At HotAir, Ed Morrissey has the video of Barack Obama declaring that Iran, Venezuela and Cuba do not pose a “serious” threat to the US because they are “tiny countries,” much smaller than the Soviet Union. Morrissey and Jennifer Rubin note that the USSR did not lose the Cold War because of diplomacy, but because diplomacy was backed up by Reagan’s largely successful economic war against the Evil Empire.ÂÂ
Morrissey seems to be referring primarily to the arms race, including the Strategic Defense Initiative that Democrats opposed, but the war was broader than that. A 2002 paper by Warren Norquist outlines the challenges the Reagan Administration faced after the follies of the Carter years and the myriad initiatives undertaken to beat back the Soviets, including blocking the USSR’s attempts to access hard currency through the proposed trans-Siberian gas pipeline and its seven-year old Japan-Soviet oil and gas venture. Reagan and the Pope John Paul II  undertook a clandestine campaign to undermine the communist empire in Eastern Europe alongside their public support for Solidarity; Reagan also worked with the AFL-CIO toward this end. The US also instituted a campaign of economic espionage which — among other things – caused the trans-Siberian gas pipeline to explode in the most monumental non-nuclear explosion and fire ever seen from space. And ran proxy wars against the empire in countries like Afghanistan and Nicaragua.
Morrissey has also updated to include a point made better by NRO’s Jim Geraghty:
…in an era of asymmetrical warfare, a group’s budget and spending do not necessarily reflect the scope or danger of the threat. The 9/11 Commission report stated the attacks cost somewhere between $400,000 and $500,000 to execute, plus the cost of training the 19 hijackers in Afghanistan; the short-term costs alone to the U.S. from the attacks are estimated at $27.2 billion.
Geraghty also surveys some of the track record of these “tiny countries” in killing Americans and otherwise harming American interests, though he failed to specifically include the Iranian-backed 1982 terror bombing of 241 US Marines in the barracks in Beirut. Geraghty notes “worrisome reports of radical Islamist activity in Venezuela,” but I would add that it’s not limited to Venezuela, either:
The Iranian-backed Hezbollah militia has taken root in South America, fostering a well-financed force of Islamist radicals boiling with hatred for the United States and ready to die to prove it, according to militia members, U.S. officials and police agencies across the continent.
From its Western base in a remote region divided by the borders of Paraguay, Brazil and Argentina known as the Tri-border, or the Triple Frontier, Hezbollah has mined the frustrations of many Muslims among about 25,000 Arab residents whose families immigrated mainly from Lebanon in two waves, after the 1948 Arab-Israeli war and after the 1985 Lebanese civil war.
An investigation by Telemundo and NBC News has uncovered details of an extensive smuggling network run by Hezbollah, a Shiite Muslim group founded in Lebanon in 1982 that the United States has labeled an international terrorist organization. The operation funnels large sums of money to militia leaders in the Middle East and finances training camps, propaganda operations and bomb attacks in South America, according to U.S. and South American officials.
In this regard, the CIA singles out the Mexican border as an especially inviting target for Hezbollah operatives.
Geraghty also refers to the apparent Syrian nuclear facility built with assistance from North Korea that Israel recently bombed. In this regard, it is worth adding that Iran’s nuclear ambitions are sparking a new global nuclear race, but particularly in the Mideast:
At least 40 developing countries from the Persian Gulf region to Latin America have recently approached U.N. officials here to signal interest in starting nuclear power programs, a trend that concerned proliferation experts say could provide the building blocks of nuclear arsenals in some of those nations.
***Much of the new interest is driven by economic considerations, particularly the soaring cost of fossil fuels. But for some Middle Eastern states with ready access to huge stocks of oil or natural gas, such as Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, the investment in nuclear power appears to be linked partly to concerns about a future regional arms race stoked in part by Iran’s alleged interest in such an arsenal, the officials said.
Turkey, Egypt and troublesome Yemen are also on this list. People all over the world recognize the growing threat posed by Iran. Unfortunately, Barack Obama seems to be oblivious.
(h/t Memeorandum.)
Update: Yesterday, Iran did not pose a serious threat to the US. Today, Obama declares Iran to be a “grave threat.” Tomorrow, who knows? If it’s Tuesday, it must be Tehran!
yeah, I agree with you Karl, I am for a cold war with Iran, just like you and Obama
sashal,
I don’t think O! has the slightest effing clue as to what to do about Iran. O! just said Iran is not a major threat, yet adjusts his position to the criticism du jour.
and who do you think has a right clue ?
I see that Jenifer and Ed are praising the cold war (even though neocons called Reagan an appeaser at the time). I do too.
Let’s start another one with Iran…
Bullshit.
sashal is recycling this stuff, or strikingly similar stuff from the Glenn(s), which I considered deconstructing over the weekend, but decided to go to the movies instead. One example:
Actually, that was in a headline to an article by Jack Kemp, who never called it such, but was concerned about verification.
The reality, as reflected in the initial post, is that Reagan was far more aggressive than Carter in fighting the USSR (and — after Beirut — terrorism). I doubt anyone thinks an Obama foreign policy would be closer to Reagan than Carter, except possibly sashal.
no it is not, you should brush on your history, rob
thanks , Karl, I was looking for that link to proof to Rob
As far as how good Obama will be -time will tell, we all are just speculating here..
We all know that those small countries (maybe we should call them “chibi countries”) never cause any problems.
I mean, look at Japan and Great Britain. No history of imperialism there!
I still think this a job for a community organizer.
sashal,
You’re welcome to the link which, as I note, is a few anecdotes that are revealed to be mostly crap upon examination. You are going to be at a disadvantage debating this against people who lived here during the period in question.
Someone needs to force-feed O! a copy of America Alone. Just finished it this weekend, and I’ll be starting work on my bomb shelter tomorrow.
Cheer up, sleepy Jean ;-)
Elephant Parts is pretty cool, too.
– The cold war was “the cold war” because we implemented MAD finally, fully by ’75, so at that point we could get out of Nam. The Russkies knew they would be blowing off both legs at that point if they tried any shit. Subsequently they busted their bank trying to stay in the arms race. Diplomacy had not a fucking thing to do with it.
– The Left had to find some way to argue against the Bush administration, regardless of how idiotarian it was. Now they’re down to desperately trying to intimate that Russia succeeded against Reagan, or that Reagan used diplomacy so as to paint that as some elixir for the WOT. It was full of shit then, and its even more full of shit now, because the big difference with the Russians, versus the Jihadist maniacs, is the Russians were not so stupid/delusional that they thought death was preferable to not being able to agrees.
– The Left continues to base their ass-backwards ideas of foreign policy on the weakness of conciliation with a group of barbarians that would saw off their heads without hesitation. The inability of the elitist mind to deal with the evil side of human nature.
– They also continue to believe in the fairytale that force/superior power never solved anything, when in fact in the vast majority of historical cases it is diplomacy that has failed, resulting generally in a festering problem that is simply kicke4 down the road for a time until and even worse conflict ensues.
– Fuck the Left and their appeasement mentality. Diplomacy is fine, as long as you have a very large cannon sitting on the conference table in plain sight of your adversaries.
– Every time the Left interferes with international events, even more people end up dead.
For those who are going “WTF?”, Karl’s post confused me into thinking I was over on the Billy Jack thread.
Thanks, Karl. But Steyn posits a death by a thousand cuts scenario, rather than al Qaeda marching down the streets of Washington (as if anyone were positing such a thing).
I’m such a pessimist I think that Glenn Beck’s predictions on the economy a few months ago sounded pretty cheery. I just keep stocking up soup cans, though so I’ll survive until I don’t.
Iran yesterday: “Not a serious threat”.
Iran today: “A grave threat”.
– O!….and while we’re on the subject, Bamasiah made the classic mistake every Lefty always makes when they try to play games with history.
– During this morning speech, still trying to defend a moronic position on foreign policy, he referenced Kennedy’s “negotiations” with Khrushchev, saying Kennedy “got those missiles out of Cuba”.
– Another example of basing an argument on historical revisionism.
– The Politburo over-ruled Khrushchev, worried sick their shoe banging nutcase leader was about to get their asses fried in an all out nuclear war, AND, because Kennedy gave them the CONCESSION of removing the missiles from Turkey he had stupidly installed just a few months before. Obviously a singularly bad example where the only thing that got negotiated was we managed not to start a war over Kennedy’s dumb ass blunder.
– There O!. Fixed that for you. At least if you’re going to argue don’t base it on lies and bad faith examples.
Yes, it is. And what history? I lived through that period.
Tell ya what, you find anyone identified as a “neocon” in the ’80s calling Reagan an appeaser and I’ll apologize. Ain’t gonna happen.
SBP,
I crossed the streams; always a bad idea.
The Saudis? The one country in the world with plenty of empty, useless, sun-scorched land to build solar panels on wants to go nuclear?
Well, see, they just don’t have enough silicon…
Look,Karl, I understand that just talking to people won’t make the world a happy place but why the rightwing’s phobia to the very notion of talking. Yes, giving away parts of other people’s countries to try and placate the enemies is a bad idea, but I don’t see that as part of anyone’s politica platform at the moment.
Big Bang Hunter,
Let’s also note that the Berlin Wall went up and the missiles went to Cuba in the first instance in part due to the Vienna Summit, from which O! has learned no lesson.
Rob, from that link, Karl was kind enough to present:
“When he and Mikhail Gorbachev signed the Intermediate Range Nuclear Forces Treaty in 1987, which for the first time eliminated an entire class of nuclear weapons, Buckley’s National Review dubbed it “suicide.” The Conservative Caucus took out a full-page newspaper ad saying “Appeasement is as unwise in 1988 as in 1938.” It paired photos of Reagan and Gorbachev with photos of Neville Chamberlain and Hitler.”
Oh, and btw, neoconservative thought was not born just yesterday.
– Tell you what sashal. I would just fucking LUUUUUUV to debate Obama’s mulato ass….just love to.
– He’s be up against someone that LIVED through that entire era, and all the Leftist bullshit that preceded it, and every time he tried to rattle off some BS talking point lie his handlers hand scribbled on his notes for him, I’d just coolly hit him with the truth and watch him squirm. I’d just fucking love it.
– The Left has been getting away with all this crap for way, way too long.
Sashal,
Let’s admit, for purposes of this argument that conservatives were not always fully on board with everything Reagan did.
How, in any way, does that have anything to do with the fact that (a) the left opposed absolutely everything Reagan did and therefore were (as always) wrong; and (2) that Obama is not proposing anything even remotely similar to a Reagan foriegn policy and thus this argument is not only a complete and utter hypocritical lie, but stupid as well?
I mean, if Obama even remotely had the intellect, fortitude, moral center and principals to effectuate a Reagan foriegn policy, I would support the guy. If he did, the left would absolutely lose its collective mind. After all, when Reagan was president, and until his death, Reagan was hated by the left even more than President Bush is today.
If OBama was willing to be as forceful with Iran, if he was willing to use military power and economic power to try and topple the Iranian gov’t, there might be an argument here. there is absolutely nothing in anything Obama has said to indiciate that he would do anything but lick the boots of the Iranian gov’t, and to say otherwise is ridiculous.
I appreciate the left’s newfound love for all things Reagan in theory. When they start actually living up to and enacting Reagan principals I will actually believe it.
Last thought – Sashal, does it bother you that your side (the left) is so full of b.s. that they go from calling someone pure evil as they have with Reagan to idolizing the guy in less than 30 years? How can you even pretend to have any intellectual consistency when you do that? How can you pretend to have any honesty at all? Why does the left need to lie about everything? Why can’t they have actual principals and simply make arguments as to why they believe those principals are the right ones? Why, instead do they do such dishonest b.s. as this? Doesn’t that make you consider that your side is wrong? That it has no moral base? No principals?
Or, do you simply bury your head and swallow whatever the latest “progressive” line is?
sashal: It is the international status that some of that talking conveys that is the problem. Obviously, we can’t talk to openly terroristic “groups” like Hamas or Islamic Jihad or AQ. I think that you agree with that position.
With Iran there is the added problem of history. Because our diplomatic sovereignty was violated, a technical state of war has existed between the countries. Iran was pretty clear about throwing us out of their country with the hostage incident. Since then they have been relentless and unrepentant in pursuing their “nationalist/imperialist” version of Jihad, shi’a style. We are not in a position, especially now, to bring any sort of legitimacy to them as long as they continue to head down a path that screams “I want to make as much trouble for your interests as possible!” without any reaching out from the Iranians for the “original” incident in 1979.
You might be able to convince me on Syria and maybe the timing is right. They tend to be a more “realpolitique” sort of nation and they just took a big ol’ black eye with the exposure of the N.Korean reactor/nuclear facility that the Israelis smashed a while back. Maybe they are in a similar position to Libya and ready to make some kind of a deal. Maybe not.
Bottom line is a determination, rightly proclaimed, that terrorism, state sponsored or independent, is an unacceptable action in the modern world. It must be faced, it must be devastated and it must not be given any iota of legitimacy. We really need to make jihadist terrorism so miserably painful that only a tiny sliver of morons see it as a career opportunity.
Sort of the way a lot of those AQ in Iraq fighters are feeling right about now.
Ah, I see. Now you’re retroactively defining people as “neocons” based on… what, exactly? “It helps my case to declare this person a neocon, therefore this person is a neocon”?
I really doubt that anyone who was in the Conservative Caucus in 1987 would have had a fricking clue what you were talking about, had you accused them (then) of being neocons.
Of course, I don’t think you have a fricking clue when you natter on about neocons now, so I guess you have that going for you.
Obama couldn’t be more wrong!!! Today, CNN is running pictures of the Iranian invasion fleet floating just off our coast! Why doesn’t Obama know about his invasion? Why doesn’t he know a country of 65 million people and no ability to project power beyond the Middle East is a grave danger to the world’s only superpower. I mean, doesn’t he know Venezuela, Iran, and Cuba’s combined defense spending is less than 1 percent of our own? If they reach one percent, we’ll all be speaking Perso-Spanish at the dinner table.
Barack just doesn’t realize a real threat like Cuba. They could overrun us tomorrow with boat people. We need to invade these enemies so they can stop threatening us. I’m so scared of this new Axis of Evil.
Karl, could you tell us who else we should kill before Ed Morrissey and the rest of the Right start wetting their pants? We need to know.
banana, first of all, Reagan is one of my favorite men in history, so don’t give me that crap about bashing Reagan(don’t believe me ask Karl and Dan about it)
Second, where and how did you pull that impression about what Obama’s foreign policies will be and how and in what regard and degree they will be different from Reagan’s.?
Obama promised that they will be pragmatic.
And that is my hope , not the belligerent idiotism of bushtards
Amazingly Stupid:
Your dullwitted rant would’ve worked a lot better before 9/11, when it made clear (to all but the terminally stupid) that a large conventional military force isn’t a prerequisite for attacking another nation.
– The event you cited might, in your mind, seem to argue for diplomacy as more than just an adjunct to power, but thats because you’re ignoring the situation of the time. See that year? 1988. Let me explain it for you.
– By 1988 the Soviet was falling apart at the seams. The key people in the government knew that, so anything that Reagan and Gorbachev did at that point was as irrelevant as if they had met to exchange baseball scores.
– Try again, but do a little better. (The Caucus was full of shit too in this case, but lacked a good understanding of the situation, and went overboard fearing Reagan was giving away the store. Most in Congress did not understand that MAD had nailed the game for all time 15 years before the wall. The Left is not alone in having people in Congress that are in the dark at times.)
Oh, and Amazingly Stupid?
According to your Personal Savior, Iran is now a “grave threat”.
I suggest you report to the nearest reeducation camp for a pravda upgrade.
#28, BJTex, thanks, well put.
I basically agree with your argument.
We probably just differ in the degree you or I willing USA to go to in the reagards to Iran, negotiation or military confrontation.
Obama wants to talk
They certainly sponsor terrorist organizations, and one of them could bring a nuke in through our porous southern border.
addendum, BJTex
…. or cold war like economical sanctions pressures
Amazing: Just a quick question.
Do we limit our determination of existential threats to the size of the countrys’ military?
hint: Think “asymetrical warfare” and “economic consequences.”
Do not take a bong hit before answering.
Sashal: Have you seen any evidence that “cold war style economic pressures” have had any effect on Iran’s desires?
OH he figured it out, it just took 1 day and 1 state later. Now he’s calling Iran a “grave threat.”
(Courtesy Ace of Spades HQ)
His advisors? His own statements?
Oh, look, sashal’s BDS raises its head. I submit you have only a wildly inaccurate, cartoon idea of Bush’s foreign policy.
(Hint: We didn’t go to war with China, despite provocation.)
– Someone should get the word to Kirsten Powers that Obass has changed his mind again. She was just holding forth on FOX arguing yesterdays position. Embarrassing.
Old Obama:
Hope and change!
New Improved Obama:
Pragamatic hope and change!
Old Obama:
Tiny threat
New Improved Obama:
Grave threat.
I am feeling so much better about a President Obama now that he is fleshing out his positions for us.
Karl and the rest:
Isn’t it pretty much given that these countries will eventually have the bomb? I mean try as we might, preventing every jackass country like Yemen from procuring the means necessary to build one at some point in the future just doesn’t seem possible.
Then what? I can see where the preemptive attack strategy Bush initiated after 9/11 would enable us to knock out nuclear “power” plants ala Israel in Syria, but where do you draw the line in that kind of global “whack-a-mole”?
= “a grave threat”. The messiah gains enlightenment. Isn’t that just precious.
– So basically we’re all involved in a teachable moment for the fearless cult leader.
– I guess the Left expects the voters to go for him on the promise that he will be up to speed by election time. Pathetic.
#39.
Those pressures were not seen to work even in the USSR.
Remember, the intelligence community in the USA had no idea that soviets will collapse that fast.
So , there something underneath our radar may be going on in Iran, remember they desperately need energy, that could be one of the pressure points.
hunter,
I thought that it was a mistake at the time that Obama said no preconditions for presidential meet.
I think we can notice gradual changing and polishing of this position.(remember he said this in the heat of the polemic with Hillary)
Now his position is under assault. I think that this flap is indicative of Obama’s electoral inexperience.
That’s all. He will be fine in November
remember they desperately need energy
Oh, come on!
Tell me why a small country with 9% of the world’s crude oil and the second largest natural gas reserves in the world “needs energy”.
They “need energy” as much as Michael Moore needs another cheeseburger.
Well, true that, sashal.
We could utterly devastate their country’s economy by simply bombing their decrepid refineries. Would even put our pilots at risk as we could do it strictly with cruise missiles. With an artificially low nationally mandated gas price (the raising of which several months ago caused riots until rescinded) and more than half of their refined gasoline coming overland by truck, the country would be in chaos within days.
Of course, that’s just me being a warmongering neothuggish retard.
William F. BUCKLEY was a neo-conservative????
How did anyone come to that conclusion?
SBP: Actually, Iran does need “energy” but more along the lines of refining capacity. Their infrastructure is old and dilapidated, hence the “bomb the refineries” strategy above.
As has been pointed out before, no sane Oil Company is going to do work in Iran for fear of being stiffed. See: Russians hold up reactor core until they get paid.
SBP: Actually, Iran does need “energy†but more along the lines of refining capacity.
True enough, but they don’t need the energy itself.
They’re not doing building those refineries, though, even though it’d be way cheaper and less destabilizing than building nukes.
Why is that, sashal?
Actually, because anybody with the capabilities of building refineries refuses to work there. thye might get the Russians in but they suck at building refineries. Almost all of that knowledge, of building and, mnore importantly, maintaining those refineries rests in the royally screwed hands of the oiuld companies.
A sad, sad, reality that Hugo Potato Head Chavez is going to discover in about 5-7 years.
Well, the Birchers said he was a communist, so…
Oiuld companies?
Note to Self: No more liquid lunches.
SBP, we know that official version is they want nuclear power stations . That is their claim.. so it means they need sources of energy.
BJTex, noticed above the russians assisting in the power plant in Bursher(?).
Mikey, Buckley was not neocon, I was referring, may be too broadly to the decision of the republican caucus
SBP, we know that official version is they want nuclear power stations . That is their claim.. so it means they need sources of energy.
I can’t decide if you’re dumb enough to believe the official version of a dictatorship and presume that’s the accurate story or if you’re just being unsuccessfully sarcastic.
Now, I have it. You’re just painted into a corner and are flailing about for something to grab on to and keep your argument going even though you know you’re wrong.
Actually, because anybody with the capabilities of building refineries refuses to work there.
Sure, I was just baiting sashal.
What they really NEED is a new government.
Bush’s multi-lateral talks with Iran + sanctions = cowboy diplomacy.
Obama’s daily flailing = polishing his super-geniusness.
Got it.
#59
Whaaaa…. Bush is (multi-lateral talking) appeasing?
“If it’s Tuesday, it must be Tehran!”
Or O! gets pummeled in Kentucky.
– Bush has had diplomatic talks going on with Iran since before Desert stoem even.
– Bush has ralleyed a coalition of countries to bot talk to, and when that failed, use economic sanctions on Iran.
– Bush has talked tough in public statements, warning the Iranians that if they took certain steps we would not hesitate to take out their nuclear exploration labs.
– Bush offered them the nuclear fuel they need to power a peaceful domestic plant. Even offered to help finance and build it.
– OBass says its a failed policy….says he would sit down with Awkdinnerjacket and hold face to face talks without precondition.
– And do what? Say what? Offer them what? (Maybe New Jersey?)
#62.
O’K , let’s just bomb them, let’s just bring them liberation and democracy…
Iran is not nearly as big a threat as is currently China or North Korea and pales in comparison to the threat that the USSR was for a long time.
Further, if anyone here truly understood the threats anyone and everyone faces, you’d know that a 16 year old hacker can inflict more damage than the military of any country on the planet. We have nothing to fear from any military action.
– Cute, but beside the point sashal. As McCain said this morning. Presidential summet meetng level diplomacy is the biggest trump card America has. Its not to be thrown away carelessly, and can be used by our enemies for good PR. and to gain advantage in any negotiation. All of this is particularly true for an adversary who’s principal aim is anaything but negotiation.
– You go to a summet with something in play. Something that has already been negotiated by lower level officials from both sides and supported by the two countries leadership, at least in principle.
– Thats the way diplomacy works. That Obama is waving his hands and talking simplistic “I’ll do this and that, blah blah blah”, as if its a one sided process that he alone can work to advantage, simply underlines his naive, inexperienced approach to things.
– actually, a bit more troubling is the idea that it underlines the same inexperience of his advisers.
Foolish BS, sashal.
We have no objection whatever to “talking”. What we do object to is fruitless talk, and most especially to talk to the exclusion of all other strategies. “Speak softly and carry a big stick,” the man said a long time ago. What he did not say, because at the time he didn’t need to, is that the stick is necessary — as is the perception on the part of the other guys that it will be used when needed.
Negotiation is pointless unless each side has something the other wants and is willing and able to pay for. Furthermore, both sides have to have favorable credit scores; by which I mean, they have to be shown to have paid up on similar deals in the past. In the specific cases of Iran and Hamas, both have specifically, repeatedly, and emphatically stated their minimum price, one of the items of which is the utter destruction of Israel; and in both cases they have made solemn agreements, much publicized, which they then promptly reneged on.
Yes, yes, I know, “they can’t really mean that, it’s stupid”, right? On what basis do you make that judgement? What do you suppose we could offer that would make them retreat from that demand? I don’t mean precisely, but going into negotiations without some idea of what the price is, even to the nearest order of magnitude, is not a procedure calculated to yield success.
In the specific case of Iran and nukes, it has been my opinion for the last couple of years that although the “Down with Israel!” rhetoric is real and they would do it if they had the chance, it is primarily misdirection. What they really fear is a repeat of Saddam’s invasion, this time by an American-trained force. Saddam fought them to a standstill and got out with most of his assets. What does that tell you about the quality of the Iranian Army? What happens at the réprise, with the Iraqis operating at, say, half of American efficiency? That’s why they meddle in Iraq, and that’s why they want The Bomb. What can we give up to buy that fear back? And if the answer is “too much”, what is the point of negotiations, with or without preconditions?
Regards,
Ric
O’K , let’s just bomb them, let’s just bring them liberation and democracy
Wow, I made a mistake. I thought maybe you were rational and sane, intellectually mature and honorable. I was wrong on all counts. I won’t make that mistake again.
Rick , if anybody reads my posts carefully, that must be you, BJTex Karl and Dan.
I am not arguing with your arguments, not at all.
All this discussion came from the notion, that :
1-to talk is to appease, which is simplistically dumb, and I mentioned above, just like you, that I am in support of preconditions and that Obama is shifting in that direction as well.
2- the wide spread premise on this blog that Obama will be weak in foreign policy and will not be pragmatic like other conservative administrations, which I said “time will tell” and I do not see any indications that Obama is willing to give up on important to USA national security issues…
Cowboy (#44 Comment by Cowboy on 5/19 @ 2:07 pm),
Actually, the nuclear non-proliferation saga has been a bit more successful than many realize. Granted, there are a few that get through and there are always a lot in play, but basically nuclear non-proliferation generally works using the ex-wife arsenal of tools to keep proliferation in check. Sure, some folks are just that determined to get nukes, but it always seems to turn into such an unholy pain in the butt.
Baracky is a skeezer pleaser, sashal. It’s not so much his means as his ends. What are his foreign policy objectives? Hell if I know. Mostly he wants to humble this country any way he can. It’s sad cause lots of dictator people are gonna find that really heartening. And also I really hate scrawny guys that tell everybody they eat too damn much. It’s obnoxious, sashal.
– Theres yet another consideration in all of this. While I agree, of course, that the fear of direct American intervention in Iran is a palpable fear on the Imums part, I think they also see their dreams of a rebirth of the Celiphate slipping away.
– I also think they really want the bomb from a self defense standpoint. One thing thats seldom considered, and I’m not sure that they have this perpective either, is the possible ramifications should some rogue Jihadist group gets its hands on a nuclear weapon and explodes same in an American city. The demand for retribution would be swift and sure, and would make Pearl Harbor look like a fireworks display.
– And the problem goes even deeper, with a large number of scenarios. Say a rogue group, unhappy that the “New crusade” has stalled out, and decides to do the deed leaving evidence thatintentionally leads back to Syria, or Iran.
– Even left alone to their own devices Iran is decades away from a true nuclear arsenal, particularly delivery systems, even if they had the weapons. Thinking of all the possibilities has to leave them very worried.
– I don’t blame them. The next 20 years are going to be “interesting” in a Confucius sort of way.
And also I really hate scrawny guys that tell everybody they eat too damn much. It’s obnoxious…./i>
I join you in that….
Sashal, the problem is that you’re right in the general case, but absolutely wrong in these specific ones.
Both Iran and Hamas, as well as Hamas’s predecessor the PLO, have demonstrated that they will not live up to agreements solemnly made. In that case, “talk without preconditions” is appeasement, because what the others want is (1) recognition as Major Players when in fact they are two-bit toughs, and (2) more time to continue the efforts we don’t like. Calling for more talks, especially at the Presidential level, gives them both at no cost to them.
Regards,
Ric
Sashal,
At least for my part, I am willing to assume that Obama isn’t necessarily going to appease, but the tone of his commentary over the last several months has given me a fair bit of concern. It isn’t what he may say after several months of campaigning, but the reflex with which he always seems to operate.
I think all reasonable people know that, when possible, talk is better than fighting. It’s easier, you don’t break any of the glasses, and if you run up a big enough bar bill, the house might buy you a round or two. Similarly, I think all people know that, when circumstances are sufficiently dire, it is better to fight than chat. Most notably, Iwo Jima didn’t even have any bars, and the Japanese were much too irate at the time to have a cold one anyways.
My concern is that Obama always seems to reflexively start from the premise that fighting is always unwarranted and that talking is always the appropriate solution to any problem. Granted, given some time, he may drift from that, but it seems to be his most comfortable starting assumption. The problem with this assumption in particular, is that it fails to address the any argument that is characterized by both a) irreconcilable differences, and b) an existential threat.
While Obama, in the end, might migrate away from reflexive pacifism, the problem is that the other guys. The guys who are a great deal meaner, shrewder and more cutthroat than most Americans can even conceive of. While we futz around, gabbing in some outraged shriek, some of those folks will have given us the shiv. While we work on screwing our courage to the sticking point, they’ve gone for the knife and are well on their way to gifting us with a Colombian necktie (at least in diplomatic, realpolitik terms).
Could Obama learn? Yes, but the last century has been littered with the wreckage of painful learning curves when the rookies step on to the playing field of the “nasty, short, and brutish” geopolitics that constantly underlines the sordid history of conflict.
BRD
China will for sure have Taiwan for lunch. And Cousin Hugo will take those Dutch islands. And then the whole Falklands thing will get a sequel. God knows what Russia will do, and poor Israel. Buh-bye. Colombia will have to make some really unpleasant choices, and mostly our moral obligation to Haiti will be the frontispiece of our foreign policy I think.
Iran is not nearly as big a threat as is currently China or North Korea and pales in comparison to the threat that the USSR was for a long time.
Further, if anyone here truly understood the threats anyone and everyone faces, you’d know that a 16 year old hacker can inflict more damage than the military of any country on the planet. We have nothing to fear from any military action.
I love when someone comes here and makes two statements which end up contradicting each other. Iran is certainly much less of a military threat (in the conventional, declared war, professional military sense) than Russia, China or even North Korea, but as you have said, the real threat is no longer military. China and even Russia are too tied into the global economy to really make too much trouble, and North Korea is too isolationist.
Iran can seriously cut the supply of oil from the Persian Gulf region, even with US forces in the way. If they get nuclear weapons, they can threaten to decapitate any of the gulf states or cripple the US forces in the region. They won’t win the resulting war, but they’re reasonably certain that we won’t risk that kind of a fight. Right now, Iran is waging warfare by proxy, meaning they don’t have to pony up all that expensive military equipment to wage war, and with the added bonus that, thanks to the isolationist left which is willing to condemn the US use of force but not the Iranian use of force, we can’t fight them without being painted as the bad guys. With nuclear weapons, they can make sure no one would respond to any provocation by proxy.
The US has been faced with three horrible options:
1. resort to using terrorism (proxy warfare) ourselves, with all the risks and all the problems associated with doing that in a country in which the NY Times has made a sport of revealing the government’s dirty laundry.
2. let them continue to slowly bleed us.
3. Say “Screw it!” and attack them, taking all the negative reactions for our “pre-emptive warfare”, and letting whichever president finally makes that last step get condemned into history as “worse than Bush for getting us into this quagmire”.
The most likely scenario is a lot of 2, until the Iranians overstep and cross some line we can’t ignore, followed by 3 (although the Israelis could end up being the ones to say “screw it” and move on to 3 first).
. . . all over
with a feeling that I’m going to love them
till the end of time.
So here’s to the Hezbollah,
And the fascist Ba’ath Sunni,
But mostly here’s a toast
To Hugo C.
[…] at Memeorandum: The Caucus, The Campaign Spot, JustOneMinute, Agence France Presse, protein wisdom, The Hill’s Blog Briefing Room, Israpundit, Redstate, Don Surber, Atlas Shrugs, Wake up […]
For those here who are sad that your idiot in chief cannot be king forever, I am sorry. It is clear you have VERY SERIOUS mental issues which lead you to believe McCain will be elected. Not a chance, ever. Your crowd is the last, gasp 25%r’s who have yet to quit drinking the kool-aid, and it shows with your juvenile comments about the democratic runners. Your side has ruined this once great country, and the fact that you still cling to the monarchy of george W Bush says all that needs to be said. America will survive and prosper – in spite of you, not because of you. Your children will know the truth and they will look inot your eyes and know you were this close to sending the country to the banana republic status you so dearly want. You should be ashamed.
Psst… Fred?
Paragraphs. Look into the concept.
Your children will know the truth and they will look [into] your eyes and know you were this close to sending the country to the banana republic status you so dearly want…
Don’t leave me hanging, Fred! Aren’t “[our] children” then supposed to do something to us?
Like hide the Victrola crank, for instance.
I think they’re going to remove the return keys from all of our keyboards.
Next, they’re going force us to type with one hand while masturbating with the other.
Finally, we’ll have to proofread what we’ve written on a spittle-flecked monitor.
That’s just a theory, though, based on Fred’s example.
The “Fred” Olbermann Theory?
Wow. Fred gives me pause. Oh. Ok it passed.
Scratch an MSNBC, find a Fred.
ha, me too. BECAUSE OF THE DENSE BLOCK OF TEXT!!! and typos.
If O sits down with Ahmenwhosits, he will be under domestic pressure to “get something”, which is to say, a deal.
A will sit there, smiling, until O gives him something for nothing.
If O has the cojones to suggest something for something, A will just sit there, smiling while his minions fax the nutroots to start screaming.
And O will give him something for nothing.
Not wanting to be compared any further to Chamberlain, O will have to defend the deal, the dems will have to defend it, the media will defend it, and there will be no argument.
I see that happening about twice a year.
[…] Illinois senator’s comments, made at a campaign stop in Oregon, sent ripples through embassies worldwide as diplomats struggled […]
Remember, Fred is dead.
OK, OK, it’s “Freddie’s dead.”
But, you know, if you wanta be a junkie, wow
Today is such a Curtis Mayfield day, but somehow, I have “Keep on Truckin’ Baby” stuck in my mind.
Maybe because “I’m the Redball Express of lovin'”.
#79
Said Fred. While wearing a spandex flight suit and holding aloft the flaming sword of righteous hopey-changyness.
I know what Obama will say when he meets with Ahmadinijad:
“Okay big fella, we’ve withdrawn from Iraq. Now our nasty, smelly soldiers won’t be so close anymore. That’s better, isn’t it? How’s your tea? More fennel? It makes it good doesn’t it? No….no more goat-kabobs, I can’t just eat whatever I want. It goes right to my hips.”
“Does this burka make my butt look big?”
Personally speaking, I’ve seen just about enough people killed by Iranian proxies. The Iranians seem perfectly content to #$%& up life in as many countries as them deem necessary (Iraq, Lebanon, Israel and by extension they have caused much distress to Jordan and Turkey).
What would someone “talk” to them about? Don’t they have to stop with the weapons, money and training of people who have as their sole goals; death, chaos and extermination?
Cripes, I don’t know a single Arab that doesn’t get clenched up when even thinking about Iran right now. Heck, plenty of Arabs are still po’d about the Iranians blasting away with the Saudis in the tunnels around Mecca lo’ those many years ago. Guess they don’t have much to “talk” over either.
…the fact that you still cling to the monarchy of george W Bush says all that needs to be said.
How come the people who say this always keep ranting?
[…] Karl at Protein Wisdom: “Yesterday, Iran did not pose a serious threat to the US. Today, Obama declares Iran to be a ‘grave threat.’ Tomorrow, who knows? If it’s Tuesday, it must be Tehran!” […]
[…] the comments to yesterday’s post on Barack Obama’s declaration on Sunday that Iran, Venezuela and Cuba do not pose a […]
[…] Karl at Protein Wisdom: “Yesterday, Iran did not pose a serious threat to the US. Today, Obama declares Iran to be a ‘grave threat.’ Tomorrow, who knows? If it’s Tuesday, it must be Tehran!†[…]
Ya know what I don’t get:
McCain gets raked over the coals for the Sunni/Shiite/Iran comment. Well, at least he (and Clinton) knows what countries present a threat. Could this possibly be due to their experience? Nah. Just a couple of wrinkled old warmongers.
Mr. Obama doesn’t even have clue about threats to the US and US interests.
Which, I ask, is more dangerous to this nation?
2 people who will go to the mat for this country or 1 guy who has a history of avoiding ANY conflict?
[…] Should nothing be done about the latter, our relations with Europe will be damaged, and a Mideastern arms race is almost certain to ensue — but Damozel is not nervous about those […]