Powered by TypePad

« Gonna Walk Before They Make Me Run | Main | They Should Have Been Driving An Exploding Clown Car »

January 06, 2010



Obama believes in "containment." He will let Iran get the bomb.


Apparently TM hasn't gotten to the Op-Ed page yet. This article, Another Iranian Revolution? Not Likely throws cold water on those pinning their hope on imminent regime change. Here's their bottom line, after much discussion:

In keeping with this pattern, the seven-day mourning observances for those killed in the Ashura protests generated no significant demonstrations in Iran. Clearly, comparisons of the Ashura protests to the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, projecting a cascade of monumental consequences to follow, are fanciful. The Islamic Republic will continue to be Iran’s government. And, even if there were changes in some top leadership positions — such as the replacement of Mr. Ahmadinejad as president by Ali Larijani, the speaker of the Parliament, as some Westerners speculate — this would not fundamentally change Iran’s approach on regional politics, its nuclear program and other matters of concern.

The Obama administration’s half-hearted efforts at diplomacy with Tehran have given engagement a bad name. As a result, support for more coercive options is building across the American political spectrum. The president will do a real disservice to American interests if he waits in vain for Iranian political dynamics to “solve” the problems with his Iran policy.

As a model, the president would do well to look to China. Since President Richard Nixon’s opening there (which took place amid the Cultural Revolution), successive American administrations have been wise enough not to let political conflict — whether among the ruling elite or between the state and the public, as in the Tiananmen Square protests and ethnic separatism in Xinjiang — divert Washington from sustained, strategic engagement with Beijing. President Obama needs to begin displaying similar statesmanship in his approach to Iran.

Hmmmm. How's that engagement with China working for us? Not an unalloyed success in all respects. Better think this one through.

My opinion: there is no particular need for us to engage in some global embrace of Iran, any more than with most Muslim nations, Sunni, Shiite or whatever. Engagement should be on a case by case basis and should be subordinate to overall foreign policy goals.

Bonus link: For Israel, was 2009 just the calm before the Storm?


Meanwhile at home, he and Holder are vigorously pursuing a racial spoils agenda.




Leaveritt, is a fool, of course in the 'everything is a hammer' strategy he used the same argument in 2002-2003, to argue for engaging the corrupt regime. The parallel would be to the Iranian revolution of 1906, which you would think an area specialist would know

Since nothing will be happening, let me give you Team Obama's future spin as to why sometimes nothing is a real cool hand - tougher sanctions now will simply undermine the protest movement and prompt the entire country to rally around the regime. That's right - the protestors Obama ignored six months ago so that he could reach out to Iran's "leaders" will now be the reason we can't impose sanctions on Iran. Whatever.

It would be interesting if TM would explain exactly what is in the hand that Obama--and the US--is holding, and exactly what benefits will accrue to US strategic interests from further sanctions and a regular drumbeat of support for the protesters--whoever they may be (see the article I linked, above; as I've tried to explain, any regime that replaced the current one would--based on what we know of the most prominent opposition leaders--continue to be strongly nationalist in orientation.).


After the Polish experience (now you have missile defense, now you don't , oh, now you do again) don't expect anybody on the international stage to take any diplomatic risk-taking. What is the point ? Next week, Obama will change his mind again.

Frankly, he has got the whole thing "wee-weed" up.


General Larijani, is strictly of the old guard, from the Pasdaran, perhaps they meant
Mohsen Rezai, who did seem to lean to the reformers, after his votes were cast aside, Hirsh's penpal as a current Iranian diplomat


Stop being so stupid, narciso--the 1906 revolution was sparked in significant part because of major concessions that the corrupt government made to foreign powers. The Islamic Republic has so far, despite massive corruption, avoided that fatal mistake and still wears the mantle of Iranian nationalism--in particular, standing up to meddling foreign powers, like the US and the UK.

The real parallel to the 1906 revolution was the overthrow of the Shah, who was seen as beholden to foreign powers and unresponsive to the demands of Iranian nationalism. The Islamic Republic, for all its defects, is more constitutional in nature than the Shah's regime.


Who is brokering deals with the Iranians, the Russian and Chinese state silovik/PLA setups.
Right that was why AngloPersian struck oil the following year at Abadan


Deals are perfectly legitimate. In 1906 there were concessions that infringed upon Iranian sovereignty.


Now Leaveritt, is just a smaller version of the realpolitikers like Scowcroft and Freeman
and Kissinger, who find practically no regime
abhorrent enough, unless they infringe directly on their investments, Chavez would likely be nono


Right forget the Schuster and Millspaugh missions. Look the Iranians will get the bomb, which will prompt the Saudis and before long AQ in the AP wll have the bomb, no worries mate!


How I Stopped Worrying and Learned to Love the Bomb.

I await another rational explanation of Obama's Iranian "policy."

John Bibb

I expected Israel to hit the Iranian nuke sites a year ago. They didn't--apparently their excellent intelligence doesn't think they are close to the bomb yet. Or they think that the mullah's government will fall.
Bibi Netanyahu knows his country is the first target. And that they stand alone--and that Comrade Obama (PBUH), the U.S.A, and other countries will not help. Israel will strike when the Iranian bomb is about to go operational. There will not be a Holocaust II.


Iraq is weighing whether to sue Israel for destroyed its nuclear reactors a decade ago and has sought UN guidance on the permissibility of such a suit.
Let's see how grateful the world is.


Some good news ...

Kabul, Afghanistan (CNN) -- Fourteen suspected terrorists died Tuesday night when the bus they rigged with explosives blew up prematurely, police said.

I guess the Obama Administration "outsourced" this effort.


A little improvement this year will be highly appreciate.

Tracy, Velocity Fulfillment


Iran has been gaming this from the outset. Double talk, waltzing the U.S. and Britain while France, Russia, and China run interference as they all the while enhance their program. It is a complete joke, with Obama at the butt end.

as to premature detonation, it couldn't happen to nicer terrorists. Achmed the dead terrorist, anyone?


Seems to me Tom is predicting the past saying that the Obies will put the onus of non-sanctioning on those pesky street protestors. Didn't this happen around the Iranian election?


I recently watched an interesting discussion with Victor David Hanson and Robert Baer on "The Iran Problem" LUN Both put the chances of an Israeli strike on Iran at 50% by the end of March.

Any of our finance people here want to recommend some low cost/high reward oil and gold call options or S&P 500 puts for the board?


I wish I understood geopolitics like all those smart people. I am just a pore dumb redneck that knows that soon after Iran gets the bomb will come the First Thermonuclear War.

What gets me is that if I can see this, why can't the smart people?


True, the premise is faulty, the examples used are wrong, this is what a Middle East
area specialist like Leaveritt is proposing.
The IAEA in the previous article is leaving
out the work of Frazadeh and projects 110 and 111, which belie their current outlook.

The comments to this entry are closed.