Political mistakes can be costly, but when they are made by the president of the United States of America, they can be deadly.
When in 1979 the unrest in Iran escalated, President Carter's national secretary adviser, Zbigniew Brzezinski, advised him to encourage the shah to crack down on the revolution. The more cautious State Department suggested that Carter reach out to democratic opposition elements in order to smooth the transition to a new government. Carter did neither, and the worst possible outcome ensued.
Muslim youths from all over the world were dazzled by the unexpected success of the Islamic revolution. Nothing is more roborant to Islamists than victory. Victory gives them the confirmation that they are right. It is an elixir that invigorates them. Thus, after centuries of lying in its grave, jihad was resurrected.
Who would have thought Carter's lack of political acumen would cause the carnage of 9/11, so many wars and the death of millions of people across the world? Carter is history, but history is the best teacher.
America is about to elect a new president. Barak Hussein Obama, an unknown political figure, has emerged as the candidate of the Democrats with a good chance of winning the presidency. He has mesmerized a great number of people. Is he the right man to lead the world's most powerful country? Does he have enough political savvy for the job?
What to do with a nuclear Iran?
Obama linked his rival McCain to the outgoing president and said the Bush/McCain record on protecting this country has benefited Iran.
So, what would he do if he were elected? He has announced that, if elected, he wouldn't ask Iran to comply with U.N. resolutions as a precondition for direct talks.
"Preconditions, as it applies to a country like Iran, for example, was a term of art," "Obama said. "Because this administration has been very clear that it will not have direct negotiations with Iran until Iran has met preconditions that are essentially what Iran views, and many other observers would view, as the subject of the negotiations; for example, their nuclear program."
What Obama seems not to know is that the preconditions are not whimsical excuses of Bush to avoid talks with Iran. They are unanimous resolutions of the U.N. Security Council, agreed upon after the International Atomic Energy Agency reported that Iran was in violation of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. Obama will have to ignore the recommendation of IAEA and defy the resolutions of the U.N. Security Council to meet with Ahmadinejad without preconditions.
What would be the reaction of the Chinese, the Russians and America's European allies who voted for these resolutions in the Council? What message would this send to all other banana republics that may want to break international law? Wouldn't it undermine the credibility of the Security Council? Wouldn't it be a mockery of international diplomacy?
Why does Obama think the preconditions are unfair and unnecessary? The resolution basically says that Iran should stop cheating. Does Obama think it is OK for Iran to cheat and to lie while the talks are proceeding?
Let us say Obama thumbs his nose at the IAEA and the Security Council and meets Ahmadinejad without precondition. Wouldn't this make the delinquent Iran stronger?
Obama's statement that he would waive the preconditions to talk with Iran could not have come at a more propitious time for the beleaguered president of the Islamic Republic. Ahmadinejad, who was under attack by his internal opponents for endangering Iran with his irresponsible rhetoric about "wiping Israel off the map" and his reckless pursuit of his nuclear ambition suddenly got a shot in the arm by Obama who conceded that Iran does not have to listen to the highest international authority.
This is not just a victory for Ahmadinejad and the hardliners, but also a setback for the Iranian opposition and the democratic movement in that country. More strength for the hardliners translates into more instability in the region and more support for terrorism.
Clarity saves lives
In an interview with ABC television, Sen. Hillary Clinton was asked what she would do as president if the Islamic Republic were to launch a nuclear strike on Israel. "I want the Iranians to know that if I'm the president, we will attack Iran," Clinton said unequivocally. "In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them."
This is tough talk, but it sends a clear message. What was Obama's reaction? He took issue with that and said, "Using words like obliterate doesn't actually produce good results. And so I'm not interested in saber rattling."
The truth is it is ambiguity that doesn't produce good result. Clinton was clear. Clarity acts as a deterrent. When in 1990 April Glaspie, the American ambassador to Iraq, saw the massing of Iraqi troops near the border of Kuwait, she said, "We have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts." This led Saddam into believing he had received a diplomatic green light from the United States to invade Kuwait. Hundreds of thousands of people were killed as the result. If Glaspie had warned Saddam unequivocally of the consequences, many lives would have been saved. Clarity saves lives. Obama's lack of clarity vis-à-vis Iran can spell disaster for millions.
What are the legitimate grievances of Iran that Americans need to hearken? Ahmadinejad has made his wishes clear. He wants to build the nuclear bomb, and he wants to wipe Israel off the map. How much of these are negotiable? He is convinced that it is through destroying Israel that the hidden Imam Mahdi will make his appearance. He sees himself as the hand of God. This man is motivated by faith, not by reason. How do you negotiate with such a person?
On regime change in Iran
Obama said that if he is elected he would engage in "aggressive personal diplomacy" and offer Iran economic inducements and a promise not to seek "regime change" if Iran stopped meddling in Iraq and cooperated on terrorism and nuclear issues.
Of course, Iran has never shunned from talks. The mullahs love to talk. The phrase "dialogue between civilizations" was coined by Ahmadinejad's predecessor, Khatami. They openly boasted on their national television that these talks let them buy time to continue their nuclear projects.
Furthermore, the mullahs have never openly acknowledged meddling in Iraq, cooperating with terrorists, or wanting to build atomic bomb. They can give all the promises to make you happy and continue doing what they are doing, while they will get securities and economical incentives Obama will throw at them. Who can guarantee that they will abide by any treaty when they are already in violation of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, to which Iran is a signatory?
Today, 90 percent of Iranians oppose the Islamic regime. They want change. The least they need to regain their freedom is moral support. When Obama reassures that the U.S. will not support regime change, he is dashing the hopes of the majority of Iranians. The stability of the region depends on promoting democracy in Iran.
The Islamic Republic of Iran is the main supporter and financier of many terrorist groups, including Hamas and Hezbollah. It is the instigator of troubles in Iraq. The mullahs perceive democracy in Iraq as a threat to their own survival. The best solution for the crisis in the Middle East is regime change in Iran and not promises of its protection.
Islamic terrorism began in Iran and it must end in Iran.
0 comments:
Post a Comment