The Iranian and American Disconnect

Despite the fact that the only war going on in the Middle East is the one we started, the Bush administration has defined Iran as part of his  "axis of evil" and an enemy of peace in the Middle East.  In point of fact, Bush came close to invading Iran last year but backed down when intelligence showed that Iran was not the main reason for ethnic cleansing and the growth of AQ in Iraq.  With his poll numbers sliding here at home and the international community - with the exception of  Israel -- rejecting the spectre of growing American colonization of their region Bush was left with running his mouth about Iran.

In the Middle East there is great support for Iran's sovereignity coupled with persistent suspicion of America's unwavering and uncritical support of Israel.  Here we read about an oil deal being struck between Iran and Oman.  Here we read that the Gulf Cooperation Council will not take the hard line against Iran that Bush wishes it to take.  Russia and China are close allies of Iran and India is working closely with Iran to develop nuclear energy.  Some are saying that Iran has more influence in Iraq than the United States and claim that the Basra cease fire was negotiated by Iran.

Last year, Barack Obama set out a refreshingly reasoned diplomatic approach to Iran.  Clinton called Obama's policy on Iran "political" as if the word itself was sour and spoiled in her mouth and she had to spit it out: political.

Yet on Olbermann last night,  Clinton continued to lay out her policy that America would hit back Iran with nuclear weapons if they launched a nuclear attack on Israel. "We used it very well during the Cold War when we had a bipolar world and what I think the president should do and what our policy should be is to make it very clear to the Iranians that they would be risking massive retaliation were they to launch a nuclear attack on Israel."  I thought that political point  had been made clear.  Over and over and over.

And what of Joe Lieberman's great hope for Israel, John McCain?  McCain's policy towards Iran  is summed up in his "Bomb, Bomb, Bomb Iran" ditty.

Are the Iranians launching a nuclear attact on Israel?  Do they have the nuclear weapons to do such a thing? Intelligence tells us that is neither is the case.

It appears to me that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has quit the foolish speeches denying the holocaust and is spending his time toward making deals with friendly countries aimed at benefitting the status of Iran in the world at large.   Human rights are an anathema to the mullahs that run Iran and the country has an internal set of economic problems that plague it's people but Iran enjoys good relations with most countries outside of our own and Israel.  Iran today is kind of like our close ally Egypt, except the Iranian President was elected democratically and Mubarakis President for life, take it or leave it.

Only one presidential candidate, Barack Obama, has the clarity of vision -- short and long range -- regarding Iran that would benefit the interests of the United States.  The other two candidates, Hillary Clinton and John McCain, have boxed themselves into a political corner where they pander to neocons and conservative Jews who would like nothing more than a hard line stance against Iran.



Display:


What is Obama's (2.00 / 1)

position on aa repsonse, if any, to a nuclear attack on Israel?

Is it different from Clinton?

Why did Obama favor naming the IRG as a terrorist organization, thereby supporting the march to war?

The difference between Obama and Clinton on Iran may not be as great as the image.  


by TomP on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 02:41:22 PM EST

Re: What is Obama's (none / 0)

Since Israel's "unofficial" nuclear arsenal would be a worthy response of its own, and since the world (or part of it, at least) would likely respond in force to any first strike nuclear attack, there's really no point to telling 70 million Iranians that we're going to obliterate them if their government does something stupid.  It's just saber rattling and playing tough to win a vote or two, and it does absolutely no good, except to ensure that she'll be able to accomplish very little good as far as Iran goes, should she become President.  


Donate to Obama, Today!
by freedom78 on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 03:59:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Iranian and American Disconnect (none / 0)

Obama did not vote on that...
just saying
"If you want to end war and stuff, you gotta sing loud"...Arlo Guthrie
by nogo war on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 02:47:25 PM EST

Re: The Iranian and American Disconnect (none / 0)

I suggest you stop accusing Clinton supporters who have a different opinion that YOU as people who pander to neocons and conservative Jews - the labels are silly.

I also love it when people who do not speak Arabic or Hebrew or Farsi (assuming you do not) pretend to know what leaders of those countries are saying to their 'people'.  What is communicated to 'us' in English is often times a completely different message than what the leaders say in their home country.  It's called PR.


by oaktownchicken on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 02:51:29 PM EST

Re: The Iranian and American Disconnect (none / 0)

Those links go straight to the english language newspapers in those countries.  They also speak English there, you know.  


by Kate Stone on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 06:13:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Iranian and American Disconnect (none / 0)

So, you're opposed to a non-proliferation agreeement that would prevent other countries in the mid-east from deciding to build nuclear weapons?

Wow. I thought most Dems were more enlightened than that.


by Little Otter on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 04:04:43 PM EST


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.