 |
| ||
|
||||||||
|
May 20, 2008 The Obama-Ahmedinejad SummitBy Ed Lasky
Barack Obama has enshrined the principle of unconditional summitry with Iran as one of the central foreign policy planks of his campaign for President. This despite recent efforts by Obama surrogates to confuse the electorate. The statement above is found on the campaign website of Senator Obama and reflects his view -- repeated a number of times by himself in debates and question and answer sessions -- that the thrust of his foreign policy will be personal Presidential engagement with tyrannical regimes across the globe, including Hugo Chavez in Venezuela or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in Iran. But the focus clearly will be on Iran as the campaign moves along. Iran is the leading state sponsor of terror and is developing the means to construct nuclear weapons. What would be the consequences of such a Presidential meeting between President Obama and President Ahmadinejad? Michael Gerson has written eloquently about the moral stain that will color the mere act of meeting with a Holocaust denier who boasts of his yearning to repeat the effort to exterminate the Jews. Obama, a man who on the campaign trail has declared that "nobody has spoken out more fiercely on the issue of anti-Semitism than I have," will be extending the honor of a Presidential meeting to the most dangerous anti-Semite of all. For what benefit? As Gerson wrote,
There will inevitably be pressure to offer concessions to Ahmadinejad to help ensure a successful summit. To paraphrase John F. Kennedy, who will bear the burden? Who will pay the price? Ahmadinejad has been crystal clear about his goals. He is fanatic towards Jews and toward Israel -- a type of obsession the world has witnessed before. Israel will certainly be on the agenda of any presidential meeting.* Obama would meet and perhaps even shake hands with a man who has repeatedly condemned Israel, has called it "filthy bacteria" and will hear the ritual denunciations of Israel. Perhaps, he has become inured to such bombast. He has heard it all before. When a summit meeting occurs, there is considerable pressure to "accomplish" something, to come to an agreement. What exactly would a President Obama be willing to give to Iran in order to get back something that could be touted as an achievement of his summitry? The boost a summit (even one that led to no agreements) would give to the image of Ahmadinejad would embolden him within Iran (he faces internal pressures that directly blame him for Iran's diplomatic problems) and without. Furthermore, reformers throughout the region will be demoralized and our relations with Sunni nations,including Saudi Arabia, will be damaged as these Sunni regimes also seek to accommodate Iran. More significant will be the impact on the one group in the region that has warm feelings toward America: the Iranian people themselves. There is a huge Baby Boom generation that is restive and angry towards the regime. As a consequence of pro-natalist policies formulated in the wake of the Iran-Iraq War, there was a surge in births in Iran. Two-thirds of Iranians are now estimated to be under the age of 30; and, significantly, only 40 percent of them are ethnically Persian. They resent the regime. Iranians are also heirs to a culture that was historically very cosmopolitan and proud of its sophistication and openness to the outside world. Already many Iranians complain of Ahmadinejad's policies that have led to global isolation In a poll taken by the regime itself, one half (and this is probably understated because the regime was running the poll) affirmed that Washington's attitude towards Iran are "to some extent" correct. As much as they abhor the regime, they also have the most positive feelings towards America of any population in the region. There is an old Middle Eastern aphorism: the enemy of my enemy is my friend. If Obama meets with Ahmadinejad, it will be a sign to Iranians that the world is willing to accept and to respect their regime. The reservoir of goodwill -- the hope for the future as this bulge of youth moves forward -- will be drained. They will feel the sting of defeat -- a betrayal they can lay at the feet of President Obama and America. But what will be the reaction of the rest of the world? The consequences have already been presaged by the world's reaction to the release of the deeply flawed National Intelligence Estimate late last year. When the NIE was released, it infamously stated, "in the fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program". The report was immediately criticized across the political spectrum in America and by foreign leaders among our allies in Europe. Notably, Barack Obama endorsed the conclusions of the NIE and has continued to do so despite its revision a few months later. Paul Mirengoff of Powerline noted the irony of his accepting the validity of the earlier intelligence findings because they conform to his political plans and rejecting later revisions because they would challenge his views and plans. . Nevertheless, the mere release of the report, with its imprimatur of government approval, had a disastrous effect on efforts to restrain Iran. Over the last few years America, working with our allies and with the United Nations, assiduously (if all too slowly) has worked to impose a sanctions regime against Iran. While the breadth and strength of the sanctions have not been what many would have wanted -- and their enforcement has been spotty -- the release of the NIE all but squashed any efforts to move forward with a tougher set of sanctions. Nations rushed with an unseemly alacrity to reach deals with Iran. Russia resumed nuclear cooperation on the Busher nuclear reactor in Iran. China stepped up its opposition to further sanctions. And European nations slid back toward apathy to Iran's threat. The sanctions regime had lost its rationale and has all but collapsed. The conclusions of the report have been all but repudiated and certainly have been superseded by Iran's success in enriching uranium and developing ballistic missiles. Yet all forward momentum toward further sanctions against Iran has halted. The NIE gave all parties who opposed the sanctions -- business interests, Russian oligarchs in charge of their nuclear export program, Chinese leaders eager to extend their influence -- a reason to oppose further efforts to halt Iran's nuclear program. But the world's powers until now have diplomatically isolated the regime. Other world leaders have refrained from meeting with a leader who has continually issued a string of odious statements such as "Israel will be wiped off the map" and "Israel is a stinking corpse" and who denies the Holocaust. A meeting between President Obama and President Ahmadinejad would trigger a parade of other foreign leaders to Tehran. They are merely waiting for a pretext, an excuse, that would absolve them from the shame of meeting with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Our strongest allies in Europe, Angela Merkel in Germany, Nicolas Sarkozy in France, Gordon Brown in England, face internal pressures to engage in Iran from commercial interests and political and diplomatic figures within their nations. Until now they have courageously resisted this pressure. No leader wants to bear the burden, the odium, the shame, of being the first Western leader to grant respectability to Ahmadinejad. Diplomatic pressure from America has provided them with another reason to deny such a bestowal of prestige upon Ahmadinejad. President Obama would radically change these policies. When other high profile political leaders will come a calling, they may not bear the bowler of Neville Chamberlain, but they will bring hats in hand, newly ready and able to strengthen diplomatic (and hence all) ties to the mullahcracy. Under the cover of diplomatic outreach, sanction-busting deals will naturally follow. European nations are eager for energy deals that will provide the wherewithal for Iran to step up its nuclear weapons program. Indeed, just this past week, OMV, an Austrian energy company with a multibillion dollar deal with the tyrants of Tehran, gave us a glimpse into the future. The chief executive officer of the company has openly declared that a political change in America -- one that he apparently believes in and hopes for -- will make it far easier to transact deals with Iran. Most assuredly he is not referring to John McCain. If President Obama believes in the value of such meetings, perhaps he will be bold enough to meet with Iranian dissidents and reformers, to use the prestige of his office and that of America (remember Iranians admire America) to help them and not their oppressors. President Reagan -- whom Barack Obama professes to admire -- offered such support to Soviet dissidents. So far, Barack Obama has not shown any signs that he is willing to do so. * This meeting will be good preparation for the Muslim nations summit that Barack Obama has called for convening when he becomes President so he can hear their "grievances". Israel will be on that menu, too. Ed Lasky is news editor of American Thinker. |
Recent Articles
Blog Posts
|
|
||
Comments
No, the Europeans WON'T support this. We are on the front line with terrorists amongst us. There is no way Sarko and Merkel will buy this. None of us want the US president appeasing the mad Mullahs in Iran.
We've done the diplomacy thing. Nothing has come of it.
We've been doing th carrot and stick approach for several years. It hasn't worked. Now Obama wants to try the carrot without the stick.
Posted by: Hope | May 20, 2008 02:46 AM
Appeasement names our enemies Friend
In our country a growing trend
As we sleep its' forces gather
Confused minds babble and form a lather
Our grave a little deeper is found
And we are not heaven bound
Appeasement sings its terminal tune
The conscious see the future as a pock-marked Moon
Posted by: arrowsmith1 | May 20, 2008 03:04 AM
It is absoulutly frightening to have a Presidental candidate during a time of war say that he will give unconditional meeting terms to the enemies of the United States.
Posted by: Keith Kimball | May 20, 2008 03:46 AM
The authority of Ed Lasky on
foreign affairs is totally
destroyed by errors such as
placing Hugo Chavez in Cuba.
Chavez is most definitely in
Venezuela and if you don't know that, then you know very little about Senator Obama's opinions.
Posted by: robert lobell | May 20, 2008 04:37 AM
In eloquent speeches presidential candidate Obama has made copious promises, understandably to attract voters. He talks about "change," without really spelling out change from what to what. It just sounds good: "change." A great sound bite, indeed. Change is exciting, while status quo is viewed as stagnant and boring. It is all part of the political game of telling people what they want to hear, getting elected, and worrying about delivering later.
The electorates are both short on memory and long on forgiving. So, the farce of empty high-sounding promises fills the air at campaign times. But there are instances that a promise during vote-gathering can later haunt the person. This may indeed be the case with at least one of Barack Hussein Obama's promises.
Obama boasted that he would embark on a personal diplomacy to solve our foreign policy problems with countries such as Syria and Iran. He said that he would meet their leaders without any preconditions to settle our disputes. Doesn't that sound like change, a real change of great relief to us all? Never mind the fact that he has about zero experience in foreign policy matters, he is foolish enough to aim to negotiate with the ever-conniving Assad of Syria and masters of deceptions such as the Mullahs of Iran.
Okay Obama, don't claim that no one warned you. If you get elected President and you receive an invitation from your fellow Muslim brother Ahmadinejad to make good on your promise and visit him in Tehran for a tête-à-tête, don't you do it. BBC's recent report ought to be enough for you to recant your foolish and naïve promise:
"The European Union has criticized the new penal code being drafted in Iran, particularly a section that imposes the death penalty for giving up Islam...Death for apostasy already exists in Iran under Sharia or "Islamic - law." But the changes would for the first time bring the punishment into the criminal code. An EU statement expressed deep concern about what it calls the ongoing deterioration in the human rights situation in Iran. It singled out Section Five of the draft penal code currently before the Iranian parliament, imposing the death penalty for apostasy. In the past, Iranian courts have handed down the death penalty in such cases, but have done so relying on Sharia law. If the draft is approved by parliament, the sentence will be formalized in the country's criminal code."
Who is an apostate according to the legislation? Anyone in the world, not just Iranians, born to a Muslim parent; also, any convert to Islam who leaves it. Only one parent needs to be a Muslim at the time of conception for Islam to own that child for life. Islam is Ummehist. Islam doesn't recognize nationalities and national boundaries. And these Islamist zealots are very serious and have no sense of humor. Some say they have no sense at all, and they may be right. What they certainly have is a thirst for blood, particularly for the blood of infidels and apostates.
My advice, Obama: Elected President or not, don't you hazard a trip to the Islamic Republic of Iran. In fact, don't you go anywhere near where the crazed Islamists can get their hands on you. You don't even rate a fatwa from one of the many bloodthirsty crafty Ayatollahs or Moftis asking for your head. Your fate is already sealed. You are on automatic, so to speak-- a person who was given the gift of Islam and who ungratefully turned his back to the one and only faith of Allah, so the Muslims believe. The punishment for this kind of betrayal is prescribed as haad (most severe), meaning death.
You may protest that you are free to choose your religion and that you have chosen to be Christian. Nothing doing! You are stamped as Muslim at conception because your father was Muslim. Further, you have been doubly-stamped by your middle name Hussein. Muslims name their sons Hussein in honor of one of Islam's most revered saints. Hence, the Muslims want what is theirs and you either repent and return to the fold or prepare yourself for the ultimate punishment: Death.
The only time that these inveterate liar killers of Allah mean what they say is when they threaten violence and killing. So, please be careful. Stay close to home where a whole platoon of Secret Service at the taxpayers' expense is shielding you from the thugs who would be just too happy to slash your throat while they joyously scream: "Allah is the greatest."
Posted by: Amil Imani | May 20, 2008 05:18 AM
I suspect that Ahmadinejad would start setting preconditions for any meeting with Obama.
Posted by: ForNow | May 20, 2008 07:27 AM
I do not think it a good idea to meet with any of Irans leaders without pre-
conditions.For this unrealistic approach, I can-
not support mr.Obama.
Posted by: Dan Snyder | May 20, 2008 09:14 AM
Excellent article but, one error: Chavez is in Venezuela, not Cuba
Posted by: Elvira F. Hasty | May 20, 2008 09:29 AM
This could mean only one thing. Barako would sell us out,and we would pay the price big time.
Posted by: Will Becker | May 20, 2008 09:38 AM
Maybe we should start calling him Neville Obama?
Posted by: Hal Ham | May 20, 2008 09:48 AM
Maybe I need new glasses but the second paragraph down states that Hugo Chaves is from Venezuela not Cuba. Am I reading the same article that Robert Lobell posted about?
Posted by: Michele Mitchell | May 20, 2008 10:31 AM
Michele Mitchell---when did you read it? It was changed after some people sent in the correction.
Posted by: Elvira F. Hasty | May 20, 2008 11:33 AM
Excellent article. Has the American Thinker ever danced with the idea of entering a visual medium?
Posted by: Formercorpsman | May 20, 2008 12:18 PM
If Obama really believes in negotiation, then his next move ought to be to call for a top level summit meeting between himself and the Grand Dragon of the KKK, and maybe the boss of Aryan Nation as well. And then to show he really means it about "unity" he could ask David Duke to be his running mate. Of course this never will, never should happen. But even mentioning it, suggests the hypocrisy and shallowness of Obama's entire platform.
Posted by: Rurik | May 20, 2008 12:59 PM
"Appeasement" is when you give up something tangible (i.e. the Sudetenland) for something intangible (i.e. Hitler promising to be nice).
If you sit down with Iran and say "Okay, we're talking to you. Now, give up your nuclear program or we're going to make you give it up" ... that's not appeasement. That's what BUSH should be doing.
Posted by: elchip | May 20, 2008 01:07 PM
Michelle, please pass me the glasses too. The fact is the article makes clear, whether Ahmadinejad, Chavez, the Castro Bros., or Assad, the policy is at best physiologically immature and psychologically undeveloped or at worst subversive. Knit picking does not change the inherent dangers of dealing with the sort of mentality that Obama gives credibility for statesmanship.
Posted by: FRS | May 20, 2008 01:45 PM
Perhaps someone can tell me if Iran has complied with the U.S. court ruling fining Iran for the Marine Barracks massacre? If not, why was he not seized by the U.S. government for non-compliance when Columbia University had the "Audacity" to invite him to speak?
Posted by: FRS | May 20, 2008 02:59 PM
Hey elchip, don't look now but that's exactly what President Bush HAS been doing since 9/14/01, the day he declared "[the] people who knocked these buildings down will hear all of us soon."
And I'll not be the least bit surprised if you don't catch my drift.
Posted by: Joseph Crowley | May 20, 2008 03:35 PM
Is Iran wanting to upset the New World Order as planned in the 60s when Kissinger made a deal with the Saudis et al for the US to buy the oil, and that some of the pittance would be given to the IMF? Added provision was that the oil would be dominated in US dollars. Attribute to Linsay Williams. If Iran wants to deal in Euros, we go bankrupt. Maybe Obamama doesn't know this yet. But I heard that he has already been briefed by the CFR. So What's his problem? Euros good, US dollars bad? That is just one of the tips to his iceberg. Below that we know not what he is.
Posted by: jr | May 20, 2008 06:11 PM
Amil Imani- a truly OUTSTANDING mini-essay! Thank you for posting it! I always enjoy reading your insights!
Posted by: Matthew Quigley | May 20, 2008 06:51 PM
What, really, can you expect from a man who thinks living in Indonesia for a few years as a child and a trip to Pakistan while in college make him uniquely qualified to lead this nation's--and thus the world's--affairs. God help us all.
Posted by: Kyda Sylvester | May 20, 2008 07:34 PM
the media and presidential hopefuls all seem not to realize that the President of Iran is vitually powerless in Iran. The real power lies with the Supreme Ruling Council composed of clerics of the rank of Ayatolla. The President is only their mouth piece.
Posted by: Fr Don | May 21, 2008 04:29 AM
I'm not worried about the Obama-Ahmadinejad summit. I'm worried about the Obama-Medvedev summit. Why? Because:
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=RekSujB2T3I
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/av-main.htm
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/ship.htm
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/army-equipment.htm
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/russia/index.html
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/summary.htm
http://www.google.pl/url?sa=t&ct=res&cd=1&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.telegraph.co.uk%2Fnews%2Fworldnews%2F1560720%2FVladimir-Putin-rearms-his-Cold-War-military.html&ei=ZgM0SOnACJmW7QXc__TYBw&usg=AFQjCNEwR62SHST1oRxE2L_aAxoIqtQZXw&sig2=FfauTPZOU4ywblHBpbSmbQ
Posted by: Zbigniew Mazurak | May 21, 2008 07:12 AM
"Appeasement" is when you give up something tangible (i.e. the Sudetenland) for something intangible (i.e. Hitler promising to be nice).
If you sit down with Iran and say "Okay, we're talking to you. Now, give up your nuclear program or we're going to make you give it up" ... that's not appeasement. That's what BUSH should be doing.
These are talks that begin on a low level and move up as distinct goals are agreed upon. What you suggest leaves the president in an untenable position of threats which then must be carried out or credibility is lost. That is how foreign policy works. Obama's method paints us into a corner without escape. Somebody has evidently pointed this out (it sure isn't his liberal advisers) because his tact is now not without preconditions. But, the damage has been done. Obama has exhibited both his lack of experience and his weakness for changing positions for the sake of saving his image. Belligerent opponents will make minced meat of him in no time and you think our image is tarnished now? Just wait until you have a weak president in the White House.
Posted by: FRS | May 21, 2008 02:56 PM
Meeting Ahmadinejad would mean the younger generation would lose its pro-American sentiment? Not much depth to their feeling then, is there?
People need to decide what they want. They complain about their isolation but what are THEY doing to end it? So then if that isolation ends they'll blame us for ending it? We were able to meet with Russian leaders without the citizenry thinking we were against them. It's up to the people of Iran to fix their own house. If they really despise this regime then it's time for them to take action. I doubt they do. And what does it mean that they oppose the regime? Young people are the same everywhere. They want what they don't have. Today it's good relations with the US. In 1979 it was something very different. Are the young people any less Islamist than their parents? Would they allow all religions to be practiced freely and without fear in Iran? Would the Roman Catholics who currently hide their conversion from their Muslim family as well as from the regime be able to come out in the open? Are Iranians prepared to give up not just the idea of apostasy but the idea that the world is here for Muslims to rule and all must convert to Islam or submit to Muslim rule or die? Iranians might want better relations with the US but they offer nothing in return.
Posted by: Pat | May 21, 2008 05:46 PM
Ahmadinejad is not the leader of Iran nor did Obama state he'd meet with this man.
Posted by: hugh | May 27, 2008 07:52 PM