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

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by jb1280, Nov 29, 2009.

  1. jb1280 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2009
    #1
    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

    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.
     
  2. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #2
    Interesting stuff. Good to see the "liberal media" propaganda engine at work again.
     
  3. IntheNet macrumors regular

    IntheNet

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2009
    #3
    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.

    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?
     
  4. jb1280 thread starter macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2009
    #4
    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.
     
  5. jb1280 thread starter macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2009
    #5
    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.
     
  6. awmazz macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2007
    #6
    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.
     
  7. Burnsey macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2007
    Location:
    Canada
    #7
    "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.
     
  8. IntheNet macrumors regular

    IntheNet

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2009
    #8
    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.
     
  9. jb1280 thread starter macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2009
    #9
    I don't even know why I am bothering. I want to reemphasize this point in the original post:

    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 :rolleyes:

    http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0904/05/fzgps.01.html
    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.
     
  10. Zombie Acorn macrumors 65816

    Zombie Acorn

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2009
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario
    #10
    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.
     
  11. bobber205 macrumors 68020

    bobber205

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2005
    Location:
    Oregon
    #11
    I think everyone doing it at once would be most effective.
     
  12. Zombie Acorn macrumors 65816

    Zombie Acorn

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2009
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario
    #12
    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.
     
  13. jb1280 thread starter macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2009
    #13
    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.
     

Share This Page