Senator Barack Obama said he would “engage in aggressive personal diplomacy” with Iran if elected president, and would offer economic inducements and a possible promise not to seek “regime change” if Iran stopped meddling in Iraq and cooperated on terrorism and nuclear issues.
In an hourlong interview on Wednesday, Mr. Obama made clear that forging a new relationship with Iran would be a major element of what he pledged would be a broad effort to stabilize Iraq as he executed a speedy timetable for the withdrawal of American combat troops…
[H]e asserted that Iran’s support for militant groups in Iraq reflected its anxiety over the Bush administration’s policies in the region, including talk of a possible American military strike on Iranian nuclear installations.
Making clear that he planned to talk to Iran without preconditions, Mr. Obama emphasized further that “changes in behavior” by Iran could possibly be rewarded with membership in the World Trade Organization, other economic benefits and security guarantees.
And what if that doesn’t work and they keep on bomb-building? Well, then he’s going to consider a military option — depending not just on the effect on Iran “but how is that going to impact the stability of the region and how’s that going to impact our long-term security interests,” which sounds shrewd and prudent until you realize that it’s cover to declare any use of force “destabilizing” to some or another part of the Middle East and thus unworkable. He’s basically telling you here that he’ll let them have the bomb because war is/must/would be necessarily more “unstable” and thus worse. But never mind that. Remind me — which Bush policy was it that caused Iran enough “anxiety” to create, arm, and supply Hezbollah, the obvious model for Tehran’s support of Sadr and SCIRI and a force with whom the Mahdi Army, by its own admission, is already coordinating? How deep does this tool’s self-delusion run that he thinks they’d pass on a golden opportunity to carve out a piece of Iraq using the same proxy M.O. that’s worked like a charm in Lebanon just because he’s willing to shake hands? He’s grasping at reasons to blame Bush because if he faces the fact that this is simply what Iran does, it renders all these little carrots of his absurd and forces him to make some hard choices. Which, alas, might be “destabilizing.”
How weak is he? This weak. Follow the link up top and marvel at the sharply skeptical tone the article takes when describing his “residual force” plan for Iraq. Even the Times thinks he’s too soft. See you in four years, Messiah.