of Iran on recent election protest crackdowns or the nation's enslavement and subjection of women.

"enslavement of and subjection of women"? LOL

Obama condemning Iran on the election violence is again a an issue of credibility. So many peacefully protesting Palestinian youth are killed each year by Israeli soldiers who employ very similar methods the Iranian authorities did during the elections, but no one seems to be condemning them. It would be laughable, at least on the Iranian side, for Obama to condemn any election violence while unconditionally supporting another nation that regularly engages in similar acts against protestors.

[IntheNet]

Originally Posted by awmazz

I thought you were against all the so-called tax-payer funded social changes by Obama...

How do you get that comment from this post?

Originally Posted by IntheNet

Moreover, Obama has refused to condemn the behavior of the Islamic Republic of Iran on recent election protest crackdowns or the nation's enslavement and subjection of women.

Iran's abject treatment of its own women is barbaric and most deserving of condemnation by free nations. Secondly, Iran's crackdown on its own citizens after Mahmoud Imanutjob's election fraud failed to even warrant a comment from Obama.

Secondly, this Breaking News shows Obama's utter failure in regard to diplomacy in Iran =>

Iran authorizes 10 new nuke plants, state media say
(CNN) -- Iran's Cabinet has authorized the construction of another 10 uranium enrichment plants, its state news agency announced Sunday, further defying international calls to halt its production of nuclear fuel.

[jb1280]

Originally Posted by IntheNet

How do you get that comment from this post?



Iran's abject treatment of its own women is barbaric and most deserving of condemnation by free nations. Secondly, Iran's crackdown on its own citizens after Mahmoud Imanutjob's election fraud failed to even warrant a comment from Obama.

Secondly, this Breaking News shows Obama's utter failure in regard to diplomacy in Iran =>

Iran authorizes 10 new nuke plants, state media say
(CNN) -- Iran's Cabinet has authorized the construction of another 10 uranium enrichment plants, its state news agency announced Sunday, further defying international calls to halt its production of nuclear fuel.

I don't even know why I am bothering. I want to reemphasize this point in the original post:

If the Republicans are serious about the point in their "purity test" on containing Iran, they should support the administration down this path as much as possible. They should pressure the administration slightly on the human rights issue revolving around the opposition, but realize that American leverage with that group is minimal

I strongly believe there needs to be a louder voice on behalf of the movement in Iran. It, however, must be properly balanced. If the Republicans were smart, certain members of Congress should take-up this cause, on relatively frequent occasions, make declarations on behalf of the oppositionwithout taking cheap shots at the President.

During the Cold War, many MCs made their schtick the situation of human rights in the Soviet bloc. They provided a certain level of moral support without diminishing the office of the Presidency.

The Republican long-term goal towards containment should be making the moral issue crystal clear, while giving the administration carte blanche on the diplomatic side. Should it fail they have ammunition in an election over it, without being seen as just obstructionists. Of course, what do I know, I am only a moderate who would fail the purity exam.

On the so-called Breaking News, this could just be one ploy in the diplomatic song and dance. It is necessarily a long and messy process that requires time. There is a huge difference between authorizing 10 new facilities and having 10 new facilities already producing nuclear material. Further, this actually gives the United States more diplomatic leverage with the countries that have more leverage with Iran (Russia) as it demonstrates that this a real threat and worth their time.

Worst case scenario, the diplomatic effort runs its course, it fails, and everybody sees that the United States took it to the end in good faith. Diplomacy costs us nothing. Don't just ask me, please refer to James Baker, certainly a RINO

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIP.../fzgps.01.html

ZAKARIA: What about Iran? President Obama has made some overtures to the Iranians, tried to talk and see if there are ways that it's possible to engage with them...

BAKER: Right.

ZAKARIA: ... find some areas of common interest.

Do you agree with that?

BAKER: Yes, I do. I do. And that was one of the recommendations in the Iraq Study Group report.

We said in that report that we ought to be talking to Iran, at least with respect to the situation in Iraq. And we said we ought to be talking to Syria across the board on all issues, with certain caveats with respect to what Syria would have to do.

But, yes. We need to talk to people. You don't make peace with your friends, Fareed, as you well know. You make peace with your enemies.

And if you know what you're doing, and you do it adeptly and right, you're not going to get in trouble by talking to people. It's not some sort of a benefit you're bestowing on them.

Now, having said that, you know, we had a policy when I was secretary of state for four years, of being willing to talk to Iran at the level of the foreign ministers. But they could never muster the domestic political support necessary to talk to us, because their whole revolution had been built upon vilifying the Great Satan -- the Great Satan, the United States of America. And they couldn't get the domestic political support necessary to talk to us.

It'll be interesting to see if they can do that now.

ZAKARIA: But, of course, by your strategy the onus was on the Iranians, and people didn't blame the United States for the...

BAKER: That's correct. ZAKARIA: ... freeze and the paralysis.

BAKER: Well, that's correct. And they can't do that any longer, because the United States under the Obama administration is saying, hey, we're willing, we're ready to talk to you.

So, that's why I think it's a healthy move.

Nothing may come of it. It may not, but it isn't going to hurt us. It may not help us, but it isn't going to hurt us.

I stand by the original post, getting Russia and China to approve the IAEA censure is a vast improvement over the international position towards Iran the last 6 years, that may or may not prove to be important down the road. How much responsibility is due to Obama's efforts? We will only find out once archives are opened up, but chances are they did play an important role.

[Zombie Acorn]

Obama should be taking a bow to countries like China, they are buying all of our debt. Anything that can be done to improve relations with China and Russia is going to help us in the end in the struggle with Iran. In fact I would rather them make the call for Iran to stand down then us.

[bobber205]

Originally Posted by Zombie Acorn

Obama should be taking a bow to countries like China, they are buying all of our debt. Anything that can be done to improve relations with China and Russia is going to help us in the end in the struggle with Iran. In fact I would rather them make the call for Iran to stand down then us.

I think everyone doing it at once would be most effective.

[Zombie Acorn]

Originally Posted by bobber205

I think everyone doing it at once would be most effective.

We are used as a scapegoat way too often, when sanctions come down its not the russians or chinese they will point to that are causing people to starve, its the US. The more we can distance ourselves from this situation while still getting results the better.

[jb1280]

Precisely, the countries that have the real leverage with Iran are Russia and China - not the "Great Satan" or "Little Satan". China and Russia also have the greatest direct strategic threat coming from the region, compared to the United States.

Zbigniew Brzezinski at the CFR recently asked why is it that of the large powers in the world, why is it that the United States is the only one heavily engaged in the world from Egypt to India. This is quite prescient.