The New York Times reports that Barack Obama will practice "aggressive diplomacy" with Iran if he is elected president.
Wow. "Aggressive diplomacy." I'm sure the mullahs are shaking in their boots.
Shaking with laughter, that is.
But let's play along and hear what the New York Times has to say:
CHICAGO, Oct. 31 — Senator Barack Obama said he would “engage in aggressive personal diplomacy” with Iran if elected president, and would offer economic inducements and a possible promise not to seek “regime change” if Iran stopped meddling in Iraq and cooperated on terrorism and nuclear issues. World Trade Organization, other economic benefits and security guarantees.
In an hourlong interview on Wednesday, Mr. Obama made clear that forging a new relationship with Iran would be a major element of what he pledged would be a broad effort to stabilize Iraq as he executed a speedy timetable for the withdrawal of American combat troops.
Mr. Obama said that Iran had been “acting irresponsibly” by supporting Shiite militant groups in Iraq. He also emphasized that Iran’s suspected nuclear weapons program and its support for “terrorist activities” were serious concerns.
But he asserted that Iran’s support for militant groups in Iraq reflected its anxiety over the Bush administration’s policies in the region, including talk of a possible American military strike on Iranian nuclear installations.
Making clear that he planned to talk to Iran without preconditions, Mr. Obama emphasized further that “changes in behavior” by Iran could possibly be rewarded with membership in the
“We are willing to talk about certain assurances in the context of them showing some good faith,” he said in the interview at his campaign headquarters here. “I think it is important for us to send a signal that we are not hellbent on regime change, just for the sake of regime change, but expect changes in behavior. And there are both carrots and there are sticks available to them for those changes in behavior.”
"Aggressive diplomacy."
How exactly is that different from normal diplomacy? Will Obama make threats he has no intention of carrying out? Will he call Mahmoud Ahmadinejad names? Will he refuse to shake his hand? Eat nails for breakfast and go into a meeting ready to spit them out?
I doubt that aggressive diplomacy will include any of these, but even if it did, none of it would impress Iran.
I've got news for Barack Obama. This is a typical day's entertainment in Iran -- in between public gatherings in which the chants always include "Death to America," that is.
There has to be either force, or the credible threat of force to make any progress at all with a nation like Iran.
Iran knows that. It doesn't just threaten to hang people. It doesn't just talk about hanging people. It hangs them and hangs them high, and in a manner guaranteed to result in a slow death by strangulation. And it doesn't worry too much about little niceties like protecting freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and other such optional frills.
"Diplomacy" is just words. More words will not impress Iran. What might impress Iran are actions that have serious consequences, such as embargoes, blockades, or military action.
If America does not walk softly and carry a big stick -- with every intention of using it when necessary -- it is deluding itself when it engages in "diplomacy" with a nation that has no sincere desire to make any change whatsoever.
David Limbaugh put it well, in addressing the Iraq Study Group's similar weak-kneed proposal for a "New Diplomatic Offensive": "Could Hitler's or the Soviet's thirsts for world domination have been resolved diplomatically? Shouldn't we recognize that certain regimes, ideologies and radical theologies have no interest in diplomacy other than as a diversion to lull their enemies into concessions or a false sense of security?"
The West has already had decades of precious wasted time with Iran. First the U.N. took a whack at exercising its magical skills of diplomacy on Iran. We knew two years ago that the U.N.'s efforts had failed. Then the European Union jumped to the fore -- to show President Bush exactly how it's done. And the results are? While the European Union tried one ineffectual strategy after another, Iran defied the U.N. again and again, enriched uranium, and has reached the point at which some believe Iran cannot be stopped -- due in part to angry, unreasoning opposition from the left to any attempt by the White House to take more forceful measures to stop Iran.
All of this delay carries with it a heavy price. Iran has grown stronger, more repressive, and more aggressive -- in the true sense of the word -- every day. That, in turn, will make it harder, and perhaps even impossible, to stop Iran by force if necessary.
"Still, if you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed, if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not so costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no chance of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves." (Winston Churchill)
Obama promises more pointless delay -- delay that only favors Iran in its pursuit of a fully operational nuclear weapons capability. Obama wants to offer "economic inducements" to Iran -- bribes, in other words (something that failed miserably with North Korea, by the way), and "promises not to seek regime change."
This isn't a bold new strategy. It's the same old recycled plan the U.N. and European Union have tried for years to no avail, dressed up with fresh lipstick and freshly cello-wrapped by the New York Times in a seeming effort to shore up Obama's foundering campaign.
“I think it is important for us to send a signal that we are not hellbent on regime change, just for the sake of regime change, but expect changes in behavior," Obama says.
Yes, and -- ? President Bush has already "expected" changes in behavior by Iran. President Bush has not sent any signal that he is "hellbent" on regime change, either. The present administration is doing exactly what Barack Obama promises to do -- but it's doing it better than Obama ever could. At least Iran has reason to believe that if President Bush decided to change Iran's regime, he would have the courage of his convictions to send armed forces to do just that. But does anyone in Iran seriously believe the Barack Obama would go to war if necessary to stop Iran?
Not a chance. Obama told the New York Times "that Iran’s support for militant groups in Iraq reflected its anxiety over the Bush administration’s policies in the region, including talk of a possible American military strike on Iranian nuclear installations."
So whatever Obama might do in the process of so-called "aggressive diplomacy," it won't include anything that might cause Iran anxiety.
Who is he kidding? As illustrated by the latest debate, Obama doesn't even have the courage to take on Hillary Clinton "aggressively." With the mullahs of Iran, he stands no chance. He will be another passive, ineffectual president like Jimmy Carter, who tried one inadequate half-measure after another while Americans were held hostage by Iran for 444 days.
As I wrote 19 months ago:
Demands for further diplomatic efforts involving Iran should be seen for what they are: Suicidal stalling tactics -- witting or unwitting attempts to aid Iran in acquiring full nuclear weapons capability. In Iran's case, "diplomacy" is just another word for fatal delay.
Obama doesn't have a realistic plan on Iran. What he has is a whole lot of wishful thinking. He's about 20 years behind. It's the ninth inning. as far as Iran's nuclear ambitions are concerned, and Obama is still filling in the names on his blank scorecard.
Comments