Posts Tagged ‘diplomacy’

THIS Is What ‘Successful Diplomacy’ Looks Like To Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton And Democrats

January 14, 2016

Barack Obama’s, Hillary Clinton’s and Democrats’ idea of what “successful diplomacy” looks like:

Obama Navy Surrenders

I don’t know what burns my butt more: my warriors on their knees with their hands on their heads in surrender and submission, or the Democrat Party trumpeting it as is illustrated by the following New York Times pull quote:

Their quick release was hailed by the Obama administration as an unintended benefit of the new diplomatic relationship with Iran

Okay, I take it back: I really DO know: surrender and humiliation is bad; reveling in and celebrating surrender and humiliation is far, far worse and far, far more despicable.

As it is, let me give you Obama’s, Clinton’s and the Democrat Party’s version of “serving with honor and distinction” (remember that?  And this is where we are with that pathetic little weasel now) as our Obama military after submissively surrendering abjectly apologizes and thanks Iran for humiliating them:

“We were so wrong.  We’re just infidels, after all.  We are so, so grateful to you for not sawing our heads off as we so truly deserve.”

The more of a traitor you are to your country, the happier Obama and Hillary and their Democrat Party are.

Well, thank you very much for that. I had no idea Obama had promoted Bowe Bergdahl to Lieutenant.  I’m actually surprised that Obama didn’t release a hundred terrorist commanders from Gitmo just to show his gratitude.

I mean, yes this lieutenant violated the heart of the code of military conduct for a US serviceman captured.  Yes, Iran violated every international law in it’s treatment of prisoners.  The photos and videos blatantly violate articles 13 and 17 of the Geneva Convention.  A Politico article points out the following:

“You’re not supposed to take photos to be used in propaganda media,” Pregent told POLITICO in a phone interview Wednesday. “You look at what they released this morning. They have a video of them boarding the ship, Americans on their knees with their hands behind their head, videotaping them as if that’s amusing. That’s a violation of the Geneva Convention.”

By releasing media that makes the sailors identifiable, Pregent added, Iran again violated the Geneva Convention, the international series of treaties setting a standard for treatment of civilians, prisoners of war and soldiers who are unable to fight.

“In this case, the sailors weren’t necessarily prisoners of war, but they were detained, and when you detain uniformed military you have to treat them a certain way, and Iran’s in violation of that,” said Pregent, who noted his opposition to the Obama administration’s Iran deal. “It’s just making a point that this actually did warrant an apology from Iran. This wasn’t just a simple rescue of distressed American sailors after their ship broke down.”

Thank you for violating the Geneva Convention and making us look like the disgraces we are in the age of Obama, Iran.  We thank you for your generosity and kindness.

What the Islamic world saw is America’s warriors on their knees in humiliation, our female soldier submitting to Islam by wearing a hijab, and the United States Navy clearly surrendering.

As for Obama’s new Secretary of State roach that he replaced his last roach with, well, why didn’t you just scoop yourself out one of the Ayatollah’s turds from his toilet and eat it to show how much of their crap you’ll willing to accept???  I mean, hey, Kerry, maybe after that you could give the Ayatollah an enema with your tongue while you’re at it.

As disgusting as that image is, the picture of our warriors surrendering to Iran is massively MORE disgusting.

Would you like to know what REAL “successful diplomacy” and a TRUE “diplomatic relationship with Iran” would look like?

It would look like an Iran TERRIFIED to do something like this to the United States of America or its warriors.

Unfortunately, instead, it looks like another glorious day for “Allahu Akbar!”

Time to hang the American flag upside down again.  Or you can just fly this Obama States of America flag instead. (see my article on that down-memory-lane outrage here).  Either way, it signals the dire distress of the United States of America.

 

Advertisements

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

October 24, 2009

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.

U.S. Vs. North Korea: Who’s Winning The War Of Pissy Rhetoric?

July 23, 2009

As we know, liberals and leftists are incredibly sophisticated people.  Foreign policy, being a grown-up’s game, should be reserved for wise, mature, intellectuals who understand the intricacies of diplomacy.

At least until they start sticking their tongues out at one another.

Hillary Clinton is “engaging in a substantive foreign policy discussion” with the People’s Republic of Korea:

A 2007 six-party agreement in which North Korea began dismantling its nuclear complex at Yongbyon in return for fuel oil deliveries broke down in April this year, when North Korea threw out UN inspectors and restarted its weapons programme. It has since raised tensions by conducting an apparent nuclear test (some experts say it could have been a hoax using huge quantities of high explosive) and a series of missile tests.

In an interview on Monday, Clinton said the US should not over-react to North Korean provocation. She told ABC television: “Maybe it’s the mother in me, the experience I’ve had with small children and teenagers and people who are demanding attention: Don’t give it to them.”

Pyongyang’s reaction took three days to come, but the delay did not lessen its evident fury.

“We cannot but regard Mrs Clinton as a funny lady as she likes to utter such rhetoric, unaware of the elementary etiquette in the international community,” a foreign ministry statement said. “Sometimes she looks like a primary schoolgirl and sometimes a pensioner going shopping.”

Yes, this certainly might seem childish.  But only if you are a Republican or a conservative who simply lacks the profound erudite sophistication necessary for the intricacies of diplomatic negotiation.

The funniest or most frightening thing (depending on your point of view) is that one could actually imagine World War III starting this way.

International Scholar Ajami Explains How Obama Is Failing Re: Iran

June 23, 2009

There is no question that Barack Obama has been widely criticized for offering weak statements on a developing Iranian situation with demonstrators literally risking death to protest what they view as a

While women are being gunned down in the streets, Obama has said he doesn’t want to “meddle” in Iran.  While such women and hundreds of thousands of others are demonstrating and even dying for their vote of Mousavi to be counted against the man whom the Iranian mullahs put in power (Ahmadinejad), Obama has publicly claimed that there is no difference between the two.  And while the Ayatollah Khamenei has issued a progressively harsher and more lethal crackdown on his people, Barack Obama has taken the Ayatollah’s side, claiming:

President Barack Obama says he believes supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has deep concerns about the civil unrest that has followed the hotly contested presidential election there.

Obama repeated Tuesday at a news conference his “deep ir own, concerns” about the disputed balloting. He said he believes the ayatollah’s decision to order an investigation “indicates he understands the Iranian people have deep concerns.”

The Iranian Ayatollah really isn’t that bad of a guy.  You heard it from Barack Hussein first.

It’s not a question as to whether Obama has been tepid in his response to the mass demonstrations in Iran; it is OBVIOUS he has been tepid.  To date, he has delivered three statements on Iran — having been forced to make the third, somewhat more strongly-worded statement, as a result of Congress’ display of unity in its resolve to stand with the Iranian people.  His first statement delivered on June 15 was simply pathetically weak.  Pure and simple.   And even the French and the Germans have shown more moral backbone and more moral indignation than Barack Obama.

When a French president displays moral outrage, while an American president displays political appeasement, it is more than a shame: it is an absolute abdication of leadership.  And, even worse, when an American president is behind Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid in exhibiting moral courage, it is truly a sign of the last pathetic gasps of a fading republic.

No, the question isn’t whether Obama is being tepid; it’s merely a matter of asking why he is being so incredibly tepid.

The reason, from all accounts, is that Obama (cynically if realistically) expects the Iranian leadership to prevail in this current struggle, and he doesn’t want to antagonize the Iranian regime in a way that might undermine his subsequent efforts at the direct negotiations he campaigned on.  That, and he doesn’t want to be accused by the Iranians of “meddling” when that has already been proven absurd: the Iranians have ALREADY accused us of meddling whether we have been or not.

I would argue that Ronald Reagan’s “meddling” when he called the Soviet Union “an evil empire” and when he  said, “Mr. Gorbachev: tear down this wall!” are what is in order.  It isn’t “meddling” to call a spade a spade.  It is hardly “meddling” to decry in the strongest of terms the absence of liberty and freedom in support of a demonstrating people who clearly yearn for them.

We can never know what would have happened had we only done something that we were too timid to do.  It is right to stand with the Iranian people against an evil and unjust system; it is wrong to cynically play realpolitic in the faint hope of having that same evil and unjust system offer a diplomatic bone down the road.

But, getting back to the main point, are Obama’s concerns that he might undermine future negotiations with Iran valid?

I would argue that Obama’s whole project of attaining success through diplomacy with Iran was a fool’s project to begin with.  We are talking about a regime that has based itself for over 30 years on conflict with and opposition to “the Great Satan”, America.

At no time during the Obama presidency have they demonstrated any willingness to cease their efforts toward nuclear weapons.  They simply have no reason to do so.  And there is virtually no reason to believe that Barack Obama will be able to give them one.

By any realistic expectation, Obama’s policy of diplomacy and negotiation with Iran has ALREADY FAILED, as even the New York Times recognizes.  There is nothing left in terms of hopes of future negotiation breakthroughs to hope for.  If nothing else, how is Obama going to personally meet with President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, or the Ayatollah Khamenei, when the fundamental legitimacy of their government is in such open question?

An insightful article by one of the premier experts on Iran offers insights on precisely how and even why Barack Obama has failed on Iran:

JUNE 22, 2009

Obama’s Persian Tutorial: The president has to choose between the regime and the people in the streets.

By FOUAD AJAMI

President Barack Obama did not “lose” Iran. This is not a Jimmy Carter moment. But the foreign-policy education of America’s 44th president has just begun. Hitherto, he had been cavalier about other lands, he had trusted in his own biography as a bridge to distant peoples, he had believed he could talk rogues and ideologues out of deeply held beliefs. His predecessor had drawn lines in the sand. He would look past them.

Thus a man who had been uneasy with his middle name (Hussein) during the presidential campaign would descend on Ankara and Cairo, inserting himself in a raging civil war over Islam itself. An Iranian theocratic regime had launched a bid for dominion in its region; Mr. Obama offered it an olive branch and waited for it to “unclench” its fist.

It was an odd, deeply conflicted message from Mr. Obama. He was at once a herald of change yet a practitioner of realpolitik. He would entice the crowds, yet assure the autocrats that the “diplomacy of freedom” that unsettled them during the presidency of George W. Bush is dead and buried. Grant the rulers in Tehran and Damascus their due: They were quick to take the measure of the new steward of American power. He had come to “engage” them. Gone was the hope of transforming these regimes or making them pay for their transgressions. The theocracy was said to be waiting on an American opening, and this new president would put an end to three decades of estrangement between the United States and Iran.

But in truth Iran had never wanted an opening to the U.S. For the length of three decades, the custodians of the theocracy have had precisely the level of enmity toward the U.S. they have wanted — just enough to be an ideological glue for the regime but not enough to be a threat to their power. Iran’s rulers have made their way in the world with relative ease. No White Army gathered to restore the dominion of the Pahlavis. The Cold War and oil bailed them out. So did the false hope that the revolution would mellow and make its peace with the world.

Mr. Obama may believe that his offer to Iran is a break with a hard-line American policy. But nothing could be further from the truth. In 1989, in his inaugural, George H.W. Bush extended an offer to Iran: “Good will begets good will,” he said. A decade later, in a typically Clintonian spirit of penance and contrition, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright came forth with a full apology for America’s role in the 1953 coup that ousted nationalist Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh.

Iran’s rulers scoffed. They had inherited a world, and they were in no need of opening it to outsiders. They were able to fly under the radar. Selective, targeted deeds of terror, and oil income, enabled them to hold their regime intact. There is a Persian pride and a Persian solitude, and the impact of three decades of zeal and indoctrination. The drama of Barack Obama’s election was not an affair of Iran. They had an election of their own to stage. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad — a son of the Ayatollah Khomeini’s revolutionary order, a man from the brigades of the regime, austere and indifferent to outsiders, an Iranian Everyman with badly fitting clothes and white socks — was up for re-election.

The upper orders of his country loathed him and bristled under the system of controls that the mullahs and the military and the revolutionary brigades had put in place, but he had the power and the money and the organs of the state arrayed on his side. There was a discernible fault line in Iran. There were Iranians yearning for liberty, but we should not underestimate the power and the determination of those moved by the yearning for piety. Ahmadinejad’s message of populism at home and defiance abroad, his assertion that the country’s nuclear quest is a “closed file,” settled and beyond discussion, have a resonance on Iranian soil. His challenger, Mir Hossein Mousavi, a generation older, could not compete with him on that terrain.

On the ruins of the ancien régime, the Iranian revolutionaries, it has to be conceded, have built a formidable state. The men who emerged out of a cruel and bloody struggle over their country’s identity and spoils are a tenacious, merciless breed. Their capacity for repression is fearsome. We must rein in the modernist conceit that the bloggers, and the force of Twitter and Facebook, could win in the streets against the squads of the regime. That fight would be an Iranian drama, all outsiders mere spectators.

That ambivalence at the heart of the Obama diplomacy about freedom has not served American policy well in this crisis. We had tried to “cheat” — an opening to the regime with an obligatory wink to those who took to the streets appalled by their rulers’ cynicism and utter disregard for their people’s intelligence and common sense — and we were caught at it. Mr. Obama’s statement that “the difference between Ahmadinejad and Mousavi in terms of their actual policies may not be as great as had been advertised” put on cruel display the administration’s incoherence. For once, there was an acknowledgment by this young president of history’s burden: “Either way, we were going to be dealing with an Iranian regime that has historically been hostile to the United States, that has caused some problems in the neighborhood and is pursuing nuclear weapons.” No Wilsonianism on offer here.

Mr. Obama will have to acknowledge the “foreignness” of foreign lands. His breezy self-assurance has been put on notice. The Obama administration believed its own rhetoric that the pro-Western March 14 coalition in Lebanon had ridden Mr. Obama’s coattails to an electoral victory. (It had given every indication that it expected similar vindication in Iran.)

But the claim about Lebanon was hollow and reflected little understanding of the forces at play in Lebanon’s politics. That contest was settled by Lebanese rules, and by the push and pull of Saudi and Syrian and Iranian interests in Lebanon.

Mr. Obama’s June 4 speech in Cairo did not reshape the Islamic landscape. I was in Saudi Arabia when Mr. Obama traveled to Riyadh and Cairo. The earth did not move, life went on as usual. There were countless people puzzled by the presumption of the entire exercise, an outsider walking into sacred matters of their faith. In Saudi Arabia, and in the Arabic commentaries of other lands, there was unease that so complicated an ideological and cultural terrain could be approached with such ease and haste.

Days into his presidency, it should be recalled, Mr. Obama had spoken of his desire to restore to America’s relation with the Muslim world the respect and mutual interest that had existed 30 or 20 years earlier. It so happened that he was speaking, almost to the day, on the 30th anniversary of the Iranian Revolution — and that the time span he was referring to, his golden age, covered the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, the American standoff with Libya, the fall of Beirut to the forces of terror, and the downing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland. Liberal opinion would have howled had this history been offered by George W. Bush, but Barack Obama was granted a waiver.

Little more than three decades ago, Jimmy Carter, another American president convinced that what had come before him could be annulled and wished away, called on the nation to shed its “inordinate fear of communism,” and to put aside its concern with “traditional issues of war and peace” in favor of “new global issues of justice, equity and human rights.” We had betrayed our principles in the course of the Cold War, he said, “fought fire with fire, never thinking that fire is quenched with water.” The Soviet answer to that brave, new world was the invasion of Afghanistan in December of 1979.

Mr. Carter would try an atonement in the last year of his presidency. He would pose as a born-again hawk. It was too late in the hour for such redemption. It would take another standard-bearer, Ronald Reagan, to see that great struggle to victory.

Iran’s ordeal and its ways shattered the Carter presidency. President Obama’s Persian tutorial has just begun.

Mr. Ajami, a professor at the School of Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins University and a fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution, is the author of “The Foreigner’s Gift: The Americans, the Arabs, and the Iraqis in Iraq (Free Press, 2007).

It is more than fitting that, in an article that is ostensibly about Barack Obama’s poor handling of the Iranian election opportunity, Dr. Ajami should begin and end with Jimmy Carter.  Because we truly have seen much of Barack Obama’s native and failed policies before in the person of Jimmy Carter.

The biggest problem facing Barack Obama is that he is viewed – and I believe very rightly – as weak.

Ronald Reagan called the Soviet Union an “evil empire” – and he defeated it without even having to fire a shot simply by forceful and continuous confrontation.  George W. Bush called Iraq, Iran, and North Korea “the axis of evil” – and he defeated one of its members and replaced it with a stable democracy (over Barack Obama’s opposition, by the way).

Barack Obama is viewed by rogue regimes as being unwilling to go to war to stand up for American policy or American values.  He will pursue negotiation and diplomacy come what may – and in so doing allow tyrants to take advantage of the United States.

That is why “North Korea’s Kim Jong Il has challenged President Obama more in four months than he did President George W. Bush in eight years.”

Bottom line: with a Reagan, or with either Bush, dictators knew that there was a point beyond which they dared not go, lest the U.S. unleash its might upon them.  They have no such fear about Barack Obama, and for good reason.