 |
| ||
|
||||||||
|
« Bush Disses Obama Overseas |
Blog Home Page
| The Obama campaign senses the glove fits »
May 15, 2008 Euro-appeasers can't wait for Obama PresidencyWhat kind of political change is a major European energy company waiting for to avoid the issue of sanctions on Iran? The Austrian oil and gas company, OMV, signed a huge energy investing deal with Iran to develop its energy resources in 2007. This happened despite many other European companies who have chosen, of their own volition (encouraged by America), to forego deals with Iran. American companies do not do business with Iran's energy sector as a consequence of sanctions being imposed by Congress years ago in response to Iranian violations of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Pact and a nuclear program that most analysts perceive as being geared towards developing a nuclear arsenal. This, combined with repeated Iranian threats to destroy Israel, have dissuaded many companies from engaging the Iranians. The Austrians have resisted such entreaties and , in a shareholder's meeting this week, its Chief Executive Officer, stated that their company has "no moral obligation to Israel". Well..this is somewhat offensive on its face when one realizes that Austrians were prime movers behind World War Two and the Holocaust (Hitler was an Austrian by birth, as were many leading members of the SS). The CEO also said something quite revealing. According to this report, he stated that time is an ally and the company is waiting for "political changes in the USA" to bolster their dealings with Iran. Now ..what sort of changes might he be awaiting? Will the Obama campaign dismiss these comments by the CEO of OMV as a "smear"? What message does Obama telegraph to our enemies and those who would sup with them that they can assume that , as President, he will be soft against terrorism and nuclear proliferation? |
Recent Articles
Blog Posts
|
|
Comments
He was referring to John McCain. Bush has been an extraordinary appeaser of Iran, sitting idly by while they move toward nukes. He is even too much of a coward to face them man to man and tell them what they need to do. McCain will continue the cowardly policy...
Posted by: Don | May 15, 2008 02:35 PM
'dissuaded many companies from engaging the Iranians.'
And many more companies do deal with the Iranians. Not just Austrian ones - in March 2007, when the Iranians kidnapped 15 British sailors, the governments and companies of Germany, France, Italy, Belgium and Austria itself, hurried to reaffirm their investments in Iran and their trade links with Iran. This happened while 15 British sailors were locked in an Iranian prison, unsure whether the Iranians would kill them or not. The German Chancellor was then... Angela Merkel, the same 'pro-American conservative' lauded by Mr Walker.
Posted by: Zbigniew Mazurak | May 15, 2008 02:37 PM
What do you expect from a presidential candidate that is new to national (and international) politics? Not that Hillary has any more experience that Obama; she misuses her experience as the First Lady for that of a foreign diplomat and foreign policy maker for the Clinton presidency. Well then, as such she should share the blame for that failed foreign policy!
Willi Schumacher
Posted by: Willi Schumacher | May 15, 2008 02:53 PM
Actually, the situation in Germany is more complicated. Merkel and Foreign Minister Steinmeier, a Schroeder man, belong to different parties. The Foreign Office has more autonomy than our State Dept. Steinmeier is a balance of power man who wants to cozy up even closer to Russia. Merkel has to choose her battles with him very carefully because the people think like Obama. Business interests also play a big, if mostly under the radar, role.
Posted by: vb | May 15, 2008 03:54 PM
'Bush has been an extraordinary appeaser of Iran, sitting idly by while they move toward nukes. He is even too much of a coward to face them man to man and tell them what they need to do. McCain will continue the cowardly policy...'
Excuse me? Please don't judge these two men by their rhetoric. Maybe Iran will be attacked by the US, but even if it will be, the attack will not be preceded by a rhetorical battle. On the contrary, the US government will try as well as it can to fool the Iranian regime to believe that an attack is not imminent. When will an attack occur? Probably during the transition period.
Posted by: Zbigniew Mazurak | May 15, 2008 04:01 PM
Obama is wise, he can talk and fix the problem better than other war lover
Posted by: Jack | May 15, 2008 04:39 PM
"Waiting for political changes" means nothing more than waiting for the November election. Dick Cheney isn't running, which means that whoever is elected will mean a break from the current administration. The three remaining candidates consider themselves to be more open-minded than Bush and more internationalist. Bush is seen as too religious (by Europeans and by Democrats). Europe isn't necessarily waiting for an Obama presidency. They are just waiting for someone other than Bush. Not everything should be pinned on Obama. Europeans would be wise to be careful what they wish for. They just might get it.
Posted by: Pat | May 15, 2008 08:50 PM
An addition to my reply to Don:
Thanks to Dubya, America now has a missile shield, and so does the Jewish state. These missile shields protect against Iranian and Pakistani BMs (just in case terrorists get Pakistani strategic missiles). There are 2 ABM bases in the CONUS, plus, the USN has 3 BMD cruisers.
Posted by: Zbigniew Mazurak | May 16, 2008 03:46 AM