Quote of the day
posted at 10:47 pm on May 21, 2008 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | regular view
“But what might work on the primary campaign trail doesn’t work nearly as well in Tehran. What, for example, does Mr. Obama think he can offer the Iranians to get them to become a less pernicious and destabilizing force? One of Iran’s top foreign policy goals is a precipitous U.S. withdrawal from Iraq. This happens to be Mr. Obama’s top foreign policy goal, too. Why should Iran or other rogue states alter their behavior if Mr. Obama gives them what they want, without preconditions?
On Wednesday, Mr. Obama said in Florida that in a meeting with the Iranians he’d make it clear their behavior is unacceptable. That message has been delivered clearly by Republican and Democratic administrations in public and private diplomacy over the past 16 years. Is he so naïve to think he has a unique ability to make this even clearer?”
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages:
Behold the power of the Community Organizer. BO’08
mred on May 21, 2008 at 10:51 PM
Of course, tomorrow the Times will claim that this is exactly what Obama meant.
Spirit of 1776 on May 21, 2008 at 10:52 PM
I’m starting to like Rove more and more. On a related note, I think Hannity tonight was saying someone should take Obama’s quotes from 2 days apart saying how Iran is ‘tiny’ and doesn’t pose a serious threat, and then how they are ‘a grave threat’ and make an ad out of it. It could be pretty powerful, and you wouldn’t even have to chop his quotes DNC style.
BadgerHawk on May 21, 2008 at 10:52 PM
Nothing! But let’s not cry over spilled milk. If the US didn’t want to see Iran emerge as the pre-eminent power in the Middle East, then the great war minds Bush and Cheney should have devised better plans for dealing with Saddam.
The moment US forces invaded Iraq and set up a provisional government under Lord Bremer, Iran became the most powerful country in that part of the world. This cannot be undone, and none of the presidential candidates has a great way to change the new reality.
bayam on May 21, 2008 at 11:00 PM
What indeed does Obama plan to tell the Iranians that they don’t already know? The problems between the two nations don’t emanate from confusion or misunderstandings. Is Iran confused as to what they must do? We’re certainly not confused on what they want us to do (e.g., leave Iraq, take our navy out of the Gulf, et cetera).
And why does he believe that he must personally deliver such a message?
This isn’t 1908 or even 1938 when countries had vague and distant understandings of one another’s policies.
This is one of the odder debates we’ve had on an issue.
SteveMG on May 21, 2008 at 11:02 PM
Bamnam will tell Iran that nuclear weapons are a distraction from what is good for Michelle’s children and are therefor off the table.
pedestrian on May 21, 2008 at 11:04 PM
In a word, yes. We’re talking about a man who hasn’t even served a full term as a U.S. Senator, has no military experience, and sat in the church of Rev. Hate Whitey and Damn America for 20 years.
amerpundit on May 21, 2008 at 11:07 PM
I’ve watched Obama carefully over this campaign season. In short, he’s a dumbass who only got as far as he did because of the “in-kind” contributions of the press corps equal to about five billion in campaign funds.
So, also in short, he’d be negotiating from “a position of dumbass,” not a position of strength.
_I_ could be elected President if the press corps was sufficiently pliable. Oh, do we ever need watchers for our watchers.
Merovign on May 21, 2008 at 11:11 PM
We lost Iran under Carter’s watch and the fallout has been pretty horrible. Why should we think an Obama administration would be any better.
Paul-Cincy on May 21, 2008 at 11:11 PM
Methinks this about says it all.
labrat on May 21, 2008 at 11:12 PM
+1
That strategy is making the media stop talking about all the distractions, so it just might work on Iran. HOPE!!
BadgerHawk on May 21, 2008 at 11:12 PM
So he’ll bomb “Pockiston”, but will get on bended knee for Iran? Obama doesn’t like brown people!!
SouthernGent on May 21, 2008 at 11:16 PM
True, but we lost control of the Middle East under George W by invading Iraq and ceding the balance of power to Iran. Not only did Cheney’s prediction that increased supplies from Iraq would lead to lower oil prices, but the world markets became convinced that OPEC could no longer control the price of oil in the more volatile post-Saddam world. How can it get any worse for us?
bayam on May 21, 2008 at 11:17 PM
No, but his followers sure are, and he’s banking on the hopes that the rest of the voters will be as well.
timmo on May 21, 2008 at 11:20 PM
Put Obama in the Whitehouse.
News2Use on May 21, 2008 at 11:20 PM
When did we have control over the Middle East?
Spirit of 1776 on May 21, 2008 at 11:22 PM
No matter what any American President says, nice stuff or nasty stuff, the Iranians are going to do what they want.
MB4 on May 21, 2008 at 11:22 PM
Therefore whether Bush refers to it as Religion of Peace instead of something more derogatory fitting your personal preference, will make no difference whatsoever?
Spirit of 1776 on May 21, 2008 at 11:28 PM
Yes, and that reminds me of a survey of former military officers that I saw some weeks ago where something like 37% said that the country that gained the most from the American Iraq war has been Iran, with 21% saying China and 20% saying America. I would certainly have voted with the 37%.
Machiavelli Bush is certainly not.
MB4 on May 21, 2008 at 11:28 PM
Well it might longer range in the greater scheme of things if policy followed suit. At the very least my gag reflex would be invoked a lot less.
MB4 on May 21, 2008 at 11:36 PM
Good, the sooner they sport the sack to enact their rhetorical wet dream, the sooner there will be a smoking hole in Persia.
dmann on May 21, 2008 at 11:37 PM
This article is teh awesomeness.
Tacitus on May 21, 2008 at 11:38 PM
I can feel it!!! I can feel the unification!!!! Damn! There it goes. Maybe tomorrow the Messiah will stick around a little longer. Still not sure what he’s thinking.
geminicontender on May 21, 2008 at 11:39 PM
I keep hearing Obama supporters saying that he’ll engage in “tough negotiations” with Iran. They say how strong and forcefull he will be with AJ.
But what does he plan to back it up with? Sanctions? Yeah, that worked great with Iraq & Cuba. Military force? Right. Does he think that the U.N. will get behind him?
I see parents “talking tough” to their kids but refusing to back it up with anything all the time. The kids ignore them. The parents throw up their hands and surrender.
29Victor on May 21, 2008 at 11:39 PM
“tough negotiations” just don’t talk about Michelle
dmann on May 21, 2008 at 11:41 PM
I disagree. The Three Most powerful countries in the Middle East, in no particular order:
1. Israel – best military, airforce and minds in the Middle East. Realistically, the rest of the Middle East quakes in terror wondering what them plucky little Israelis are up to next. It’s only because the Israelis are civilized human beings that the rest of the countries surrounding her aren’t big smoking holes in the ground.
2. Saudi Arabia – As Saudi goes, so goes the rest of the Arab world. Even Iran (Persian though it may be) would bow under pressure from the Saudis.
3. Egypt – Technically part of Africa too, but still a force to be reckoned with in the Middle East.
Iran definitely gets an honorable mention but they are no where near the “most powerful country in the Middle East.” They are extremely dangerous, but most powerful country? I think not.
mjk on May 21, 2008 at 11:42 PM
mjk on May 21, 2008 at 11:42 PM
yep!
dmann on May 21, 2008 at 11:44 PM
Obama sees the US as the world’s most pernicious and destabilizing force. Iran’s opposition to the US is not a problem. His major and consistent concern has been that the US has troops in Iraq. He has never clearly explained why the US army should not be there. It is just a basic tenet of faith to him which is endlessly repeatedly. If elected he would probably make Clinton took like a friend of the military by comparison.
snaggletoothie on May 21, 2008 at 11:46 PM
Maybe he’s planing on sending Michelle to negotiate for him. That should scare the hell out of them.
29Victor on May 21, 2008 at 11:48 PM
Conceding the game a bit early, aren’tcha?
Iraq is demonstrably doing remarkably better with the last year’s efforts by the US and the Iraqis themselves. The Iraqi economy is booming and the oil beneath them will soon be coming on line. That supply will help drop oil prices. Will it happen tomorrow? No. Will it happen? Definitely.
Iran will have to be dealt with, or it will deal with us and the region. Iran is stronger because they refuse to rrespond to the demands of the West. Not just the US, but the EU3, who has been conducting the exact negotiations with iran that obambi claims are not being done, or worse, ar ‘failed policies’. They’re ‘failed’ because iran is intractable and playing the West repeatedly for fools.
The time for negotiations has long passed. Iran has been at open war with the US and has been killing our troops for a long time.
It doesn’t matter if we don’t want to be at war with them. They very definitely want to be at war with us. That’s reality.
You blame the US too much and give saddam too much credit for keeping iran in check, imho. I suggest a more nuanced view. The UN is directly complicit in actively making the world a much more dangerous place than it ever has been.
And with the situation in lebanon, pakistan, and afghanistan capitulating to their terrorist insurgency all this is going to come to a head sooner rather than later.
Having a base of operations in the heart of the region might just be a strategic advantage for us, don’tcha think?
techno_barbarian on May 21, 2008 at 11:48 PM
Maybe Barack, if he could meet with the little dude from Iran, could settle the fact of who really farted in Chavez’ face. Chavez blamed Bush. But I think it was that little Iranian dude.
Travis1 on May 21, 2008 at 11:54 PM
Obama will use the most powerful force
the world has ever seen to put Iran in
its place!
And that force, is Liberal Utopian Wishful
thinking in the mere from of WORDS!
canopfor on May 22, 2008 at 12:07 AM
daggit,that should be form,not from!
canopfor on May 22, 2008 at 12:09 AM
Before the invasion of Iraq, that country was seen as a major power in the area. Under Sunni rule, it posed a direct threat to Iran. Basically, Iraq had Iran pinned down and the US had Saddam and Iraq in a box. There was no doubt who held the cards. Because of Bush’s great success in the first Gulf War, the US military was perceived as invincible.
In addition, the world markets perceived a general balance of power that protected the delivery of oil to the West.
All of this changed when the US invaded with a poor strategy. There were other ways to deal with Saddam that didn’t result in Iran emerging as the real winner and renewed, regional menace.
That’s exactly what I’m talking about. I’m surprised that so many people here object to the idea that Iran is the big winner in the Middle East. Among military and other experts, it’s a given.
Israel has a strong army but isn’t relevant in the world oil trade.
bayam on May 22, 2008 at 12:19 AM
What if Iran demanded that President Obama immediately withdraw all troops from Iraq at their first “diplomatic meeting”?
Would he giggle?
profitsbeard on May 22, 2008 at 12:19 AM
There is an “experienced” school of thought that maintains the current situation in Iraq is all about Iran. Saddam offered the U.S. a legitimate opportunity (via his intractable and repeated violations of the UN accords) to exploit a bait and switch campaign. Publicly sell the Saddam threat and privately use this as a means to setup on Irans doorstep. Works for me!
dmann on May 22, 2008 at 12:20 AM
amerpundit, you are causing a distraction.
F15Mech on May 22, 2008 at 12:21 AM
Well, what existed before the war and what emerged afterwards is clear enough.
As for Saddam’s effect on Iran, try explaining your view to any Iranian who was alive during the Iran-Iraq war. Saddam was seen as a mortal enemy and lasting threat to Iran’s Islamic leadership until the US removed him.
bayam on May 22, 2008 at 12:24 AM
I believe you mean;
iberal
utopian
ishful
esires
jdkchem on May 22, 2008 at 12:36 AM
I believe you mean;
Liberal
Eutopian
Wishful
Desires
That’s better.
jdkchem on May 22, 2008 at 12:38 AM
Me thinks this was pulled from your arse!
Nice that it kind of fits 5 years after the fact. Hindsight is always 20/20, you liberals just can’t grasp the reality of time and the relavance of actions taken based on known and observed facts. All that the mantra of; should have – would have – could have, speculative posturing results in is uncertainty and indecission, a combination that is always fatal. Commit – Act – Learn
dmann on May 22, 2008 at 12:43 AM
“I am the Change you desire” – - Messiah
Entelechy on May 22, 2008 at 12:50 AM
No, but he is that vain.
bnelson44 on May 22, 2008 at 12:51 AM
Entelechy on May 22, 2008 at 12:50 AM
Sounds like solicitation, not that there’s anything wrong with that!! (wish I could insert cool/funny face things)
dmann on May 22, 2008 at 12:58 AM
L
E
W
D
jdkchem on May 22,2008 at 12:36PM.
jdkchem: Lewd,thats about right,but(i jest )shouldn’t
that term be more appilicable to the Webb
thread,as he enjoyed writing LEWD fantasys
about children! Ha Ha. :)
canopfor on May 22, 2008 at 1:00 AM
What Can Obama offer Iran? He offers hope and change.
Rbastid on May 22, 2008 at 1:12 AM
Obama is so out of his league.
He will not win the general, period.
Saltysam on May 22, 2008 at 1:17 AM
Does anyone else, when hearing Obama speak, get the strange feeling that they are reading Dune.
29Victor on May 22, 2008 at 2:14 AM
Actually, you might say he is in his league.
I call it bushleague
Kini on May 22, 2008 at 2:15 AM
Yeah, I envision Barack Vladimir Harkonnen
Kini on May 22, 2008 at 2:18 AM
I was thinking more along the lines of Barak Muad’Dib. He seems to believe that his name is a killing word. That rulers will fear him because he holds the power to make them fear.
29Victor on May 22, 2008 at 2:23 AM
Good analysis.
labrat on May 22, 2008 at 2:27 AM
Yes we can! Yes we can! Yes we can! Yes we can! Yes we can! Yes we can! Yes we can! Yes we can! Yes we can! Yes we can!
Shy Guy on May 22, 2008 at 2:28 AM
This quote should be in McCain’s stump speech
Dollayo on May 22, 2008 at 3:11 AM
It matters not whether we pull out of Iraq, or stay in – we will still have to deal with Iran at some point in time.
OldEnglish on May 22, 2008 at 3:21 AM
Have a feeling that bird won’t live much more than a year into an Obama Presidency…LOL
Cheesestick on May 22, 2008 at 5:10 AM
Dude, get an ear tuck. Those satellite dishes will be a distraction when you sell out America overseas.
saved on May 22, 2008 at 5:51 AM
Well he has the secret weapon…
right2bright on May 22, 2008 at 7:45 AM
Saddam had to be removed, one way or another, and we did an excellent job of removing him. The subsequent occupation was not managed well, but under General Patraeus Iraq is now being put back together. It will be an American ally and forward base in the MidEast, a counterweight to Iran, and a major source of oil for the world.
We have been at war, technically, with Iran since they seized our embassy and held our people hostage for over a year, while the pusillanimous James Earl Carter sniffled and dithered in the White House. The fire under that pot has now been turned up by Iran’s support of Hamas and Hezbollah against Israel, and of Shi’a militia in Iraq, and by Iran’s determination to build atom bombs. I would be surprised if the pot does not come to a boil this summer.
Iran can be neutralized by a strategic bombing campaign aimed at its nuclear facilities and military infrastructure. Because of the possibility of another Jimmy Carter in the White House, which could lead to the loss of Israel and any American influence in the MidEast, President Bush would be best advised to act soon.
MrLynn on May 22, 2008 at 8:01 AM
Wacky Bar-acky’s Clear Foreign Policy
Monday:
“I mean think about it. Iran, Cuba, Venezuela–these countries are tiny compared to the Soviet Union. They don’t pose a serious threat to us the way the Soviet Union posed a threat to us.”
–Barak Obama
Tuesday:
“Let me be absolutely clear, Iran is a grave threat.”
–Barak Obama
Wednesday:
“I think this obsession with Ahmadinejad is an example of us losing track of what’s important.”
–Barack *cough*weak*cough* Obama
franksalterego on May 22, 2008 at 8:13 AM
Naive, vain and arrogant. He honestly believes that he can unleash a charm offensive and save the world from the Mullahs and Ahmadinijead.
Buy Danish on May 22, 2008 at 9:09 AM
Messiahs have lots of unique abilities. Don’t you know that?
CP on May 22, 2008 at 9:16 AM
Obama, ‘I believe in tough appeasement’ :D
Chakra Hammer on May 22, 2008 at 9:34 AM
Hussein voted against a resolution recognizing the Iranian Quds as a terrorist force. They are the military elite of the world’s #1 sponsor of terror, are funneling weapons to Hisbollah and Shiite militias in Iraq, and we’ll probably be bombing them within weeks.
Quds refers to Jerusalem by the way, so Hussein’s vote might even have been calculated not to offend his (geographically undefined) Muslim constituency.
Akzed on May 22, 2008 at 9:50 AM
That’s an interesting three days. Thanks
right2bright on May 22, 2008 at 10:41 AM
I’m not sure what MrLynn means by “President Bush would be best advised to act soon.” If “act” means military action, the stateside backlash against “warmonger” Bush (as portrayed in the MSM which the sheeple believe without thinking) would guarantee the rise of President Barack Hussein ObaCarter. Faced with an angry and strengthened A’jad bent on vengeance, Obama’s “tough diplomacy” would be to make huge concessions to “hope” that Iran would “change”. Anyone for Persian Palestine? Remember what Bin Laden did after Bill Clinton bailed out of Somalia?
The best strategy for Bush (and McCain) right now is to keep diplomatic and economic pressure on Iran (with a few aircraft carriers cruising offshore, just in case), put American troops along the Iran-Iraq border (to protect Iraq) and prod A’jad into a little saber-rattling, so that Iran seems dangerous to the American people, and let McCain’s competence vs. Obama’s blundering become obvious to the American voter. If military action is eventually needed, at least McCain would have four years to carry it out, instead of seven months left for Bush.
Steve Z on May 22, 2008 at 10:47 AM
Comment pages: