by: Neoavatara I have long said that if you are going to deal with Iran, you have to have at least the threat of serious repercussions on the table. That ultimately is what Obama is lacking. Does anyone, anywhere, believe that Barack Obama would launch any kind of military strike against Iran? The answer is clearly no. And that is why Iran currently is acting like a country without any fear. Sure, Israel could hit them, but that isn’t necessarily a losing situation for them. An Israeli attack against Iran would do something that no other action could ever do: unite the Arab world. Anyone looking at the middle east must understand a simple reality: Iran is neither liked nor trusted in the region. Simply put, there are many in the region that would be more than happy to allow Israel to attack Iran if the time comes. The problem is with the Arab street. Arab leaders have long instigated hatred toward Israel, and have blamed the Jewish republic for every ill that befalls the Muslim world. This would not be any different. So ultimately the only punishment that Iran is facing is harsh United Nations Sanctions. These are similar to the sanctions placed on Saddam Hussein and Iraq…in which Saddam was able to sell billions of dollars of oil, and funnel it to his own pocket. Iran also holds another card in its back pocket: its economic relationship with both Russia and China. Russia has billions of dollars of contractual agreements with Iran, for sales of everything from military goods to nuclear reactors to food products. China, on the other hand, receives approximately 15% of its energy from Iran. No matter how nicely we talk to those two world powers, they are unlikely to bend to the will of the international community. Iran for its part has only one goal in mind: to delay. It has seen how successful North Korea has been. They delayed for decades, and now are untouchable because of their nuclear deterrent. Robert Gates, speaking on the Sunday shows, said he believes we have 1-3 years before Iran has a nuclear weapon. That is not good. 12 months is not exactly what I consider to be a large margin for error. Iran has stated that they will accept IAEA inspections of the newly publicized nuclear facility. They know that the UN and the IAEA move slowly, and that it is unlikely that either organization would have any significant findings on the facility for at least 6 months. Again, more time, the better. In the mean time, Iran is more than happy to stick a needle in the eye of the international community. They spent the weekend launching a new host of short range missiles; missiles, coincidentally, that are thought to be able to reach Israel. October 1st brings the beginning of new talks with the Iranian regime. I hope that Obama has a trick up his sleeve, because I frankly don’t see any endgame right now that works in the favor of the United States. Staying Quiet on Iran Paid Off (Not)! 06/30/2009
![]() by Harrison Price Many people have bought the lie that Obama was “wise” and “smart” and “un-Bush like” by saying little about the events in Iran during last weekend. The argument goes something like this: If the President of the United States tip toes around the situation and doesn’t say much then the despotic leaders of Iran, who ordered the shooting of innocent civilians, will somehow not criticize the U.S. and we will all enjoy hot dogs on July 4th. So how did that whole silence thing work out? From a story on Politico: Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad compared Obama on Thursday to former President George W. Bush. Reacting to Obama’s comment Tuesday that he is “appalled and outraged” by crackdowns in Iran, Ahmadinejad said, “Mr. Obama made a mistake to say those things … our question is why he fell into this trap and said things that previously Bush used to say.” From Fox News: “Definitely by hasty remarks you will not be placed in the circle of friendship with the Iranian nation. Therefore I advise you to correct your interfering stances,” Ahmadinejad was quoted as saying. From The International News: “After the interfering remarks by American officials regarding the presidential election in our country, the Swiss ambassador in Tehran who represents US interests was summoned to the ministry of foreign affairs,” it said. “Our protest was handed to the ambassador.” From Agence France Presse: “The extent of Western and American involvement in Iran’s internal affairs is now clear,” the Shiite militant group’s deputy leader, Sheikh Naim Qassem, told AFP in an interview. From Reuters: President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad called on Barack Obama on Thursday not to interfere in Iran’s internal affairs after the U.S. president said he was “appalled and outraged” by post-election violence in the Islamic state. The quotes could go on and on. What have we learned from this little exercise? Basically that saying nothing that might hurt someone’s feelings in Iran is a no-win strategy because America will be blamed anyway and that, in not supporting the protesters we only help the hard-line mullahs in Iran. Goodness knows not being allowed into Iran’s “circle of friendship” is bad enough! I guess after Obama uninvited the Iranians to our July 4th barbecue we won’t be in any “circle of friendship.” Iran will instead enjoy UN food rations with the North Koreans who threaten to launch a missile at Hawaii. America's Involvement With Iran 06/19/2009
![]() by Thomas Craig There is truly a remarkable event taking place in Iran. We have all seen the protests and the brutality of the current regime, mixed with the rampant censorship of the media. Thank goodness we have the internet to shine light on the radical leaders of Iran. The United States now finds itself in a situation where we just are not sure exactly how to react to this growing movement. On one hand, President Obama is making the point that any involvement and/or commentary on the situation will only prove to be fodder for Ahmadinejad and the extremists who run the country. Any interaction by us will bring back memories of our backing of the Shah who repressed and abused the people of Iran. If we keep our nose out of this, perhaps change will naturally be brought to the country. On the other hand, many people including Hillary Clinton, VP Biden, and the House Republicans believe that we should take a more hard-line approach to the situation. The United States of America does, and always has, encouraged free elections and transparency (even when our own leaders aren't the most transparent) throughout the world. Perhaps America should show their support for the protests. It could be possible that the younger generation of Iranians (two-third of the population is under 33) could see the support of America and embrace our solidarity with them. It is a very fine line for us to walk. Both arguments make logical sense and neither would actually be "wrong". I sure don't have the answer but I am curious to hear your thoughts on the subject. I am especially curious to see the consensus amongst Republicans regarding this. What do you think the United States should do? Remember, this is YOUR Country and you might be surprised to see the difference between what you and your neighbors think should be done as opposed to what your Representatives in Congress are actually doing. The Threat of Iran 05/26/2009
by Liz Berney Getting Bullied by an International Midget 03/09/2009
![]() by Thomas Craig |



RSS Feed






