The Real State of Iran

June 18, 2009 - Photo by Getty Images/Getty Images Europe

For those of you who are as confused as I am about our actual position on Iran, I thought I would run down the gambit of newstories related to this rogue nation that have emerged in the last few weeks. 

No better place to start than at the beginning, so that’s where we will go.  As Obama took office in November, he ushered in a new era in foreign affairs and American diplomacy.  One of the most important aspects of this change in policy was our treatment of Iran and its wonderful leader Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.  We stopped referring to them as part of the “Axis of Evil” and began to engage them in the hope of establishing a reasonable line of communication.  To put it plainly, the progressives began to implement their ideology that talking to crazy totalitarian dictators is a good idea. 

For years, the US and every other nation with any sense of their place in the global community, have been concerned that Iran would someday acquire the technology to produce a nuclear weapon.  The destabilizing effect that such a development would have in the region would be immeasurable.  So as the Obama administration began to inquire about Iran’s nuclear development – which we were told repeatedly was for domestic energy production – we began to hear about the administration  ”talking to the Iranians” and “encouraging” them to voluntarily cease production of weapons grade nuclear materials.  This “dialogue” went on for the first few months of the Obama administration and then people began to utter the “S” word.  Sanctions – could we really conceive of sanctioning the Iranians for violating a laundry list of international treaties and UN resolutions by developing a nuclear weapons program?  One could only dream. 

 Notice the Date Here…

Then as rumblings of potential sanctions began to gain momentum, Iran held an election.  And in typical dictatorial fashion, the results were – oh, how do I put this nicely? – FRAUDULENT.  We stayed on the sidelines and let hundreds of thousands of Iranians protest in the streets and watch as all political opposition was persecuted.  Then this aspect of the story just quietly went away.  Wallah!  And we went back to “talking” to dictators.

Protests

Then the newly re-elected Ahmadinejad flexed his electoral muscles and took a hard line on continued “talks” with the US regarding his country’s weapons programs.  So, the Obama administration went to the liberal playbook, and called upon diplomacy, multi-party talks, UN fact-finding, multi-lateral inquiries and the whole lot; only to come to the inevitible conclusion –  that Iran was simply going to do whatever it wanted.  A series of weapons tests seemed to seal the deal on that one. 

So, then the powers that be decided that it was time to discuss possible “sanctions” on Iran if they failed to halt production of the nuclear weapons program – even though they already tried that.  How’d that go you ask?  Well before we could even get to that point (again), Obama’s buddy Chavez down there in Venezuela pledged to block an American trade embargo, and our old buddies the Russians failed to come on board either, and continued to share weapons technology with Iran’s looney-toon leader.  Long story short, it was going nowhere. 

But there was some hope on the horizon.  The UN meets next week and the US is set to chair the Security Council.  And to make the story even sweeter, the topics on the docket are nuclear disarmament and nonproliferation.  The stars couldn’t have aligned themselves anymore perfectly for this issue to finally be resolved.  Right?

Well actually no.  Two things happened.  Our brilliant President, Mr. Obama, made an unprecedented decision to be the first president in history to take the seat as chairman (president) of the Security Council.  This is a rotating seat, which chief executives have generally allowed a diplomat such as the Secretary of State or a UN Ambassador to take.  But not Obama.  He is going to run the show himself.  So you might ask, isn’t this a good thing? 

Well it could have been, if we hadn’t elected a passifist world pleaser.  Instead of letting a John Bolton type hammer Iran in the international body, we will have our progressive – American apologist – at the helm.  The agenda has already been scaled back and Iran will not be on the docket. 

In addition to our own voluntary skirting of the issue – in the very forum that progressive liberals think such issues need to be debated - Iran also took direct steps to ensure that their weapons program wouldn’t be discussed.  Remember those “talks” with rogue nations and dictators that Obama promised?  Well,  Ahmadinejad finally “agreed” to have them.  Now we have “talks” with dictators – on their schedule.   Grrrrrreat call.  And wouldn’t you know, they agreed to have them – just AFTER the meeting of the UN Security Council.  We will sit down for the six-nation E3+3  + 1 talks (or whatever they’re calling this grand event) on October 1.  I’m sure the results will be earth-shattering.  In case you’re wondering who’s invited to this party -  US, Russia, China, Britain, France and Germany – and of course the plus one – Iran.

So that brings us to this week.  On Wednesday, the President decides, on the anniversary of the Soviet invasion of Poland, to essentially screw the Polish over once more as we announced that we would not be placing a European missile defense system in their nation.  In what was obviously an attempt to undo all that was done by the Bush administration, and an effort to appease the Russians, President Obama told Poland and the Czech Republic thanks but no thanks on housing our missile defense system.  In spite of all your sacrifices politically and militarily, we’re going to implement a more mobile version that will be sea-based and focus on Iran’s true weapons capabilities.  While the decision clearly pleased the Russians, who are dying to become relevant again, it was less than well received in Europe to say the least.

Lets just look at this move from a purely political or diplomatic perspective for a minute.  We are trying to convince the world (which includes Europe last I checked) that Iran is a threat.  (But we have a VP running around saying that they’re not)   So to accomplish this feat, we tell them that our missile defense system isn’t necessary, because new intelligence has shown that the real target should be their medium and short range weapons?   To make the matter worse, we appease the Russians who have been fighting this thing all along, and get nothing in return?  Not even a hardy “we’ve got your back on the Iran thing?”  Absolutely nothing – at least that’s what the White House said.  There were no secret deals or “tit for tat” with the Russians on this move.

Ok so back to Iran specifically.  So, the major threat they represent is with their short and medium range weapons, and we think we can counter those with a mobile, sea-based, weapons system that can be functional by 2014.  Makes me feel good.  But then the other shoe fell.  The IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) said that Iran has nuclear weapons capabilities NOW…..  Crap!!  These guys keep screwing us! 

In summary…

So now we are “scheduled” to have “talks” with a dictatorial regime; at a date of THEIR choosing; after the UN Security Council meets to discuss Iranian nuclear nonproliferation and Iranian disarmament; that is a threat not a threat to Europe; because the primary focus should be on their short and medium range systems; and just because they are hell-bent on developing nuclear weapons and wiping Israel off the map have developed nuclear weapons, does not mean that unilateral action or multi-lateral sanctions are absolutely necessary.  Pretty much sums it up -that is unless you throw in the fact that Israel may launch a preemptive attack on Iran, and the Israeli leader Benjamin Netanyahu just got back from Russia where he secretly discussed Russian plans to provide Iran with a sophisticated missile defense system of their own.  Oh and don’t forget…Israel has nukes too is our little brother ally, so their wars are our wars too.  But that’s not a big deal.

Tags: Democrat, IAEA, Iran, liberals, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, nuclear weapons, Obama, progressive, proliferation, Security Council, UN, United Nations

This entry was posted on September 18, 2009 at 1:35 pm and is filed under FOREIGN AFFAIRS, LIBERAL-DEMS. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.