Obama in a ‘Rundown’ on Iran
President Barack Obama is in what in baseball slang would be considered “a pickle” when it comes to how he should be responding to the extraordinary events occurring in Iran.
The correct sports terminology is actually “rundown” — an equally descriptive idiom to describe a situation where a runner is caught between two bases while the fielders run him first one direction and then the other as they try to tag him out.
Watching a runner trying to escape a “pickle” is considered one of the most humorous moments in a ballgame as it can be very entertaining to watch the poor guy in the middle, schlepping back and forth while trying to avoid the inevitable tag. Since most rundowns occur because of stupid baserunning, the unfortunate participant is usually razzed by players and fans all the way back to the dugout, where the manager glares at him and his teammates pretend not to notice him.
Carrying the baseball analogy forward, our president has been caught in a rundown on Iran between advisors who are telling him that anything he says to support the demonstrators will be used by the regime as an excuse to crack down on the reformers, and those advisors who want him to speak out forcefully in favor of the aspirations of the Iranian people embodied in the protestors’ demands.
It must be pointed out that our president is in an extremely delicate and sensitive diplomatic situation. An excellent case can be made for both schools of thought in his administration, and throwing politics and ideology in the mix from the outside is like tossing a lit match into a gasoline dump. In the end, he can only please one side in the debate, and he has chosen the more cautious approach — for the time being.
Indeed, after starting out by congratulating the regime for carrying out a “robust debate” in the lead-up to the election, the president made it plain that he would accept whoever emerged from the post-election scrum in order to continue his outreach to the Iranian government. Even in Saturday’s statement regarding the violent crackdown by authorities, rather than directly and forcefully coming down on the side of the good guys in the streets, the president concentrated on chiding the regime for using force to suppress the demonstrators. He also called on the Ahmadinejad government to “respect the dignity of its own people and govern through consent, not coercion.”
A tepid response to the horrific actions of the Iranian government? Of course it was. And the underlying reason for this milquetoast rhetoric is more problematic still: the hope of the administration that they can sit down with the Iranian theocracy and convince them to abandon their nuclear ambitions. The belief that there is little the president can say to influence the regime’s treatments of the reformers anyway and that ratcheting down the criticism will earn them points with the thugs who are ordering their children to be beaten like animals in the streets seems to have won out over any ringing declaration of support for the demonstrators.
But the president is not just playing to an American or an Iranian audience. Also watching what we do and listening closely are Russia and China, who not only have extensive commercial ties with Iran, but also share our deep concerns about the Iranians’ nuclear enrichment program — or at least, they have been assuring us for years that this is the case. Both nations have cooperated at the UN in imposing sanctions on Iran for defying the will of the Security Council to open their nuclear program to full inspection. Both nations’ help will be vital if we are to convince the Iranians to abandon their enrichment program or, at the very least, subject the program to a stringent inspection regime that will assure the Israelis, and us, that they are not building a nuclear weapon.
The alternative is a potential catastrophic war, the consequences of which can only dimly be perceived. Considering the enormous problems Iran could cause the United States and our vital interests in the Middle East, it behooves the president to use every means available to solve the Iranian nuclear problem without resorting to force.
Also the US stood by and did nothing during the Ruwandian genocide. Old bill debated the definition of genocide as hundreds of thousands of people were hacked to death for being born.
Michele was right about one thing for sure, the modern USA is a shameful place indeed.
Obama cannot do anything to change the situation. Anything he says will be discarded by the Iranians because they believe America is on the decline and is a paper tiger. He can say anything he wants and only the domestic audience will care. Those for Obama will praise him, those against will always find his statements lacking etc. Doesn’t matter in the long run.
The protests are essentially over, having changed nothing except reduce the Iranian population by several adults. Mullahs still rule. What struck me as interesting in watching the news etc. was how modern Tehran seemed in terms of buildings, cars and what people where wearing. It did not seem to be impoverished as we have been led to believe because of trade restrictions.
So the Iranians will proceed with making the bomb because there is nothing to stop them. They know the west will do nothing and the time for Israel to act alone has passed. While the Israelis could have done the job in the past if they were just up against Iran neither the Russians or the US will allow them to pull of a successful raid. (recently the Russians warned the Iranians not to put their entire air force in one base as the Israelis were amassing an air strike against it, the Iranians heeded the warning and disbanded their fleet)
There are no reasons for the Iranians to change their course as the penalties for developing A-Bombs and exporting terror are for all practical purposes non-existent.
“Michele was right about one thing for sure, the modern USA is a shameful place indeed.”
not shameful… shameless
the hope of the administration that they can sit down with the Iranian theocracy and convince them to abandon their nuclear ambitions.
This hope is delusional. It is a hope created by ignorance, arrogance, narcissism and cowardice. And it is stupid beyond belief.
The baseball analogy is that Obama stood at the plate with the bat on his shoulders and took three strikes down the middle.
Obama cannot do anything to change the situation.
Nonsense. Iranians carry English signs because they want our help. Obama’s cowardice is emboldening the mullahs and discouraging the pro democarcy demonstrators.
The protests are essentially over, having changed nothing except reduce the Iranian population by several adults.
You haven’t a clue.
Rick, I normally admire your thinking, but there is one huge mistake you have made in this piece. Iran ain’t China. Other than the Taiwan issue, which arguably can be considered an internal matter, China has never threatened and has never been perceived to be a threat to neighboring countries. China has not threatened to nuke Japan. At least since the Korean War, when China sent “volunteers” to fight the U.S., and certainly since 1972, China has shown no aggression toward its neighbors. China has never been accused of terrorism. Compare that with Iran’s constant threats to wipe Israel off the face of the earth. Compare that to Iran’s steady sponsorship of terrorism, a good deal of it specifically aimed at the United States and its citizens. Consider hundreds of Americans murdered by these people in bombings, kidnappings and assassinations in Iraq, Africa, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Germany, Lebanon, etc. Don’t forget 1979 and the capture and hostage taking at our embassy in Tehran. Consider the underlying Muslim theology that calls for death to infidels and subjugation of women. To compare China with this stuff is nonsense and terribly misleading to those who don’t know the difference between China and Iran. In the meantime, let me add my agreement that USA is a shameful place indeed these days. I am afraid that Obummer is taking us into some very dark and dangerous places.
The author:
“But when the stakes are this high — not just for the Iranian demonstrators but for the U.S., the Israelis, the region, and the world — I am willing to cut the president a little slack and recognize that while we all want him to say what is in our hearts about freedom and justice, his response so far has been about as good as we can expect.”
WHAT A LAME, COWARDLY, THING TO SAY.
And forget you baseball metaphor.
TRY THE PRESIDENCY as a metaphor:
Imagine, if you will for a minute, that something terrible/shocking happens in the world.
Many Americans, who are normally otherwise caught up in their day-to-day life events,
look to the President as one with “vision”, “leadership” and the ability to “do right”
for Americans and those around the world fighting for liberty.
We look, and all we see is a jacka§§ slurping down ice cream and making a 3rd person, tardy, and vague statement.
“Cut” THIS F*CKIN’ LOSER “some slack”?!!?
H*LL NO!!!
This article fails to mention that Obama gave a speech in Cairo promising not to interfere with the affairs of other nations. If Obama spoke forcefully about Iran, he would be violating his ‘principle.’ He created his own pickle. I guess the point is that there are no absolutes.
Ahma-di-nutjob just whelched out on a deal with his own people, and when they called him on it, he sent Nazi goons to shoot them. With this in mind, Obananarama hopes to “to sit down with the Iranian theocracy and CONVINCE them to abandon their nuclear ambitions.” Obananarama is a beacon of hope, in a Jimmy Carter kind of way.
Given Obama’s foreign policy initiatives, forgetting of course the actual result of said initiatives, the prudent action for countries having security agreements with the US is to consider making other arrangements as these agreements necessitate interfering with in the affairs of other countries which is a big no-no to our first post-modern administration.
(I will be surprised if Moran actually posts this, but here goes…)
Realism? That speech in Cairo is an articulation of realism?
His behavior thus far is only “realistic” to the level it serves (mostly foreign) anti-American interests. Just whose payroll is Obama on
In the sense of serving American interest or those of Western Civilization there is nothing more detached from reality than the “foreign policy” of this bunch, not to mention thoroughly at odds with American tradition and Americas historical and very necessary role in this and the last century.
To conclude otherwise is to be either dishonest or imbecilic.
Moran, you really need to come out in the open as a Democrat. Please stop posing as a “conservative”. It is really starting to be insulting.
What are you going to do when in a few year Obama and his ACORN goons pervert American elections as Dinner Jacket and his Basij thugs have perverted politics in Iran.
Maybe you will be ok; you will get a reward out of your masters. Or maybe you will be shocked speechless when the scales fall. Either way, will you be able to live with yourself?
I know that if I shilled for fascists and socialists and traitors like you do I would have a hard time sleeping at night.
And SAF, of course he can do plenty–in fact this is a golden moment that may not come again in our lifetimes. We could solve a great many things here. What absolute nonsense. If Reagan was in the WH, this would be drawing to a spectacular conclusion. (Of course, the Mullahs would not even try to get away with this with him in power). But even if he could not directly accomplish something on the ground, he could stand up for what is right, true, proper and enduring noble. This is achievement enough.
He cannot, because these things are beyond his ken.
Instead, he has given the green light to every sort of enemy we and or larger civilization have on this earth. They are smacking their lips and rubbing there hands together now, you can bet on that.
Is this intentional? In time this response may well cost American lives.
From Stalin, to Pol Pot to the Assembly of Experts, to Obama, you “liberals” have not met an anti-American, totalitarian force in the world that you will not apologize for or give some sort of cover for. You can not make an utterance that is not poisonous to our nation or the West. You cannot move but hurt us. What effete little cowards you people are. Are you even Americans?
Obama is behaving in a most immoral and indecent manner. It is shameful. That his supports cann see this is even more shameful.
What does he have planned for us. No good will come out this.
While I can appreciate President Obama’s position, my feeling is, if the demonstrations in Iran fail to bring about regime change and, along with it, a change in Iran’s nuclear ambitions – then there will be war. It’s only a matter of time. The uprising in Iran represents our last best chance of avoiding that war. Obama should have gone for broke and decisively backed the demonstrators. He was never going to persuade the Mullahs to give up the bomb anyway, so he had less to lose than he obviously thought. And much to gain. Events in Iran may yet turn out to our, and indeed the world’s benefit. But whatever the outcome, Obama has lost his only chance to have any effect on what comes next. From now on he can only react to things as they unfold.
Obama is a T-ball player put in the major league by affirmative action. His blunders will make us all losers. So much for the great team called the United States of America.
Good LORD.
I’m not sure if I’ve been sham-wowed or slap-chopped?
China and Iran are not remotely the same, in relation to the USA. Bush Sr. may have miscalculated but that doesn’t make Obama’s policy correct. Bush was faced with an existing nuclear power with veto powers in the UN and major trading partner and with what had been happening in other communist regimes, possibilities of actual voluntary change within China. Obama is facing a situation where Iran is an actual enemy not just a rival. Iran has been pretty much actively at war with his country for 30 years, having attacked and occupied the US embassy in Tehran and taken hundreds of Americans hostage for over a year. He’s acting like there’s a chance for some kind of lasting change by not challenging the status quo? By apologizing to and accepting “the reality” of the regime? This makes no sense to me. When do the mullahs apologize? Maybe sheesh on a stick can explain it to us.
It’s not just that Obama is caught in a rundown. It’s why: he forgot how many outs there were.
I can think of any number of possible reasons why he’s acting the way he is.
Assuming he’s “choosing” anything is not one of them.
He’s running scared, a complete marketing personality, trying to figure out who to please today and what it will take to please them.
In a state of denial since he’s quite incapable and unprepared to deal with this…or the North Korean missiles promised to Hawaii…or the Pakistani nukes promised by the Taliban…maybe that can be our 51st state (as we work our way toward his desired 57): State of Denial.
#11 Really Now: “If Reagan was in the WH, this would be drawing to a spectacular conclusion….” And exactly what conclusion is that? A blood bath in Tehran & other cities? When 280+ marines died in the Beirut bombing in 1983, Reagan took no further stringent action. He didn’t bomb anybody. Iran is not the same as Reagan calling for the tearing down of the Berlin Wall.
#12 Highlander: “Obama should have gone for broke and decisively backed the demonstrators….” Tempting indeed, but what reality would said backing accomplish? The mullahs have already castigated the “Great Satan” for the little that Obama has said, and used his statements to try and unify the country against the aggressor.
Despite the cries from “armchair generals” here on PJM, I think Obama has done as good as possible with a bad situation. Interesting that his actions are supported by the likes of Richard Lugar, ranking Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Cmte.; Senator McCain; and conservative columnist George Will.
Britain, France and Germany were first out of the gate to condemn the Mullah’s actions. The Brits called in the Iranian ambassador and only got the charges d’affairs. Our State Department will not rescind the invites to Iranian embassy staff to our embassies 4th of July celebrations. No one on the G8 summit coming up is rescinding the invitation to Iran to participate. Will Obama block Imadinnerjacket’s visit to the UN later this year (where is the UN by the way?). Now according to the WashPo, Obama’s team is crediting his Cairo speech for inspiring the Iranian protestors. What rot! They’re spinning this because his liberal supporters are “shocked and awed” to discover he has disappointed them gravely in supporting liberty and freedom. He’s going to suffer for this in the polls (hence his press conference today on damage control). Vanilla custard – how apt a description of his gravitas.
Ed Wallis:
You are wrong. Obama’s tone is pitch-perfect on Iran. He is on record as supporting justice and democracy. Mousavi is not pro US; the choice is between whacko fundamentalists vs. islamist democrats.
Stupid neocon thinking is very damaging. Since Obama has been around, we have Hezbollah losing an election, democracy threatening to break out in Iran, Netanyahu backtracking on his hard line. US foreign policy is moving in the right direction. We have a chance to again lead by moral strength after the complete idiocy and moral degeneracy of the neocon years.
11 Reallynow:
Yes, Reagan could do and say something because he started rebuilding the military from the first day he took office. He didn’t apologize for America, didn’t go to Cairo. Reagan put the Soviets on notice that he wasn’t going to tolerate their abuse of power.
The reason Obama can’t say anything meaningful is that he is already in full military retreat. Outstretched arms and all. You think Iran will take anything he says seriously?
So, an American president could make a difference. But not Obama as he has fenced himself in as a weak president.
He has the Saudis worried enough with his overtures to Iran that they are now talking to the Israelis. That hasn’t happened in decades.
The Iranians have made many bad strategic choices over the years. Throwing out the Shah and putting in the Ayatollahs reduced their standard of living by a factor of ten and without the US alliance brought ten years of Iran Iraq war. Sure, the Shah was a bad dude, but really a piker compared to the current regime.
Nothing will come of the Iranian’s current dissatisfaction. And Obama has locked himself in to the corner he now occupies because of all his previous actions and statements.
18. SteveB/Colorado,
Fourth of July ring a bell?
Barack is not a negotiator. And the Iranians will only negotiate in a Win-Lose fashion. That should be self-evident now. By soft pedaling this now
he gains nothing.
Obama is reverting to the values taught to him during his upbringing and post-secondary education, which are:
1. Anti-Americanism
2. Moral relativism
3. Islamic sympathies
4. Racist hatred of white people
5. Abject cowardice
How did you expect him to act? As I’ve stated before, the information was out there, prior to the election, for anyone willing to put forth the effort to find it. His missing college transcripts/theses, questionable claim to America citizenship, 20-yr attendance at a racist church, friendship with a convicted terrorist, association with anti-American persons/groups and reading between the lines of his own vague campaign speeches on foreign policy all provided a window to his future actions as president. Anyone who voted for this globalist, narcissist, thug should never be allowed to claim ignorance.
This is not the time to say. This is the time to act. The USA has budding Information Warfare skills. Now is the time to put them to use, interfering with the Mullahs’ control over Iran’s internet, and especially with the monitoring systems that are supposed to be scanning every tweet, every email, every web transfer. Read the Mullahs’ own orders to their armed forces and leak them. Use our satellites to get similar information and leak it out.
SteveB/Colorado,
“…what reality would said backing accomplish? The mullahs have already castigated the “Great Satan” for the little that Obama has said, and used his statements to try and unify the country against the aggressor.”
Steve, I think you’ve made my point. Obama would have nothing to lose and everything to gain if his denunciation had provided a tipping point in it’s encouragement of the Iranians in the street. At least that scenario offered some small chance at real change in Iran and the Middle East at large.
But let’s imagine what the results would be with the survival of the Iranian regime despite anything Obama said.
If the Iranian regime survives with Obama having stuck to his mild approach to the uprising, he will face, in any discussions with them, an angry, antagonistic, anti-western, anti-semetic, and misogynist regime, determined to have nuclear weapons in order to intimidate their enemies and continue to export their Islamic revolution.
And if Obama had come out strongly for the Iranian demonstrators, he would have faced, in any discussions with them, a really angry, antagonistic, anti-western, anti-semetic, and misogynist regime, determined to have nuclear weapons in order to intimidate their enemies and continue to export their Islamic revolution.
The only difference – other than the mullahs being really angry if Obama spoke out boldly – is that they would have perhaps a little more respect for the man sitting across the table from them.
25: njcommuter:
Like your approach but Obama will never do it.
highlander…thank you for reinforcing the point
If I were president, I would be making public statements informing the heads of the various security forces that they will be held responsible for crimes against the Iranian people. Privately I would be attempting to bribe them to abandon the current regime (a tactic that proved effective with Saddam’s generals prior to the 2003 invasion). The trick is to get a few security units to stand down or publicly defect in the hope of starting a domino effect. I don’t see that we can lose much by playing hardball with the mullahs. This rebellion represents an opportunity that should be exploited.
I see both possibilities as possible, though honestly I wish Americans would stop thinking that they have skin in this particular game. Saying Obama is in a pickle, means we hauled his ass out of the stands and threw him onto the field between bases and said “Go!”
People MUST win democracy for themselves. Our beloved Mr. Jefferson tried to make that point to the French, before their bloody revolution, complete f*ck up and failure. America revolted on her own, after making a few smart political allies. The revolution in Lebanon was not a western influenced act, it was the People of that Nation who took control. If Iran is going to be free… it needs to free itself.
If a real war breaks out and the rebels ask for help from US, then I would be 100% behind action.
Talking is stupid, talking simply to piss off people that already dislike you is doubly stupid. And let’s be honest, the people that want Obama to smack Iran aren’t gonna be happy with any decision he makes anyway. Therefore it would be a politically stupid act.
Just as President Eisenhower stood and watched the revolution in Hungary not willing to take any action, the first President Bush took similar action decades later. As F. Zakaria wrote, “I think a good historic analogy is President George H.W. Bush’s cautious response to the cracks in the Soviet empire in 1989. Then, many neo-conservatives were livid with Bush for not loudly supporting those trying to topple the communist regimes in Eastern Europe. But Bush’s concern was that the situation was fragile. Those regimes could easily crack down on the protestors and the Soviet Union could send in tanks. Handing the communists reasons to react forcefully would help no one, least of all the protesters. Bush’s basic approach was correct and has been vindicated by history.”
This is the action of of real Republicans and thoughtful leaders. Americans now once again are fortunate to have such a leader.
Rick – What are you doing talking sense – You might redeem this site
You begin to make the case there is a difference between a conservative and a wingnut. Somehow, I think you have misjudged your audience here. They want people who will add fuel to the bonfire
#22 Delia: “4th of July ring a bell?” Not really as has nothing to do with Iran. Suggest you read comments #30 & 31.
Couldn’t we just offer to take a side in exchange for some consideration. It’s likely that we could pick the winner of this internal confilict if we were willing to use a little military and nonmilitary resources. Does it seem likely that the protesters would accept the dissoulution of their nuclear wepons program in exchange for control of the country.
I think you dolts should be nicer to Obama! He suffers from, perhaps, terminal HUHA! . . .
Sitting presidents in the last century have suffered from various lingering maladies and from sudden onsets of near-catastrophic health events. Wilson’s stokes, FDR’s polio, Ike’s heart attack, JFK’s Addison’s Disease, LBJ’s gall bladder issue all had some negative impacts on their administrations.
Our current chief executive’s continuing battle with HUHA Syndrome may be one of the best kept health secrets of our president, even if its symptoms are apparent daily to the most casual observer.
Tuesday’s scheduled Rose Garden news conference was held inside the White House instead, in deference to the humidity of Washington D.C., and a reminder that the capital was built adjacent to a swamp. Unfortunately, Obama’s HUHA Syndrome showed its ugly head early and often during the president’s 55 minute Q&A.
In deference to its Republican viewership, Fox News Channel declined to air the event, perhaps also fearing that a HUHA episode was in the offing and refusing to be party to televising a president’s physical flaws to the nation especially since it was a daytime affair and kids could be watching.
HUHA, as most people know, can be a-symptomatic in the perception of those afflicted but to witnesses it usually is quite obvious. The president’s feigned lack of awareness that his staged first and principal questioner was a set-up was a clear indicator of a HUHA attack.
The question came from a HufPo columnist, someone customarily relegated to the nosebleed section of the Washington Press Corps. The “exchange” went as follows:
“In what appeared to be a coordinated exchange, President Obama called on the Huffington Post’s Nico Pitney near the start of his press conference and requested a question directly about Iran.
‘Nico, [addressed as if Pitney were an old smoking buddy] I know you and all across the Internet, [sic] we’ve been seeing a lot of reports coming out of Iran, . . . I know there may actually be questions from people in Iran who are communicating through the Internet. Do you have a question?’Pitney, as if ignoring what Obama had just said, said: ‘I wanted to use this opportunity to ask you a question directly from an Iranian.’ ” (http://www.politico.com/blogs/michaelcalderone/0609/Obama_calls_on_HuffPost_for_Iran_question.html)
Duh, Nico, back to the cheap seats for you! Evidently, Nico had not been briefed that his query was supposed to look spontaneous so that Obama could respond with equivalent spontaneity, but that was not to be.
HUHA symptoms were transparent thoughout as Obama went on as if the obviousness of the set up question, for which the president had rehearsed his extended reply, was not also transparent. It must be conceded that, despite his pledges, transparency is as integral to his first 5 months in office as protecting the pre-born from abortions.
At least he was consistent.
The fact that staged Q&A . . .
(Read the rest at http://genelalor.com)
If Israel had been allowed to bomb the Iranian nuclear weapons facilities, or if the U.S. or allies had gone to war with Iran about the nuclear weapons build up, then there could have been real democratic elections in Iran. Germany and Japan became free democracies because they were defeated by the United States and its allies.
“Since Obama has been around, we have Hezbollah losing an election…”
Hezbollah loses EVERY election. And, Obama had about as much to do with their losing this election as George Bush had to do with Hezbollah losing the last election.
Which is nothing.
“The president has chosen realism over morality when it comes to Iran.”
His policies are neither realistic nor moral.