Powered by WebAds

Monday, June 15, 2009

The end of 'engagement' with Iran?

In Sunday's Los Angeles Times, Paul Richter suggests that the Iranian election results will lead to pressure on the Obama administration to bring its efforts at 'engagement' with Iran to a rapid conclusion:
Congress and pro-Israel conservatives, already strongly critical of Ahmadinejad, will undoubtedly press Obama to put a tight deadline on his overture to Iran. They are expected to urge him to move on to tougher measures, such as economic sanctions or military action, to try to compel Tehran to give up its nuclear ambitions.

Ahmadinejad's victory "could well mean more pressure to limit the timeline" for engagement, a senior U.S. official acknowledged before the election results were in.


Leading members of Congress, Israeli officials and others have contended that an Iranian government headed by Ahmadinejad was not likely to take any U.S. overture seriously, and would instead stall and use the time to move ahead with its nuclear program.

With Ahmadinejad's victory, "you're going to see more pressure for sanctions, and for quick results from the engagement," said Trita Parsi, president of the Washington-based National Iranian American Council. But he said that because any successful negotiation would take some time, the pressure "could have a crippling effect on the diplomacy."
As a result of what's been going on in Tehran this weekend, there will be pressure on Obama to stop trying to 'engage' with the Ahmadinejad junta. But President Obama will try to resist that pressure and continue what are obviously fruitless negotiations. This kind of bulldozing management style is something we have already seen several times from Obama: The so-called 'stimulus,' the attempt to close Guantanamo, the transfer of the Uighur terrorists to Bermuda and, of course, the continuous pressure on Israel in excess of all rational boundaries all come to mind as instances in which Obama has continued with a policy long after it was conclusively proven wrong. 'Engagament' with Iran will be no exception.

America's in good hands. What could go wrong?


At 4:16 PM, Blogger Andre (Canada) said...

I think that Obama does actually believe that he has some messianic mission on earth and as a result cannot even contemplate the possibility that he might be wrong about anything. This is why it takes repeated clear failures for him to modify his policies and even then, he will always attribute the change to others having misunderstood his original purpose.
Clearly, who are we, mere mortals, to argue with the Messiah?


Post a Comment

<< Home