Obama’s policy [of open-handed diplomacy] must be judged a failure on its own terms. The notion that Iran’s rulers could be coaxed into behaving reasonably has been disproved by the events of the past few days. The question is whether the administration will stubbornly cling to its assumptions or have the flexibility to change its strategy in the face of new information.— James Taranto
Christians are influencing Iran from the bottom up—not with weapons, but with radio waves, the Internet, and relational outreach. Farsi-language Christian broadcasts and websites are blanketing Iran with the gospel message 24/7. (Secular counterparts are also broadcasting messages about political reform and democracy.) This kind of hearts-and-minds campaign is having significant results, notably among Iran’s huge population of young adults unhappy with the current regime. According to Compass Direct News, house churches are growing rapidly. Sadly, one result of this Christian media strategy is a negative one: Iran is considering legalizing the death penalty for anyone who leaves Islam for another religion. We don’t expect that Iranian hardliners will suddenly be transformed into peacemaking lovers of religious freedom due to a few radio broadcasts or website hits. But American foreign policy must make greater allowance for the use of influence beyond military or economic threats.—
Talk to Iran | Christianity Today
Yet another lense to view Middle East issues through. Christianity is having a similar effect in China.
The problem that the world, including the U.S., has today is not with Iran as a nation-state but with the Islamic Republic as a revolutionary cause bent on world conquest under the guidance of the “Hidden Imam.” The following statement by the Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the “Supreme leader” of the Islamic Republic – who Mr. Obama admits has ultimate power in Iran — exposes the futility of the very talks Mr. Obama proposes: “You have nothing to say to us. We object. We do not agree to a relationship with you! We are not prepared to establish relations with powerful world devourers like you! The Iranian nation has no need of the United States, nor is the Iranian nation afraid of the United States. We … do not accept your behavior, your oppression and intervention in various parts of the world.—
The Problem With Talking to Iran - WSJ.com
The article’s main thesis: Iran can be negotiated with when it acts as a nation-state, but not when it acts as a cause/revolution. Read the whole thing.
Secretary Rice’s threat of still-more sanctions will be seen in Tehran for the diplomatic evasion it is. The last set of sanctions took months to pass and were watered down to nothing much. The Administration would do better to withdraw from this international charade and consider means by which the mullahs might be persuaded that their regime’s survival is better assured by not having nuclear weapons. A month-long naval blockade of Iran’s imports of refined gasoline – which accounts for nearly half of its domestic consumption – could clarify for the Iranians just how unacceptable their nuclear program is to the civilized world.—
The West still has some useful options to impede Iranian nuclear ambitions; why doesn’t it use them?
The Obama view of negotiations as the alpha and the omega of U.S. foreign policy highlights a fundamental conceptual divide between the major parties and their putative presidential nominees. […] On one side are those who believe that negotiations should be used to resolve international disputes 99% of the time. That is where I am, and where I think Mr. McCain is. On the other side are those like Mr. Obama, who apparently want to use negotiations 100% of the time. It is the 100%-ers who suffer from an obsession that is naïve and dangerous. Negotiation is not a policy. It is a technique. Saying that one favors negotiation with, say, Iran, has no more intellectual content than saying one favors using a spoon. For what? Under what circumstances? With what objectives? On these specifics, Mr. Obama has been consistently sketchy.—
Bring On the Foreign Policy Debate - WSJ.com
Bolton elaborates on why negotiating with “terrorists and radicals” is a bad idea.
Jim Geraghty fisks a recent Obama speech that reveals the latter’s naivete in dealing with enemy regimes.
(via squashed)
“What we need is a political strategy to combat, contest and weaken the appeal of these groups or to marginalize their violent factions. Such a policy would naturally involve some contact with their leaders, but as part of a much broader effort to engage all groups in these societies politically.”
It’s clear that Hezbollah’s relationship to the Lebanese is completely different than, say, Al Qaeda’s relationship with the Iraqis—probably because the former provides social services, the latter torture chambers and strict enforcement of Shariah law. It seems clear that the solution to the Hezbollah problem will require more than just the military.
A post back, I asked people to explain to me why they thought meeting with Iran (as Obama proposes) was a worse idea than the Bush/McCain/Clinton strategy of blustering in the irrational hope that this somehow persuades Iran to do what we want it to. SDS took a shot at it, citing “author and student of Middle Eastern politics” Joel Rosenberg. According to Rosenberg (and Rush Limbaugh), Ahmadenejad believes the annihilation of millions of jews is his life’s purpose. And, according to Rosenberg, his beliefs get crazier from there.
I was a bit hesitant—because I’ve listened to Ahmadinejad’s rhetoric and while he was certainly a hard-liner, he didn’t sound like a religious zealot. So I looked up Rosenberg. By “author,” SDS apparently meant “fiction author,” apparently of the Dan Brown variety. And by “student of Middle Eastern politics,” he means the kind of student without citable laurels. Needless to say, I’m not willing to base a foreign policy on Rosenberg’s fictional conspiracy theories.
So, would anybody else like to take a crack at explaining why we can’t talk to Iran?
OK, here are some more reasons why the U.S. should not talk directly with Iran: to quote John McCain, “It enhances prestige of a nation that is terrorist sponsor and is directly responsible for the deaths of young Americans.” We should not lend legitimacy to a regime funding Hamas, funding Hezbollah and providing weaponry for attacks into Israel, providing weaponry to insurgents in Iraq, having secret dealings with North Korea, maintaining a cozy relationship with Hugo Chavez, threatining to wipe Israel off the map, capturing and humiliating troops of our ally Britain, repeatedly flouting UN demands to halt their pursuit of nuclear weapons, etc. Not to mention that he believes his 2005 five speech to the UN assembly put everyone present in a trance.
I am not a gunslinger on this. I’d much rather we didn’t have to bomb Iran; indeed, I have high hopes for the effect serious economic sanctions could have on the country. But when it comes down to it, we should not negotiate with this nutjob, and we should draw a hard line and stick by it.
