Powered by WebAds

Sunday, May 10, 2009

Obama to punt on Iran?

The 'reformists' running against Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in the Presidential 'election' slated for June sound like they're getting their talking points from Washington, even though they have been approved by the mullahs and could as well be getting them from Tehran. They're talking about 'hope and change.'
Mir Hossein Mousavi, the leading reformist candidate in the June 12 vote, said he will improve Iran's economy and relations with the international community that suffered under Ahmadinejad's hard-line rule.

"I've come to be a means of restoring Iranian power, dignity and identity," Mousavi told reporters after formally registering as a candidate Saturday.

The other reformist challenger, Mahdi Karroubi, said he will reverse Ahmadinejad's policies that brought international isolation and harmed Iran's economy.

He said reformists view Ahmadinejad and his allies "as weak for administering the country."

"I've come for change," Karroubi told reporters after registering as a candidate.
If Jonathan Tobin is correct, the mullahs and President Obama may be hoping that one of the reformists wins:

No one should doubt the attraction that the futile quest for a Palestinian state (one that Israel’s supporters want more than the Palestinians) holds for the State Department and other Middle East “realists.” But it may ultimately be a clever way to continue prevaricating about Iran. Since no one can really believe that either Hamas or the powerless Palestinian Authority are the least bit interested in actually agreeing to a viable two-state solution at this point, what is the point in putting the screws to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu about this? If, as recent reports claim, Obama insists on a strategy that makes the quixotic Palestinian track a higher priority than the Iranian issue, he is setting up a scenario that guarantees Tehran will wind up with nuclear weapons.

Newsweek’s Michael Hirsh predicts that what Obama is planning will be a “new strategic approach” on Iran that won’t be unveiled until after the Iranian presidential elections. The administration is hoping that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad will be defeated by another candidates (who has been pre-approved by the ayatollahs) and that this will serve as the justification for Obama to walk away from his own pre-election pledges to stop Iran from getting the bomb. That would leave Israel’s government with the choice of sitting back and waiting for their country to be put under a nuclear death sentence or to act on their own and precipitate a major break with their only ally.

Creating a 'Palestinian' state reichlet is a religious thing with Obama - instilled in him by Reverend Jeremiah Wright, Rashid Khalidi and Billy Ayers. If he cannot force the Netanyahu government to do it, he can at least damage the 'special relationship' enough to make Israel's very existence a bit more precarious.


At 10:01 PM, Blogger NormanF said...

The Obama Administration would like to be able to develop closer ties to Tehran. Mahmoud Ahmedinejad is not interested in detente and neither are the mullahs. In pinning their hopes on a victory of Iranian "reformists" and putting the screws to Israel to help them, the Obama Administration is demonstrating ideology matters to them more than reality. Of course, it costs the US next to nothing to pursue a dialogue with Iran but an Iranian nuclear bomb is to Israel a death sentence. If Israel cannot count on America to stop Iran, it will have to act to save itself.


Post a Comment

<< Home