Barack Obama’s Dithering Foreign Policy About To Give Iran Nukes

For the official record, it was not Dick Cheney who first accused Barack Obama of dithering over Afghanistan while our troops languished and died.  It was the Pentagon.  From September 22, 2009:

In interviews with McClatchy last week, military officials and other advocates of escalation expressed their frustration at what they consider “dithering” from the White House.

From September 18, 2009:

Those officials said that taking time could be costly because the U.S. risked losing the Afghans’ support. “Dithering is just as destructive as 10 car bombs,” the senior official in Kabul said. “They have seen us leave before. They are really good at picking the right side to ally with.”

Obama has turned “dithering” into a weapon of mass destruction against American foreign policy.  Our allies are being forced to make increasingly tough decisions as to whether we really are the horse they should bet their lives on.  And our enemies are resurgent, believing that the president who has demonstrated a lack of resolve will withdraw if they can pile up a high enough body count.

On November 7 there will be another election in Afghanistan.  And there will not be anywhere near enough troops to provide adequate security.

There would have been, had Obama accepted his own handpicked general’s assessment.  But there won’t be.  It seems increasingly likely that the resurgent Taliban will be able to thwart the elections, creating an ongoing political instability which will cascade into a major failures against stability in Afghanistan.

But Obama is not just dithering in Afghanistan.  Rather, his entire foreign policy is based on dithering.

A nuclear-armed Iran capable of destroying Israel, capable of blockading the Strait of Hormuz and causing oil prices to quintuple, capable of launching a wave of global jihad such as the world has never seen, looms.

October 24, 2009
Barack Obama’s policy on brink of collapse as Tehran does last-minute nuclear stall

President Obama’s policy of diplomatic engagement with Iran is close to collapse as Tehran backtracks on a crucial deal aimed at cutting its stockpiles of nuclear fuel

Iran agreed a deal “in principle” at talks in Geneva to ship the majority of its low-enriched uranium overseas for reprocessing into nuclear fuel that could be used for a medical research reactor.

A deal outlining this was finalised in Vienna this week and a deadline of midnight tonight was set for the agreement to be sealed with Tehran.

The framework deal, along with an offer to allow international inspectors into its newly-revealed enrichment plant at Qom, was hailed as evidence that Iran was responding positively to the diplomatic track.

Today, however, with just hours until the deadline, Iran has turned the table on its foreign interlocutors with a rival proposal, demanding that it be allowed to buy higher enriched uranium directly from abroad. […]

The counter-proposal was outlined on Iranian state television today as the clock ticked down to the midnight deadline. “The Islamic Republic of Iran is waiting for a constructive and confidence-building response to the clear proposal of buying fuel for the Tehran research reactor,” state television quoted an unnamed source close to Iran’s negotiating team as saying. […]

Russia and China’s reluctance to consider new sanctions is forcing Washington to seek a coalition of willing allies to impose their own economic blockade on Iran if efforts to get UN sanctions fail.

Tehran’s latest move comes straight from a well-thumbed Iranian playbook and looks like yet another stalling tactic to test the West’s resolve and buy time to avert new sanctions
. But Western patience is growing thinner by the day, with diplomats warning that the apparent breakthrough in Geneva on October 1 may be less positive than it first seemed.

Anxiety is now growing about what will happen on Sunday when inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) arrive in Iran to inspect the long-hidden nuclear plant at Qom.

“It’s like Groundhog Day,” a senior Western diplomat involved in the Iran negotiations said. “Except in Groundhog Day you wake up every day and everything’s the same. With this, you wake up every day and everything’s just a little bit worse.” […]

Britain, France and Israel believe that Iran has all the know-how it needs to build a bomb and that weaponisation studies have continued despite Tehran’s insistence that it halted them years ago.

The IAEA has called Western intelligence on weaponisation “compelling” and chided Iran for refusing to answer questions on the subject.  Iran remains in breach of five UN resolutions calling on it to halt enrichment until outstanding questions about a military dimension to the programme are resolved.

And Obama is displaying his steely resolve…

Western diplomats had initially said the international powers would not accept any attempt to drag out the negotiations beyond Friday.

However, the United States said that it was now prepared to wait for Iran’s reply.

… by showing even less resolve than France.  In answer to the question, “Why Is a World Leader Distancing Himself From President Obama?”:

One major sticking point has been President Obama’s softer stance on Iran, while President Sarkozy prefers a more hawkish approach. Sarkozy said last month: “I support America’s outstretched hand. But what has the international community gained from these offers of dialogue? Nothing but more enriched uranium and centrifuges.”

This on top of other remarks Sarkozy has made about Obama’s naivete and weakness:

Sarkozy: “We live in the real world, not the virtual world. And the real world expects us to take decisions.”

Even pantywaist Europe is calling Obama a pantywaist.  And that is the definition of “pathetic.”

Our enemies have been smelling a weakling in the White House since Obama won the election.  Obama talked tough when he had to to win the election, but that tough talk was always a lie.

We are looking at exactly the same scenario regarding Iran as George Bush faced regarding Iraq; namely, veto-wielding permanent member UN nations that will thwart any meaningful or legitimate sanction that could truly stop the rogue nation’s quest for weapons of mass destruction.  This has been the case for years.  We cannot rely on international consensus as the basis for our security; it will let us down every single time.

Nor can we rely upon dialogue with evil tyrants to achieve our foreign policy objectives.  What I said a year ago last August in that regard is even more true now.  You simply cannot negotiate with an untrustworthy partner who does not want peace.

As far back as April of 2008 I pointed out that the election of a Democrat to the White House would guarantee a nuclear-armed Iran, concluding:

Allow me to guarantee you that a Democratic administration will see a nuclear Iran. Given their policy on Iraq, it becomes an implicit campaign promise. And it will see a nuclearized Middle East. Democrats have spent forty years proving that they are cowards who will not stand by their allies, and their actions will come home to roost.

A Republican president can say to the Iranians, “We went in to Iran when we thought they might attack us, Iran. And I promise that will do the same to you if you continue your weapons program.” And no one can question that. A Republican president can say to Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Egypt, “We stayed with Iraq and defended them even when it was difficult, and we’ll do the same for you.” and no one can question that.

And it’s actually even worse than I thought.  In Barack Obama, we have a president who has repeatedly demonstrated he is toothless as an enemy, and treacherous as a friend.  Subsequent to that piece, Obama reneged on a major missile defense deal with key Eastern European allies in order to appease a hostile Russia – who gave us nothing in exchange for our betrayal.  And if that wasn’t bad enough – we sold out Poland to Russia on the 70th anniversary of Russia’s invasion of Poland in 1939.

Barack Obama will not go to war with Iran to prevent them from developing nuclear weapons.  And Iran knows that.  Iran also knows that their Russian and Chinese allies will prevent any sanction that could truly hurt them from passing the useless United Nations.

As a result of Obama’s dithering, the world’s worst terrorist state will soon have the bomb, and the ballistic missile capability to deliver that bomb.  And when they get it, the world will change in very scary ways.


Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

2 Responses to “Barack Obama’s Dithering Foreign Policy About To Give Iran Nukes”

  1. hl Says:

    Dear Michael,
    Chuck Norris states he has read the 180 page ‘climate treaty’ and has written comments.

    Sunday, October 25, 2009

    Obama’s 1-world government
    Exclusive: Chuck Norris exposes White House push to sell sell out U.S. sovereignty

    Posted: October 25, 2009
    9:13 pm Eastern

    By Chuck Norris


    Halloween just got scarier – much scarier.

    I’m not talking about a new Hollywood slasher film or a new line of grotesque costumes, but a possible political nightmare scenario in which the White House could be positioned to sell out U.S. sovereignty, shred the Constitution and leave you and yours to the whims of foreign powers.

    Flying deep under Washington’s radar is an upcoming (December) global climate change conference in Copenhagen, Denmark, under the guise of the “United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.” Virtually nothing has been said about it from the White House. But then again, I’m sure they think, who could be against working together for climate change? It all sounds pretty politically benign, doesn’t it?

    “Global Warming or Global Governance? What the media refuse to tell you about so-called climate change”

    Not according to Lord Christopher Monckton, once science policy adviser to Lady Margaret Thatcher, who read the treaty and said the Copenhagen conference is a cover for the beginnings of a one-world government. Monckton spoke to the Minnesota Free Market Institute in St. Paul, Minn.:

    I have read that treaty and what it says is this: that a world government is going to be created. The word “government” actually appears as the first of three purposes of the new entity. The second purpose is the transfer of wealth from the countries of the West to Third World countries, in satisfaction of what is called, coyly, “climate debt” – because we’ve been burning CO2 and they haven’t. And we’ve been screwing up the climate and they haven’t. And the third purpose of this new entity, this government, is enforcement. How many of you think the word “election,” or “democracy” or “vote,” or “ballot” occurs anywhere in the 200 pages of that treaty? Quite right, it doesn’t appear once.
    Monckton then warned, if Obama signs the treaty, he would be flushing U.S. sovereignty down the global toilet. He cautioned, “But, in the next few weeks, unless you stop it, your president will sign your freedom, your democracy and your prosperity away forever – and neither you nor any subsequent government you may elect would have any power whatsoever to take it back again.”

    Monckton further pointed out that, even though ratification of our president’s signature on that treaty would take a 67 supermajority (two-thirds) of the Senate, it could pass a simple majority as an amendment to the cap-and-trade bill. (as well as many Left-leaning blogs) quickly criticized Monckton’s conclusions as conspiratorial and climate-skepticism rhetoric, based upon the notion that the treaty is a draft and not a finalized document. But the apologetic of leaves the impression that the current draft is the roughest of cuts, when in reality it is the result of seven sessions of deliberations and revisions from several subgroups, including representatives from developed and developing countries (“parties”), “with a view to modifying it in the direction of consolidation and convergence.”

    (Column continues below)

    Like with Congress’ drafts of Obamacare, should we not be concerned because the current draft of the treaty may not be the final version, especially when the present language smacks of an abandonment of the principles upon which our republic was founded? As I myself read through the latest draft of the 181-page treaty, I noticed many lines that could warrant Monckton’s and others’ concerns (I’ve added italics for emphasis):

    PP.6 Intending to renew and strengthen the global partnership through the creation of new levels of cooperation among Parties, according to the principles of the Convention. (Page 6)
    PP.7 Affirming a Shared Vision of a long-term goal to equitably, successfully and coherently integrate the ambitious efforts of all Parties. (Page 6)

    PP.8 Recognizing that sustainable development is the first priority for developing countries. Therefore, that our commitment to a low carbon society would have to be linked to our development priorities, in accordance with the provisions of the Convention. (Page 6)

    PP.13 Recognizing that current and potential climate change impacts require a shift in the global investment patterns and that criteria for financing allocation shall clearly respond to the priorities identified by the international community, with climate change stabilization being one of these priorities. (Page 6)

    10. Led by developed country Parties, an economic transition is needed that shifts in order to adjust global economic growth patterns towards a sustainable low-emission economy … (Page 8)

    20. In order to fulfill this shared vision, Parties have agreed to establish a coherent, cohesive and integrated system of financial and technology transfer mechanisms under the Convention and a follow up/compliance mechanism. (Page 10)

    … ensuring that global crises, such as the financial crisis, should not constitute an obstacle to the provision of financial and technical assistance to developing countries in accordance with the Convention. (Page 11 – Please read that one again!)

    … all developed country Parties should then be increased to achieve the global goal without the contribution of developing country Parties. (Page 13)

    36. The new agreed post-2012 institutional arrangement and legal framework to be established for the implementation, monitoring, reporting and verification of the global cooperative action for mitigation, adaptation, technology and financing, should be set under the Convention. It should include a financial mechanism and a facilitative mechanism drawn up to facilitate the design, adoption and carrying out of public policies, as the prevailing instrument, to which the market rules and related dynamics should be subordinate, in order to assure the full, effective and sustained implementation of the Convention. (Page 18)

    37. The new institutional arrangement will provide technical and financial support for developing countries in the following areas: (a) preparation, implementation and follow-up through monitoring, reporting and verification of nationally appropriate mitigation actions (NAMAs) by developing countries. These activities could include options to reduce emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD); (b) preparation, implementation and follow-up of national adaptation programmes of action (NAPAs) or national communications in developing countries; (c) technology needs assessments (TNAs) for adaptation and mitigation under the NAMAs and the NAPAs or national communications of developing countries; (d) capacity-building and enabling environments for adaptation and mitigation in developing countries; (e) education, awareness raising and public participation, focused on youth, women and indigenous peoples; (f) design and implementation of adaptation programmes and projects; (g) support for all technological cycle phases: research and development (R&D), diffusion and transfer, including acquisition of technologies for adaptation and mitigation, including the purchase or flexibility of patents. (Page 18)

    38. The scheme for the new institutional arrangement under the Convention will be based on three basic pillars: government; facilitative mechanism; and financial mechanism, and the basic organization of which will include the following … (Page 18)

    52. Particular effort should be taken to enhance cooperation amongst intergovernmental organizations. (Page 47)

    28. A global fund shall be established to support a global feed-in tariff programme, providing guaranteed purchase prices, over and above the retail energy price in developing countries. … The Global Fund shall aim at both inducing a shift to renewable energy without compromising development momentum in developing countries, and achieving economies of scale and a sustained reduction in the costs of generating renewable energy. (Page 138)

    29. A special fund shall be established: (a) For the economic and social consequences of response measures … (b) To assist countries whose economies are highly dependent on income generated from the production, processing and export, and/or on consumption of fossil fuels … (Page 138)

    That last point (No. 29) is one of the most shocking. Not only are developed countries (like the U.S.) mandated in this treaty to provide for developing countries despite global or financial crises (p. 11). After becoming the wealthiest nations on the planet from the production and sale of oil, like those in the Middle East, this global governing body will establish a “special fund” to give them financial aid when the world is no longer dependent upon their commodities! Are they kidding?!

    Now, if that isn’t one powerful intergovernmental or global-governmental group overseeing and manipulating ours and others economic and political conditions, I don’t know what is. Even if some of Lord Christopher Monckton’s claims about the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change are overstated, concerns about the extent of this body’s political power and global economic sway are no more conspiratorial than the concern for Al Gore’s comments in July (2009) at Oxford that change will be driven through “global governance.”

    And does anyone doubt that our president, as a Nobel peace laureate who believes he can negotiate with terrorists and dictators, has a global desire for international coalescence? Or should it not concern us that at the G-20 conference he would push world leaders to reshape the global economy? If he is already selling our nation to communist countries like China via our skyrocketing national debt, how much more difficult would it be to progressively replace the tenets of our Constitution with principles of “The Communist Manifesto”? Have we already started?

    I’ve been so flabbergasted lately by Washington’s abandonment of our founder’s vision and principles that I expanded (to more than 300 pages) the new paperback version of my No. 14 New York Times best-seller, “Black Belt Patriotism” (available in Jan. 2010). It includes new materials in every chapter explaining how, in just one year, the Obama administration has progressively dismantled our Constitution, buried our economy, forsaken our posterity, disintegrated our borders, abandoned our godly heritage, impaled the traditional family and crippled America’s health and future. (Amended are also copies of the Ten Commandments, the Declaration of Independence and our Constitution.)

    One thing is certain: Obama wasn’t kidding on the campaign trail when he said it’s time for the U.S. to “turn the page” on its trivial culture wars. But who knew just how many pages he would be turning, even in his first year in office? Who knew he would actually swap the play books?

    But then again, I’m sure the White House just thinks I’ve been watching too much Fox News.

  2. Michael Eden Says:

    It’s scary when our best U.S. source for what the sam hill is going on with this stupid UN treaty might well be a former action movie hero. What can you say?

    But I have a feeling Chuck is right here.

    What we really need, rather than Chuck Norris, is for a very good and very trustworthy lawyer to read it, and then to tell us A) what the treaty does; and B) what it can be “tweaked” to do.

    One thing is for sure: the Constitution doesn’t mean a damn thing to Obama, or to any of the people who are doing his bidding.

    The Bible has been quite clear that there would one day arise a global government that would repeat the mistakes of the Tower of Babel crowd on a much more giant scale. We know that an antichrist is coming to lead that government. And we know that economic catastrophe, famine, war, and mass death will precede the rise of that antichrist and prepare the way for the world world worshiping him when he seems to have answers to the catastrophes facing the world.

    So it’s not like any of this should be surprising to us.

    What is happening in regard to this UN climate treaty is very much like the health care. Nobody knows what’s going on. The people won’t be able to read anything or have any time to decide what it means or whether they want it. Rather, it will be shoved down our throats by people who will then tell us what we are supposed to think.

    These people claim that private business is evil and has an agenda, and that they are saving us from “special interests.” What they don’t tell us is that GOVERNMENT is evil and has an agenda, and that GOVERNMENT HAS MORE SPECIAL INTERESTS THAN ANYBODY.

    Liberals hate God, and must create a God-substitute in place of God. That substitute is called “Government” – and liberals worship it, and worship the leader of the next failed utopia they constantly seek to erect.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: