Powered by WebAds

Wednesday, February 04, 2015

Proof the West doesn't get Islam

Still need proof that the West doesn't get Islam? Consider this from elitist Ken Roth:
Now recall what I wrote about Jordan executing its ISIS prisoners earlier today.
But unlike the West, the Jordanians are fellow Muslims and they know how to deal with ISIS. You can bet that they will - very publicly - execute every ISIS prisoner they are holding.
Jordan gets it. The only way to answer Islamist violence that has a chance of making an impression on them is to outdo them. Not to make nice.

Roth  wants to make nice. How well has that gone? Consider President Obama's experience with Iran.
Unfortunately, the Supreme Leader of Iran, Ali Khamenei, ignored the president’s invitation. Five months later, in June 2009, when the Green Movement was born, his autocratic fist was still clenched. As the streets of Tehran exploded in the largest anti-government demonstrations the country had seen since the revolution of 1979, he used that fist to beat down the protesters. For their part, the protesters, hungry for democratic reform and enraged by government rigging of the recent presidential election, appealed to Obama for help. He responded meekly, issuing tepid statements of support while maintaining a steady posture of neutrality. To alienate Khamenei, after all, might kill the dream of a new era in U.S.-Iranian relations.
If this show of deference was calculated to warm the dictator’s heart, it failed. “What we intended as caution,” one of Obama’s aides would later tell a reporter, “the Iranians saw as weakness.” Indeed, the president’s studied “caution” may even have emboldened Tehran to push forward, in yet another in the long series of blatant violations of its obligations under the nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT), with its construction of a secret uranium enrichment facility in an underground bunker at Fordow, near Qom.
This time, Obama reacted. Revealing the bunker’s existence, he placed Khamenei in a tough spot. The Russians, who had been habitually more lenient toward the Iranian nuclear program than the Americans, were irritated by the disclosure of this clandestine activity; the French were moved to demand a strong Western response.
But when Khamenei finessed the situation by adopting a seemingly more flexible attitude toward negotiations, Obama quickly obliged. Delighted to find a receptive Iranian across the table, he dismissed the French call for toughness, instead volunteering a plan that would meet Iran’s desire to keep most of its nuclear infrastructure intact while proving to the world that it was not stockpiling fissile material for a bomb. In keeping with his larger aspirations, the president also placed Moscow at the center of the action, proposing that the Iranians transfer their enriched uranium to Russia in exchange for fuel rods capable of powering a nuclear reactor but not of being used in a bomb. The Iranian negotiators, displaying their new spirit of compromise, accepted the terms. Even President Ahmadinejad, the notorious hardliner, pronounced himself on board.
Obama, it seemed to some, had pulled off a major coup. Less than a year after taking office, he was turning his vision of a new Middle East order into a reality. Or was he? Once the heat was off, Khamenei reneged on the deal, throwing the president back to square one and in the process weakening him politically at home, where congressional skeptics of his engagement policy now began lobbying for more stringent economic sanctions on Tehran. To protect his flank, Obama tacked rightward, appropriating, if with visible reluctance, some of his opponents’ rhetoric and bits of their playbook as well. In 2010, he signed into law the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment Act (CISADA), which eventually would prove more painful to Iran than any previous measure of its kind.
In later years, whenever Obama would stand accused of being soft on Iran, he would invariably point to CISADA as evidence to the contrary. “[O]ver the course of several years,” he stated in March 2014, “we were able to enforce an unprecedented sanctions regime that so crippled the Iranian economy that they were willing to come to the table.” The “table” in question was the negotiation resulting in the November 2013 agreement, known as the Joint Plan of Action (JPOA), which we shall come to in due course. But masked in the president’s boast was the fact that he had actually opposed CISADA, which was rammed down his throat by a Senate vote of 99 to zero.
Once the bill became law, a cadre of talented and dedicated professionals in the Treasury Department set to work implementing it. But the moment of presumed “convergence” between Obama and his congressional skeptics proved temporary and tactical; their fundamental difference in outlook would become much more apparent in the president’s second term. For the skeptics, the way to change Khamenei’s behavior was to place him before a stark choice: dismantle Iran’s nuclear program—period—or face catastrophic consequences. For Obama, to force a confrontation with Khamenei would destroy any chance of reaching an accommodation on the nuclear front and put paid to his grand vision of a new Middle East order.
Iran is on the verge of a nuclear weapon. Who was right?

The only way to deal with Islamists is to hit them harder than they hit you.

More at Twitchy.

Labels: , , , , ,

3 Comments:

At 1:48 AM, Blogger Sparky the Wonder Dog said...

Obama fallback negotiating positions:

a) Iran can have no centrifuges, must close Arak and Fordow; b) Iraq van have 4,500 centrifuges, the remainder to be dismantled; close Arak and Fordow; c) Iraq can have 10,500 centrifuges; but they can only enrich to 4%-- Arak and Fordow will stay open but only with inspectors d) Iraq's centrifuges will technically be able to produce 5 nukes a year but they will be configured so that the Iranians will really be hassled to set up proper cascades, inspectors? what inspectors? word of the Holy Guardians of the Prophet Peace Be Upon Him of the Islamic Republic of Iran are good enough for us!! e) centrifuges shmentrifuges, we all know who the real nuclear threat is in the Middle East; f) tell you what Khomeni just point the things away from us and toward Tel Aviv

 
At 2:04 AM, Blogger Cycle Cyril said...

Disproportionate response is necessary. In other words, punch back twice as hard.

 
At 4:31 PM, Blogger g2loq said...

Unconditional surrender ...

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Google