"Hit Iran where it hurts

(Democratic presidential hopeful takes a get-tough stance against tyrant of Tehran)

By BARACK OBAMA"
http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/..._it_hurts.html


*sigh*

All right - full marks for honesty about how little they can do, and about the imagination and vision in the usual foreign policy circles. And even though giving the authority to channel government resources based on a committee's solemn assessment of what is "genocide- free" investment.. for government employees.. is probably one of the greatest leaps of vision since Allbright's pistachio nut embargo. In that it tries to - at least in principle - to look at what can be done with American investments overseas in conjunction with a more responsible foreign policy.

But how does he propose to justify this bold, bold, new foreign policy stance? By being more rhetorically tough on Iran than Bush. And presumably without irony, Barak says that the US should not refrain from speaking to it's enemies, and should not abandon diplomacy as a tool for achieving it's unspecific goals by making empty rhetorical gestures - and then goes on to explain the exact same oversimplified view of the world that Bush and his politically myopic advisers have so thoroughly demonstrated for the last few years.

In a way, I refuse to believe that the US can't do better than this - but it illustrates a simple point: that in Washington, the established thinking when it comes to foreign policy is so bipartisan and so streamlined, that the wiggle room is simply non- existent. The idea - whatever the "principled" problems may be caused by local concerns regarding investments in the oil and war- business - is to project influence into certain areas of the world in order to facilitate change. How that change is achieved - well, that's not important. The important part is to create the political backing for whatever is done. By flimsy rhetoric that resonates with "the american people", or by grossly inaccurate and misguided fundamental views on American power and influence. It does not matter: what is most important is to keep the pressure up - for without it, who knows what evil plots the enemy would be emboldened to attempt, no? If the USA did not constantly keep the devils at bay, by speaking boldly about freedom and democracy?

And if you don't agree with Obama on "strong diplomacy", well you're in luck. The same rhetoric works on military action as well. Like it did in Iraq, where democratic senators and house members voted in droves to support the war.

Now, on to Iran!

I do not consider Barak Obama a particularly intelligent man. Articulate, yes, a nice voice, certainly, brains behind it, unfortunately not. Obama's thinking is too insular, as if he imagines the US with absolute control over everything, even our enemies. He has no idea what an enemy committed to nothing less than total annhilation is capable of. He talks about publishing a list of companies like that would actually accomplish something besides using up paper. The only reason why people will vote for him is because he is black and the voter is going to prove how non-racist they are.

..so he's in good company, then.

And you're describing the 'difference' between the two extreme sides very effectively.. One is 'less' naive than the other, in the sense that they think diplomacy and politics is simply a means to justify use of force. While the other believes diplomacy is something that can fix things on it's own, if only the mighty US insists on it enough.

But both approaches fail to even evaluate whether the US has the right to do this, or even if it has a possibility of success. Much less what the results will be in the end in practical terms, and in principle due to the approach chosen in the first place.

And to be honest, you're not appreciating Clinton enough on that particular aspect.. His advisers was as mad then as the Bush- cultists are, but the actual policies were tempered by certain limits. And these are simply not considered anymore by this administration.

And they justify that by not being as deceitful as Clinton. By being straight- forward. As you say, they know the enemy isn't nice.

When in reality, of course, they have simply mistaken their ingrained and uncontested beliefs as truth, and the very special american political context of being a good reference for judging their integrity. It isn't.

You seriously don't think the United States has a right to try and prevent Iran from getting the bomb? Huh. I think we have a duty to prevent nuclear proliferation in general, and our habit of looking the other way for allies is to be condemned, but not a reason to act similarly blind in all cases. Furthermore, the international community is by-and-large on board with the whole "no nukes for Iran" thought. It's not like the United States is alone in what it wants to see done here.

One can say that it's not fair that a bunch of nations with nuclear power and bombs are bullying on another country for wanting to join the club, but who gives a damn about fairness as long as fewer people end up with the bomb at the end of the day? Idealism is all well and good, and it'd be great if everyone got rid of their weapons in unison, but barring that it's still better that fewer nations end up as nuclear powers than more. Iran won't get a bomb if the international community is dedicated enough to saying "no".

That's like parents saying "My kid won't have sex or take drugs. I tell them no all the time."

Iran will get a bomb if it wants one badly enough and then it will have to be dealt with accordingly. It is well on its way now, including hiring those who know how to build them from Russia and China.

There really is only one way to stop a deadly and committed enemy, and that is to stop them.

tipsy,

It would be if I didn't advocate for any measure beyond saying "no". That isn't the case. I support sanctions if they refuse to comply and an appropriate carrot handed them if they do.

That's why incentives need to be tweaked so that they no longer want one. It isn't impossible to make acquiring nukes far more trouble than it's worth for any given nation.

You are still being too rational. Carrots do not work with the religious zealot acting on commandments from God. Someone with paradise in the palm of their hands will not be swayed. Ahmadinejad is a suicide bomber on a national scale. I read a report once where he said that Iran is prepared to accept 20 million or more dead in a nuclear retaliatory strike. Ahmadinejad was proud and humbled to have the privilege of sending so many muslim souls to paradise. When the jihadists say they crave death, they mean it.

True. We simply have different views on whether screaming down into someone's ear, while pointing a gun on their head, their families and their dog, while promising to kill off all possibility of progress and self- determination for their entire country, region and culture, and calling everything they've ever accomplished that doesn't say "MacDonalds" on it historically moribound, while suggesting it should be utterly removed from living memory as soon as practicable - unless this person bows to your every whim - is a very good approach to achieve it.

Please...what's not fatally "idealistic" about tromping around the globe trying to "fix things" by sheer determination and good will? I guess it makes for good implementation of the traffic- rules, too: yeah, today I decide that everyone should drive on my left hand side, regardless of where in the road I'm driving! It's the frickin' rules!

In any case - I simply said that the US - in both political parties as they're currently represented, and in general across the population, because it's a truly mainstream position - doesn't evaluate whether it should play Risk around the globe, or what it may lead to in principle - or even what the chances of success are. Simply because it's out of the question to do it. The belief in the power of the US is that great, obviously. What you see here, though - with Obama on one hand and Bush on the other - is the actual breadth and scope of this discussion in practice. And that is, quite frankly, scary.

And as you say - "are you saying we shouldn't prevent [insert apocalyptic disaster of choice]!? No? Then we need to [insert government's current aggressive move towards current evildoers of prominence]." Presumably because there are no warning bells going off in actually buying into that rhetoric. And I keep wondering why. In fact, it makes absolutely no sense to me whatsoever, that it appears impossible to temper the very common nationalistic tendencies like that with at least an attempt at reason.

Actually, I heard they eat babies, and execute old men who are too old not to fight. Read it on the pentagon's web- site, right next to the "research- paper" on the global sunni- shia conspiracy going through damaskus and teheran they ordered from the AEI.

Perhaps you could get a transcript of Ahmadinejad's address to the UN and his statements afterwards.

I honestly believe that if Hitler were alive today and announced that he would start killing, Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, the disabled and anyone else he didn't like, today's population would make excuses for him.

There are times when it's understandable to believe that we really will deserve what we're going to get.

*sigh* I...well.. Let me explain: Iran does not worship their leaders like you do in the US. They do not have that many uneducated people. They do not have that many political analphabets. They do not have your sense of righteous nobility and wish to expand their "vision" to the rest of the globe. They do not have your problems with a process of democracy translating into power at a single hand.

And even if they did, they do not have the resources you do. They do not have the population. They do not have the position and vantage point. And they do not have the utterly isolated elite.

Not that the US haven't helped give rise to these elites in several countries in that region for the past fifty years, of course, due to the dependency on this strong leader the "free world" will need to talk with. But nevertheless - such is not the situation in Iran, no thanks to the US. And that is a good thing - or your monkey in the White House would have enabled Iran to become the next "evil empire" long ago. That is, if the country even had the infrastructure, influence and economic independency to somehow be a threat.

Because if you really believe that getting a nuke, or killing americans in droves in their own country is so difficult under the currently sabotaged and broken international anti- proliferation schemes, trade- agreements and sketchy half- assed and politically motivated "special agreements" with governments, apparently on the basis of a promise to the US president at the worst case - and that aquiring a nuke is somehow conditional on whether your leaders are lambasting some evil you don't know what looks like - I assure you you are wrong. That is simply not how things work.

Another thing is that Ahmadinejad does not control the foreign policy in Iran. So arguing that what he says - which you can interpret to mean he wants to nuke Israel or something I presume - is somehow linked to the country's industry, system of government and foreign policy posture, as well as the country's capabilities and political realities - is at best misguided. Although very illustrative.

Still - if we assume it is correct that Ahmadinejad's interpreted comments do in fact control a country's "course", and is representative of that country's "ideology" and direction in general - how can you possibly say that without wondering what others feel about Bush? And, unlike with Ahmadinejad, we do have evidence of just how insane Bush is, and how incompetent the system blindly facilitating his "vision" truly is, and just how few brakes he has.

Some of us have, for instance, talked to people recruited to certain positions in the state- department. And I do not think you quite understand just what your country is - in practice - trying to do. Even though what the sychophants are indeed attempting is exactly what the heavyweights in Washington are explaining, from day to day on television.

And to generalise, this is to create a sphere of american influence to achieve security- political and economical goals, through applying pressure. And insinuating the US into important centers of influence, in order to.. maintain the US's rightful place in the world, or something. Which is the same as what the US has been doing, with some exceptions, since ww2. And something which every other country will try to do, although not to the extent which it works against you.

However, the methods used have changed. And previous limits - such as "we do not go to war on a whim", "we do not torture the crap out of people", and "we do not create situations which we cannot escape from" - are being actively disengaged. For the simple reason that those rising to prominent positions in the US state department are weak- minded yes- men, or optionally very intelligent career- riders (read: skillful liars). You simply do not get relatively unambitious civil servants as a rule.

And what would the political powers that be in the US do with such civil servants, anyway? They do not wish to hear facts - they wish to hear whether there are possibilities that their narrow- minded theories on global governance and leadership through wishful thinking will succeed. And in that club you are not invited, if you ask questions like "well, why should that work?".

So please do consider just exactly what you're criticising when "attacking" another country in the way you do. Because I don't think you have the faintest idea what sort of actual evidence is there to back up your vision of the Iranian threat. Which, I suppose, is understandable in a way, considering what's considered "sane" in the US at the moment..

(.. I mean, assuming people do not truly believe there is a battle between "good and evil" going on here, and that the ultimate end to it means either full dominion over the planet (or at least the hotspots shown on TV), or otherwise defeat at the hands of evil.)