Obama and Clinton trying to please 'international opinion'
Hillary Clinton explained to the House Foreign Affairs Committee last week that the Obama administration has spent the last 13 months 'reaching out' to Iran, so that when 'reaching out' failed, the US would have a broad-based coalition to support it on sanctions. Barry Rubin challenges that statement, saying that not one country has decided to support sanctions as a result of Obama's policies. China and Russia are still opposed altogether, while much of Europe will only go along with sanctions if they pass the Security Council - which will not happen without China and Russia's approval.Rubin points out this is all part of a mistaken play to 'international opinion being made by the Obama administration. To prove her point, Clinton claims that other governments agree with Obama's lack of support for the Iranian revolutionaries.
Then she added one of those little sentences that passes unnoticed but is quite important in its implications (that’s why you read this blog to see things like this that everyone else is missing): “What we're trying to do is to get international opinion that will force the Iranian regime to change its calculations."Read the whole thing.
International opinion? I can understand why President Barack Obama thinks the United States should not be the world’s policeman but he seems to believe that instead it should be the world’s community organizer.
Contemplate this. You're leader of Iran’s regime. You believe the divine being fully supports everything you do. You've effectively defeated the opposition. You're doing well with international Muslim opinion, which is all you care about. You're making rapid strides toward nuclear weapons and long-range missiles. You have allies like Syria, Hizballah, Hamas, and the Iraqi insurgents. Turkey is moving in your direction. You continue trading profitably with Europe, Russia, and China. Things are going pretty well.
And you're going to be scared by “international opinion?”
Of course, Clinton’s arguments about persuading people by going slow and chatting up Iran--which give the appearance that this avoids conflict and problems--are intended for an American domestic audience, not Iran. It is legitimate and inevitable that governments focus a lot on looking good at home. But that should never inhibit at the same time having a good policy that actually deals with the international issues at stake.
posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 4:07 PM
1 Comments:
Rubin writes:
"And you're going to be scared by “international opinion?
International opinion? I can understand why President Barack Obama thinks the United States should not be the world’s policeman but he seems to believe that instead it should be the world’s community organizer."
This is where we have evolved to.
Obama and Clinton are trying to please international opinion exactly like Bush ended up doing. In the first couple three years of office Bush did one heck of a great job but then...international opinion meant more then follow through. Therein lies the rub!
We were dozing in a partisan coma before Obama. Indeed the differences and idiologies between Obama and Bush are great, however with a completely different President in every way we still find ourselves marching down the same road!! The only problem now is the road is taking us much closer to a fatal end.
My reply to this is the same as my reply in the thread "How's that 'engagement' with Syria going Barack?"
The only way to fight back is to hold the feet of those we elect to office to the fire the same way we are frantically doing so now.
Post a Comment
<< Home