The Continued Failure of U.S. Iran Policy
The Obama administration created a difficult situation and it is ultimately limited to two choices: either bombing Iran or living with a nuclear Iran. It has allowed Tehran to ignore every deadline, while continuing a policy of appeasement.
Sky News reported on July 22, 2009, that U.S. Secretary of State Hilary Clinton “has warned America might cope with a nuclear Iran by arming U.S. allies in the Gulf and extending a ‘defense umbrella’ over the region.” Typical of the Obama administration’s appeasement policies, she added that “we will still hold the door open (for talks with Iran).”
In his new book Accomplice to Evil: Iran and the War against the West, PJM’s Michael Ledeen points out those future students of international relations will be outraged by the persistence of American presidents in appeasing the hostile mullahs and their desperate attempts to reach an agreement with the the Islamic state since 1979.
The Clinton administration sought a mega-deal with Iran by lifting sanctions previously imposed and publicly apologizing to the Iranian mullahs for America’s misdeeds towards Tehran (as President Obama is currently doing). The Iranian supreme leader, remaining steadfast in his position, has rebuffed these gestures and in so doing exposed our weaknesses and their contempt.
President George W. Bush also made an effort to reach a deal with Iran in 2008. Jack Straw, Britain’s foreign secretary at the time, persuaded former U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice that the Iranians were ready to halt uranium enrichment in exchange for the West lifting its sanctions against Iran. The Bush administration, believing it had a deal, prepared for Rice to make a statement attesting to the agreement at the UN General Assembly in September of that year.
This brief game of self-deception came to an end with the address of Iranian President Ahmadinejad at the General Assembly. He spoke of the coming of the 12th Imam — the Shiite messiah — and the ensuing Muslim domination of the world, but there was not a word about ending the uranium enrichment.
It is not that the U.S. lacks options. The military option is certainly available. The U.S. has the forces to eliminate both the nuclear weapons and the current repressive regime. Washington could also arm and train the Iranian minorities against the regime. It has chosen neither. The Obama administration failed to support the Iranian opposition following the rigged August elections. It shudders at the thought of forcing a regime change in Iran because of political correctness, a signature value of this administration.
Iranian minorities who comprise more than half of the population are in a state of rebellion against the regime, ready to spill their blood to end the rule of the repressive regime and Ahamdinejad, a despised and unlawful president. The people are taking up arms against the Iranian Revolutionary Guards, killing and getting killed in the process. The Arabs of Ahwaz attempted and nearly succeeded in assassinating Ahmadinejad a few years ago.
And yet the Obama administration, like previous administrations, continues with policies of dishonor, sacrificing American deterrence and credibility. To the Iranians and Middle Eastern Arabs, America appears weak and unwilling to fight the Iranian mullahs. The situation is reminiscent of Neville Chamberlain’s appeasement of Hitler and the Nazis.
According to azarmehr blog Javad Larijani, whose one brother is a speaker of Iranian parliament and the other head of Islamic judiciary, said:
“When Obama first came to power he talked about engagement with Iran but how is it that now this Kaka Siah [black nigger] is talking about regime change in Iran?’
Kaka Siah is an offensive derogatory word to call a black person in Persian. It is literally equivalent to the offensive word nigger in English.
Hmm, it can’t be rasism, can it?
“The situation is reminiscent of Neville Chamberlain’s appeasement of Hitler and the Nazis.”
No it isn’t. Germany was a major state in 1938, right in the middle of Europe. Iran is a ramshackle third world country that is probably lying thru’ its teeth about its weaponry.
I suggest that you Americans just stand back and let them ruin themselves.
Taking out the Iranian nuclear sites would be a great opportunity for the West to show some solidarity. A joint US-French-Israeli mission (the French, too, have had their problems with Iran over the years) would be not only be effective in countering the nuclear threat (and probably finishing off the mullahs), but would also deflect criticism from the UN crowd. I know, this is a pipe dream, but still…
If worse comes to worst, the US has an army
at a Forward Operating Base in Iraq; Now,
who do we have to thank for that ?
To think, “probably Iran is lying through their teeth about their weapons” would be exactly like Chamberlain “assuming Hitler agreed to peace in our time.”
Any country involved in seeking to build nuclear weaponry can hardly be considered a “ramshackle third world country.”
This same thinking failed to stop the 1930′s Germans and brought us the bloodiest conflict in world history up to this time.
Europe needs to get seriously involved in dealing with Iran and stop expecting America to take care of them.
Mr. Puder: your article is at best shallow…. this whole cowboy mentality of going bombing people and countires have long expired… look what is happening to us in Iraq thousands of our own solders dead and thousands injured.. look what is happening to us in Afghanistan.. this is not the 1950′s where we can just go bobm people and countries. dealing with the Iranian government or any other governments to matter requires tact not bomb.. and by the way I happened to be from Iran and I was born and raised there.. where did you get your information that half of Iranians are minorities? less then one percent of the people are moniriteis. It would be a great idea for Pejamas Media to proof read articles before they post it…
90% of the problems we have in the Middle East stem from Jimmy Carter’s inability to follow the advice of Theodore Roosevelt (the good Roosevelt). “Speak softly and carry a big stick.” Mr. Carter didn’t have the backbone to stand up when the Islamic Republic of Iran declared war on the United States by seizing our embassy. Until the advent of the “Carter Doctrine” the inviolability of embassy grounds was seen as an instant declaration of war…Now, most people in the Middle East see us as weak willed and lacking the determination to see anything through.
For a while after Mr. Bush eliminated Saddam Hussein as a threat, many in the ME thought we’d changed…but with the advent of the Obama administration’s weak will and inability to use our military strength as a threat to Iran, they will gain a nuclear weapon and set off an arms race far, far worse than the dreadnought race in the early 20th Century, or the Cold War of the 2nd half of the same.
If we (the US) were to impose a 6 month blockade (of gasoline and distilled oil products), then the government of Iran would collapse (likely in under 2 months). But Mr. Obama and his political allies don’t have the strength of charecter (unlike Truman, Kennedy or Johnson) to actually make a difficult decision.
My rebuttal to you, mr, is this: No doubt you would view “Not without my daughter” the same way the most doctrinaire communist would view, “Doctor Zhivago”.
Churchill was asked, what should the Second World War be called. His answer: The un-necessary war. Why? Because Hitler could have been stopped before Heydrich started the War via German soldiers masquerading as Polish soldiers.
Hitler had to be stopped. Ahmadinezhad and those around Khameini have to be stopped. Khomeini had to be stopped.
I am speaking as one who recognizes each Orthodox Christian put to
death by the Sons of Allah, as a witness to the truth.
MR:
You said..
“dealing with the Iranian government or any other governments to matter requires tact not bomb.”
Ok, I am open. How can we tactfully deal with Iran as they continue to go down the nuclear path? Or, perhaps (how can I tactfully say this?) you see no problem with Iran having the bomb….
@6 Mr. : “dealing with the Iranian government… requires tact not bomb”
How exactly do you suggest we deal “tactfully” with Iran? Obama has played the engagement card for the past year, and has failed. He gave the Iranians two deadlines (Sept/December), warning “grave consequences” if they did not show willingness to engage. Yet the Iranians flaunted these deadlines with impunity. The deadlines only showed how powerless Obama is to stop the Iranians, as his only means of leverage -sanctions- are essentially an empty threat without the support of China and Russia. Soon Iran’s nuclear program will reach critical mass, at which point calling for dialogue and “engagement” will be pointless. Even the MSM is taking notice of Obama’s failing Iran policy: http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1956075,00.html
The main issue is first defining our goals in dealing with Iran. If you do not mind a nuclear Iran -and the ensuing Gulf arms race it will precipitate- by all means, continue to support Obama’s policies. But if the goal is to stop the Iranian program, the U.S. must shift to a more forceful course of action. This is not to say we inevitably need more “bomb,” but we certainly need less “tact.”
—
“where did you get your information that half of Iranians are minorities? less then one percent of the people are moniriteis (sic).”
That’s a laughable statement! Kurds alone are about 7% of the population -would you lump them together with Persians? Mr. Puder is not far off the mark, according to the U.S. State Department data on Iran’s demographics, as stated in this U.S. CRS report: http://fas.org/sgp/crs/mideast/RL34021.pdf
Iranian Ethnic groups: Persian 51%, Azeri 24%, Gilaki and Mazandarani 8%, Kurd 7%,
Arab 3%, Lur 2%, Baloch 2%, Turkmen 2%, other 1%
Religions: Muslim 98% (Shi’a 89%, Sunni 9%), other (includes Zoroastrian,
Jewish, Christian, and Baha’i) 2%
Languages: Persian and Persian dialects 58%, Turkic and Turkic dialects 26%,
Kurdish 9%, Luri 2%, Balochi 1%, Arabic 1%, Turkish 1%, other 2%
Still want to claim that “less than one percent” are minorities? Here’s another quick source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Iran
Insofar as the treatment of minorities under Persian rule, here’s a summary from Amnesty International’s 2007 report on Iran: : http://europenews.dk/en/node/1790
“Repression of minorities: Ethnic and religious minorities remained subject to discriminatory laws and practices which continued to be a source of social and political unrest. ARABS continued to complain of discrimination, including in access to resources, as well as forced evictions… AZERBAIJANIS: In May, widespread demonstrations took place in mainly Azerbaijani north-western towns and cities in protest at the publication of a cartoon offensive to Azerbaijanis in the state-run Iran newspaper. Hundreds, if not thousands, were arrested and scores reportedly killed by the security forces… KURDS: In February, clashes between Kurdish demonstrators and the security forces in Maku and other towns reportedly led to at least nine deaths and scores, if not hundreds, of arrests… BALUCHIS: In March a Baluchi armed group, Jondallah, killed 22 Iranian officials and took at least seven hostage, in Sistan-Baluchistan province. Following the incident, scores, possibly hundreds, of people were arrested; many were reportedly taken to unknown locations. In the months following the attacks, the number of executions announced in Baluchi areas increased dramatically. Dozens were reported to have been executed by the end of the year… RELIGIOUS MINORITIES: Members of Iran’s religious minorities were detained or harassed on account of their faith…”