In his speech before the Israeli Knesset, President Bush noted that calls for negotiations with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad are akin to the efforts to appease Hitler before World War II. Is it appeasement to talk to the Iranians? No, but there is a difference between Obama’s position and Clinton’s position.
Obama is wrong because he wants to meet with President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad without preconditions. That’s not appeasement just to talk but it sends the wrong diplomatic signals. It rewards the Iranians for poor behaivour.
Clinton will open diplomatic channels with the Iranians, most likely through the Swiss, the Germans and perhaps the Pakistanis, before any meeting would take place. Furthermore, as Senator Clinton made clear with her “umbrella of nuclear deterrence” comments, Senator Clinton would point blankly tell the Iranians where the United States would draw the line on Iranian behaivour in the region. This is a critical difference. Obama’s position is borne out of naivete and inexperience, Clinton’s position is based on rational experience and the theories of political realism, the prevailing theory on international relations.
Chris Matthews tried to score points on the Clinton’s views but notice how Senator Biden shuts Chris Matthews up on this point. Senator Biden remains one of the Senate’s senior stateman and the point man on foreign policy. He would make a great Secretary of State in a Clinton Administration.
I’ll note yet another Obama inconsistency. In his response to President Bush’s comments, which the Obama campaign was directed at them, Obama noted that Israel was a “stalwart ally.” Yet just last week, Obama described Israel as “a constant sore.” He cannot have it both ways. I just watched Morning Joe where Pat Buchanan got it right. Bush was wrong because the historical analogy is incorrect and yet this is likely to be a winning issue for the GOP in the Fall if Obama is the nominee. This debate over our relations with Iran is likely to galvanize Christian evangelical voters as well as to dissuade Jewish voters from supporting Obama.
Again the critical difference is not whether we talk to the Iranians but how and what signals we send them. Clinton gets it right. It is by being crystal clear on where we draw the line that we will succeed in curbing Iranian support for terrorism in the region. Iran is not going to back away from supporting Shi’ites in Iraq, Bahrain or Lebanon or from supporting Hamas but that’s not the goal. The goal is to have Iran reign in the more extremist elements by making sure that Iran understands that it is in their best interests to do so. Back channel diplomacy works and the Bush Administration has engaged in back channel diplomacy successfully with both Libya and North Korea. I wonder if Bush really understands the concept of appeasement for his words actually put him at odds with his own Administration. It was a sound bite, not a policy objective.
Is the US Preparing to Strike at Iran?
In a related story, sources in Jerusalem are stating that the United States may strike at Tehran before the end of year. Israel’s Haaretz has the story along with video. And one of my favourite reporters because he is always spot on, Pepe Escobar offers his assessment of Bush’s appeasement comments in the Asia Times. However, more disconcerting and perhaps this story deserves its own post, but it seems that the United States is on a fishing expedition to find an excuse to attack Iran. Again, the Asia Times has the report. Not much from the Iranian side on these stories, other than this comment from by the defence minister of Iran as quoted by Islamic Republic News Agency.