At Fiscal Times Patrick Smith make a point similar to the one I did here about the internal contradictions of our Middle East policy:
We’re in Orwell country now. What Obama’s people call “policy†designates a critical vacuum thereof. What’s tagged as “strategy†means something closer to “winging it.â€
but he arrives at a starkly different conclusion. His advice is that we should make nice with the Iranians.
I think he’s neglecting to take a few things into consideration. First, the primary barrier to better relations with iran has not been the U. S. but Iran. Time and again over the period of the last 30 years practically every overture we’ve made has been rebuffed. Second, opposition to the United States is a staple of Iranian politics. No Iranian political speech or demonstration would be complete without chants of “Death to America!”
Third, the clarification that the Bush Administration and now the Obama Administration had made, that we are seeking a change in the behavior of the Iranian regime rather than regime change, is a distinction without a difference. The regime behaves as it does because it is the regime it is.
Finally, do we really want a cozier relationship with a country that executes children? Or homosexuals just for being homosexuals?
To sup with this particular devil we should have a very long spoon. And be behind a curtain. And be wearing noseplugs.
There are many “signs and symptoms” indicating the shallowness of the Iranians’ intentions to abide by any nuclear agreement. For all intensive purposes it appears to blatantly be nothing more than contrived lip service going on between them and Kerry, as they continue to demand an immediate end to economic sanctions, a relatively short sunset clause binding them to this agreement, while at the same time indulging in public threats encouraging the demise of the United States and Israel. Where is the believability factor in these talks? And what about the alliance between Iran and N. Korea that has been noted, with the nagging possibility of Iran housing nuke materials in another despotic country who is our enemy?
In fact, the cognitive dissonance rampant in these negotiations is mind-boggling transparent, as the Iranians hold out one hand of cooperation while they have the other hand firmly clasping a knife to stick in the backs of Westerners. But, for some reason the Obama administration seems to be turning the proverbial cheek and relying on unreliable Iranian assurances that their program is benign and free of nuclear weapon ambitions. In fact we are so stuck on stupid in our own oxymoron negotiation, placating the American public’s fears by saying our main goal is to prevent Iran from having nuclear capability, as we steadily lower or eliminate the thresholds stopping them from achieving such a capability! Such deaf and blind maneuvering, for the sake of consummating a weak deal, seems to only augment Lt. General Flynn’s candid comment that the U.S. is showing “willful ignorance” in their foreign policy strategies.
I don’t think the history is as one-sided as you suggest. Although I agree with you that Iran is country that does a lot of bad things and its politics is born and raised in anti-Americanism, that shouldn’t stop us from dealing with them when it’s in our interest to do – just like any other country. What is special about the devil in Iran that is different from other devils we deal with as a matter of routine?
Nothing. It’s why we should take a narrower view of our interests and be more cautious in who we get into bed with..
Agreed, but I don’t think negotiating with Iran on a nuclear agreement amounts to getting into bed with them.
Dave,
Off topic, but I just got Pillars of Eternity and so far it seems like a worthy RPG that plays and feels like Baldur’s Gate.
I’ll need to check it out. For the last couple of months I’ve been playing Dragon Age: Inquisition. I have to agree with one of the reviews that said it was the most beautiful boring game ever produced.
That’s certainly what the author of the linked post is advocating.