Our new president's new Iran policy

Rick Moran
This doesn't sound very encouraging - unless you're the leader of a terrorist state seeking legitimacy:
The incoming president told ABC's This Week presenter George Stephanopoulos he would break away from President George W Bush's policy on Iran and seek a much broader approach with the Islamic state.

"We are going to have to take a new approach. And I've outlined my belief that engagement is the place to start," Mr Obama said.

Mr Obama, who won the US presidential election in November, takes office on 20 January.

In the interview, he promised "a new emphasis on respect and a new emphasis on being willing to talk, but also a clarity about what our bottom lines are."

He added he believed his administration would "move swiftly" in its new approach with Tehran.

Mr Obama had earlier said there should be no pre-conditions in discussions with the Iranian leadership.

The Bush administration had accused Iran of developing nuclear technology in order to produce nuclear weapons, but Iran has insisted the processes will only be used to generate electricity.

Oh joy. The propaganda value of any overtures made to Iran by the Obama administration is immense. By granting the terrorist state "respect," it begs the question of why not go all the way and grant respect to Osama Bin Laden? Why not reach out to al-Qaeda and tell them that their grievances are real and not the product of a twisted, myopic worldview based on a 7th century outlook on the world?

The question is what will happen when the realization he has made a titanic error sinks in? Or will Obama continue with the charade when Iran increases its support for Hamas, Hezb'allah, and other terrorist groups while going about their merry way building the bomb?

More likely, the left will try and sell any overture to the terrorists in Tehran as a great victory despite evidence slapping them in the face to the contrary. Ignoring reality is a specialty in the "reality based community" so I expect nothing less in this instance.



This doesn't sound very encouraging - unless you're the leader of a terrorist state seeking legitimacy:

The incoming president told ABC's This Week presenter George Stephanopoulos he would break away from President George W Bush's policy on Iran and seek a much broader approach with the Islamic state.

"We are going to have to take a new approach. And I've outlined my belief that engagement is the place to start," Mr Obama said.

Mr Obama, who won the US presidential election in November, takes office on 20 January.

In the interview, he promised "a new emphasis on respect and a new emphasis on being willing to talk, but also a clarity about what our bottom lines are."

He added he believed his administration would "move swiftly" in its new approach with Tehran.

Mr Obama had earlier said there should be no pre-conditions in discussions with the Iranian leadership.

The Bush administration had accused Iran of developing nuclear technology in order to produce nuclear weapons, but Iran has insisted the processes will only be used to generate electricity.

Oh joy. The propaganda value of any overtures made to Iran by the Obama administration is immense. By granting the terrorist state "respect," it begs the question of why not go all the way and grant respect to Osama Bin Laden? Why not reach out to al-Qaeda and tell them that their grievances are real and not the product of a twisted, myopic worldview based on a 7th century outlook on the world?

The question is what will happen when the realization he has made a titanic error sinks in? Or will Obama continue with the charade when Iran increases its support for Hamas, Hezb'allah, and other terrorist groups while going about their merry way building the bomb?

More likely, the left will try and sell any overture to the terrorists in Tehran as a great victory despite evidence slapping them in the face to the contrary. Ignoring reality is a specialty in the "reality based community" so I expect nothing less in this instance.