Obama’s Smart Iran Policy and the Far Right’s Irresponsible Saber-Rattling

Abu Muqawama makes short work of the ill-informed whining by Charles Krauthammer and Paul Wolfowitz in today’s Washington Post about Pres. Obama’s handling of the crisis in Iran:

I suspect the critical op-eds by Paul Wolfowitz and Charles Krauthammer in today’s Washington Post will merely serve to convince the president that he is doing the right thing after all. The op-ed by David Ignatius, meanwhile, will be read more carefully. Krauthammer just opened his cakehole and started giving his opinions. Ignatius first consulted with people who — unlike Wolfowitz or Krauthammer — might actually know something of Iran:

“We clearly have to be on the right side of histor

That very much seems to be the dilemma, and I sure as hell don’t know how one strikes a useful balance between these competing desires. I do have faith that the Obama Administration has held its tongue not because it supports the regime in Tehran but because it doesn’t want to undermine the position of the protesters.

And I also understand that neo-conservatives like Krauthammer — who has reliably advised reckless courses of action since this crisis started — have less fear of open conflict with the Iranian regime than I do. But here’s my question for them: what is your endstate? Where are we trying to ultimately go? Are we trying to force a bloody crackdown on the protesters so the world can see how horrific the regime is and will then approve tough sanctions? Are we trying to start an armed confrontation with Iran? Just tell me what you are trying to acheive through a more openly confrontational stance and I’ll listen. But for now, I suspect that one of the reasons Krauthammer, Kagan & Co. are criticizing Obama’s tactics vis a vis Iran is because the majority of Americans would find their strategic goals they hint at but never reveal to be bat-guano crazy. Prove me wrong.

Sometimes I truly, sincerely have trouble wrapping my brain around the right’s seemingly limitless capacity for literal, shallow thinking. Apparently, Isaac Chotiner at The New Republic does, too:

Here is [Rich] Lowry, in a post [at The Corner] entitled ‘Questions’:

If the regime would be actually helped by comments criticizing it — as Obama’s defenders say — why does the regime go nuts any time any foreign leader criticizes it?

Huh? Lowry seems to think there is a difference between Iranian leaders who “go nuts” over criticism from the United States, and Iranian leaders who cheaply use American rhetoric to boost their own standing. Of course, these two things are the same. This is exactly the point Obama is making!

According to Akbar Ganji, a leading Iranian dissident whom Spencer Ackerman interviewed yesterday, “even the suggestion of U.S. backing would set back the cause of human rights in Iran.”

8 Responses to “Obama’s Smart Iran Policy and the Far Right’s Irresponsible Saber-Rattling”

  1. JohnHolmes says:

    What Obama Policy in Iran?? You mean the “nothingness” policy?? Obama doesn’t have a policy that anyone can discern nor articulate in Iran or N. Korea. So rather than even talk about the issue in any meaningful way you guys go after Krauthammer instead. Krauthammer is very intelligent and cerebral in his analysis and thought process, this is true whether you like his view or not … the guy is really smart.

    Abu Muqawama is a mental midget compared to Krauthammer . He tacitly admits in his piece that Obama has no Iran Policy, spends 2 lines on Obama then continues to attack Krauthammer and PW.

    Republicans and Bush are not in power now. Yet they are still the focus of the extreme Left.

  2. radical_moderate says:

    Krauthammer has one agenda in the Middle East, and it is no secret what it is since he writes about it enough, that is the protection of Israel no matter how many lives, even American lives, it costs. He sees Iran as the top threat to Israel in the region, and that his, and other rightwing intellectuals, imprudent support enabled the Bush Administration to embroil us in an endless war in Iraq, and would, if he could influence it, embroil us in even more violent and bloody conflict should we materially support Revolution in Iran apparently hasn’t entered his Israelcentric brain. As an American, I absolutely support the Obama’s quiet, restrained approach. ENOUGH of the sort of ham-handed interference in other sovereign Nation’s affairs that marked, and tarred, the Neo-Con Bush regime, and thankfully, I suspect, Obama will not be bullied into imprudent policy making by the likes of failed VEEP Cheney and blowhard Israel-Firster Krauthammer.

  3. JohnHolmes says:

    Well the never ending Iraq War is coming to an end isn’t it?? Troops are pulling out and going home. The threat of Saddam has been removed and tens of Millions of Iraqi people are in charge of their own freedom now … at a cost of course that only America ever seems to be willing to shoulder. So the Bush Policy worked.

    The “Nothingness” strategy deployed by Obama has rarely, if ever, worked in the past against an aggressor nation. So we’ll see. Iran wants Nukes and N. Korea is preparing a fireworks display for out 4th of July Holiday.

    If Action or Military Force marks Conservative Ideology (Krauthammer/Bush) … inaction and nothingness mark Liberal or Progressive philosophy in these instances (Neville Chamberlain/Obama). If Iran or N. Korea gives up its Nukes I’ll admit the Obama Policy worked. But this latest protest has nothing to do with Obama, it marks a festering divide between Iranians and their Government, the disgusting ruling Mullah’s. I have yet to see anyone in the media tell us what this opposition leader even stands for. Who’s to say he would be any better?

  4. radical_moderate says:

    “…inaction and nothingness mark Liberal or Progressive philosophy in these instances (Neville Chamberlain/Obama).”

    Yeah because Roosevelt/Truman were so “inactive.” I wish to God that Democrats had been more inactive during the Vietnam era, and that is why I am interested in caution.

    As for the “opposition” Leader in Iran, from what I understand, he stands maybe a hair to the left of the current President.

  5. radical_moderate says:

    btw, it was Conservative Republicans who were isolationists during the late 30’s pushing Roosevelt to stay out of the European conflict, and in fact, it was a Republican Senator who said “If only I could talk to Hitler..” so famously used by Bush in his speech to the Israeli parliment last year.

  6. JohnHolmes says:

    Roosevelt was “inactive” until the Japanese struck Pearl Harbor. Do you not know your history?? FDR tried to remain neutral as much as possible, the Japanese made a stupid move forcing him into a War.

    Anyway, there are tons of exceptions but in today’s political environment Progressives stand for “inaction” while Conservatives prefer a more active role. Do you disagree with this general statement?

    Again, I watch the TV News, read the major online papers, and read all over the internet to see what’s going on and who’s following what. Progressives have an unusually high level of interest in the Iran turmoil right now. Could somebody here explain why?

  7. radical_moderate says:

    “Roosevelt was “inactive” until the Japanese struck Pearl Harbor. Do you not know your history?? FDR tried to remain neutral as much as possible, the Japanese made a stupid move forcing him into a War.”

    Bullshit. Roosevelt’s hands were tied by the Isolationists in Congress, he got around this by implementing the “lend-Lease” program that allowed the US to ship military equipment to England when she needed the help. A President is not a King, he has to go through congress before declaring War.

  8. JohnHolmes says:

    I’m really disgusted at Kathy’s persistent irrational attack on this intelligent man with a debilitating disease. By any rational account Krauthammer is extremely cerebral and intelligent, he’s won the Pulitzer Prize, unlike Abu or Kathy. Kathy’s mind is as weak as Krauthammer’s body. This Abu Ghrabiwawwi guy is just attacking Krauthammer because he’s an anti-semite. Krauthammer’s life and work speaks for itself:

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Krauthammer

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Connect with Facebook