Skip to main content

Obama on Iran: Why he, like McCain, is a potential foreign policy disaster

Senator Barack Obama made his appearance on the O'Reilly Factor, and by the reports [I didn't catch it] there were no fireworks.

Much of the media coverage has concentrated on Obama's first-time admission that the Surge in Iraq has actually worked, but to me that wasn't the real story of the interview.

Far more revealing were the Senator's comments on Iran:

Speaking on other national security matters, Obama said he would not take military action off the table in dealing with Iran, but diplomacy and sanctions can’t be overlooked.

The Islamic republic is a “major threat” and it would be “unacceptable” for the rogue nation to develop a nuclear weapon, he said.

“It is unacceptable for Iran to possess a nuclear weapon, it would be a game changer,” Obama said. “It’s sufficient to say I would not take military action off the table and that I will never hesitate to use our military force in order to protect the homeland and the United States’ interests.”

But Obama warned against the current U.S. administration lumping radical Islamic groups together.

“They have fueled a whole host of terrorist organizations,” Obama said of Iran, but “we have to have the ability to distinguish between groups. … They may not all be part and parcel of the same ideology.”


Driven by the need to appear strong against terrorism in the face of GOP attacks, Obama has now elucidated a foreign policy with respect to Iran that barely differs from that of the soon-to-be gone but not lamented Dubya:

1) Declaring unilaterally the right of the US to determine what weapons and technologies other countries should possess.

2) Declaring (and not for the first time) his willingness to use unilateral American force [with no mention of coalitions, alliances, or UN sanction] in pursuit of foreign policy goals.

This is both imperialistic and naive talk from the man who would be President.

The cases of India, Pakistan, and Israel prove pretty damn conclusively that the US does not have the ability to prevent sovereign nations from developing atomic weapons.

Nor is there great comfort in finding out that the candidate promising us change subscribes to the same unilateralist use of force that have driven us into most of our deepest military quagmires of the past century.

Comments

The Last Ephor said…
Hypothetical:

You have been elected president in November. It's now January and you've been sworn in. Iran says they're going to develop nuclear weapons. What do you do?

Popular posts from this blog

The Obligatory Libertarian Tax Day Post

The most disturbing factoid that I learned on Tax Day was that the average American must now spend a full twenty-four hours filling out tax forms. That's three work days. Or, think of it this way: if you had to put in two hours per night after dinner to finish your taxes, that's two weeks (with Sundays off). I saw a talking head economics professor on some Philly TV channel pontificating about how Americans procrastinate. He was laughing. The IRS guy they interviewed actually said, "Tick, tick, tick." You have to wonder if Governor Ruth Ann Minner and her cohorts put in twenty-four hours pondering whether or not to give Kraft Foods $708,000 of our State taxes while demanding that school districts return $8-10 million each?

New Warfare: I started my posts with a discussion.....

.....on Unrestricted warfare . The US Air force Institute for National Security Studies have developed a reasonable systems approach to deter non-state violent actors who they label as NSVA's. It is an exceptionally important report if we want to deter violent extremism and other potential violent actors that could threaten this nation and its security. It is THE report our political officials should be listening to to shape policy so that we do not become excessive in using force against those who do not agree with policy and dispute it with reason and normal non-violent civil disobedience. This report, should be carefully read by everyone really concerned with protecting civil liberties while deterring violent terrorism and I recommend if you are a professional you send your recommendations via e-mail at the link above so that either 1.) additional safeguards to civil liberties are included, or 2.) additional viable strategies can be used. Finally, one can only hope that politici

More of This, Please

Or perhaps I should say, "Less of this one, please." Or how about just, "None of them. Ever again. Please....For the Love of God." Sunshine State Poll: Grayson In Trouble The latest Sunshine State/VSS poll shows controversial Democratic incumbent Alan Grayson trailing former state Senator Dan Webster by seven points, 43 percent to 36 percent. A majority of respondents -- 51 percent -- disapprove of the job that Grayson is doing. Independents have an unfavorable view of him as well, by a 36/47 margin. Grayson has ignored the conventional wisdom that a freshman should be a quiet member who carefully tends to the home fires. The latest controversy involves his " Taliban Dan " advertisement, where he explicitly compares his opponent to the Taliban, and shows a clip of Webster paraphrasing Ephesians 5:22 -- "wives, submit to your husbands." An unedited version of the clip shows that Webster was actually suggesting that husba