Obama Comment on Iran in Time Interview

Mr. Obama´s one year anniversary interview with Time Magazine made headlines worldwide with his comments on how he underestimated the difficulty of the so-called MidEast peace process. While dangerous to telegraph your intellectual vacuousness to your enemies, it is not news now. America´s enemies know very well they have a pacifist in the White House.

However, it is his comments on Iran that are more worthy of exploration:

Excerpt 1
 On Iran, one of our trickiest foreign policy challenges, we have held the international community together, both in our engagement strategy, but also now as we move into a dual-track approach. Which is, If they don't accept the open hand, we've got to make sure they understand there are consequences for breaking international rules. 

Iran is not tricky. Terror, Inc. is pursuing nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles to blast Israeli and American cities. Is that tricky? The president needs to be forthright with the American people.

Iran slapped that extended hand, Mr. Obama and you have done nothing as a result. There is no consequence saying NO to the US while you are in the White House. The only "dual-track approach" (trying to sound so smart) is if  Iran breaks an arbitrary pre-determined deadline (like the last one at the end of 2009 of which you are silent and hope no one remembers) is to issue meaningless paper-based threats with no plan to back them up with military force - the only response totalitarian states respect. International rules? (Back to your lawyer training!)

The Iranian nuclear program and long-range missiles are geared for Tel Aviv and Washington. It is American rules Teheran breaks! Iran is a clear and present danger to the United States of America and you are clueless in face of the danger.

International rules are only valid if there is one nation or a group of nations who act to enforce them. However, that requires tough decisions and we already know how tough the MidEast is for you. Lawyers make lousy presidents and worse foreign policy practitioners. The Hobbesian international system is messier than a civil or criminal trial in a US courtroom. The sooner you learn that fact the better you will be.

Excerpt 2
 It's going to be tough, but I think the relationship we've developed with Russia will be very helpful. The outreach we've done to our traditional NATO allies will be very helpful. The work that we've done with China — including the work we've done with China to enforce sanctions against North Korea — will help us in dealing more effectively with Iran.

Perhaps Mr. Obama saw the recent Reuters headline: Russia says to start Iran nuclear plant in 2010. We cite this action (see Net Assessment: Iran) as the bookend of the current phase of playing pattycake with Iran on the nuclear issue. Once the Russians start up Bushehr, all bets are off. So, it seems throwing the Czech Republic and Poland under the bus on the missile shield did not buy any love with Moscow, Mr. Obama. Oops.

China? Beijing´s strategic interests are too intertwined with Iran to risk any trouble with stronger sanctions on Terror, Inc, at the US´s behest. China can also say NO (and has) to the US without any consequences.

When Moscow and Beijing definitively thwart "tougher sanctions" (whatever that is) on Iran at the United Nations, Mr. Obama´s words in these two excerpts will ring oh so hollow.

If Mr. Obama is overmatched in domestic policy, he is doubly out of his league in foreign policy. The intelletcual leftist foreign policy apparatus underestimates American enemies and too often blames America first, not exactly a winning combination.

Mr. Obama has a failed foreign policy that has not stopped Iran.

He has a fundamental misunderstanding of the international system and his obesesion with pounding allies (including Israel) and cozing up with enemies is more than self-defeating. Add leftist political correctness in the war on terror and you have the perfect storm for physical damage to the United States and its citizens at the hands of a mistaken ideological president beholden to a radical world view.