Tuesday, January 26, 2010

Today's Reading Assignment

"To Obama's Pile of Woes, Add a Failing Iran Policy."

From Time magazine, no less.

Some sample paragraphs:

As if President Barack Obama didn't have his hands full at home with his party's loss of Ted Kennedy's seat in Massachusetts, the collapse of health care reform and a disorganized war against the banks, he now faces a major foreign policy setback. Since the 2008 presidential campaign, Obama has promised to curtail Iran's nuclear program by simultaneously offering talks and threatening sanctions. After a year of trying, both approaches appear on the verge of failure.


The President has given Iran two deadlines to demonstrate good faith. Last spring, his Administration told reporters that if Iran didn't show willingness to engage in talks by September, sanctions would follow. Then, in September, when Iran hinted that it might possibly talk, Obama delivered another deadline, this time the end of 2009.


Now Obama faces the unpleasant reality that neither the engagement track nor the sanctions track appear to be going anywhere. His defenders at home and abroad say it was the right way to proceed, but skeptics of Obama's policy are emerging, even in his own party. "What exactly did your year of engagement get you?" asks a Hill Democrat.

According to Time, Obama is now contemplating a "go it alone" strategy on Iran, with the participation of key U.S. allies. Consideration of that approach is an indication of how much trouble his Iran policy is in.

For what it's worth, we've expressed similar misgivings about the President's dealings with Tehran. But what do we know? We're just a couple of right-wing reactionaries.


What is "Occupation" said...

As a complete fool, I would wonder what would happen if Israel took out some major refineries, power generation stations and other hard (and costly to replace) major industrial targets?

America, under Obama will vote present and do nothing against Iran, Obama will stall....

How hard would it be for Iran to replace those refineries, power turbines et al?

For years Iran has fought a war against the west via proxies, what would be the result of several hundred direct hits on their M/I complex?

Sanctions are shot...

There is no "diplomatic solution" left....

Iran is going NUKE....

Why wait any longer?

Paul G. said...

Obama gave it 1 year. Bush gave it 8 years and deployed over 250,000 troops to Iraq (on the border with Iran) and Afghanistan (another border country with Iran) And what did that get us?

A failed Iran policy.

Oh, I think you forgot to mention the 2009 Iranian election protests, the largest uprising and continued instability since the Iranian Revolution. But lets ignore that internal struggle that might do the job for us and show them that we know what's best.

Lela said...

In my book....you two "right-wing reactionaries" are usually right on the mark....

tfhr said...


What would happen if Israel attacked Iran?

This is just my opinion but for starters, Iran would attempt to block the Hormuz Strait. When you Consider that so much of the world's oil passes through that narrow waterway, such an action would almost certainly force the United States to become directly involved. The next question would be "what kind of involvement?", but there's no way to tell until we see what Iran does.

You should expect the Iranians to unleash Hezbollah and if you think al Qaeda has particularly vicious and far reaching methods, just wait until you see Hezbollah. I think it's safe to say that the conflict could not be contained to the Gulf Region or the Levant. I think an Israeli strike would almost certainly precipitate fallout (no pun intended but you have to wonder about the literal drift [oops, there I go again] of the phrase) in Iraq and Afghanistan where Iran is already engaged directly and indirectly in the fighting.

Your last question is the million dollar (and then some) question and I imagine there are many leaders in Israel pondering the very same thought.