Skip to main content

The purpose of an unclenched fist is to give you the finger....

... or, at least, that seems to be the tenor of American democracy in the first days of Hillary Clinton running the State Department.

You may recall President Obama saying at the Inauguration that we would extend the hand of friendship to nations like Iran if they unclenched their fist.

Only when we unclench our fist, it's to flip Iran the bird.

Yesterday, after claiming they were acting irresponsibly for launching their first indigenous satellite with 50-year-old technology, Hillary is flouncing around Europe telling Iran to play nicer or there will be consequences:

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton met with German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier today, and said that while “President Obama has signaled his intention to support tough and direct diplomacy with Iran,” the US intends to punish the Iranian government if it continues to decline cooperation with the assorted demands made by the United Nations Security Council and the IAEA.

“If Tehran does not comply with United Nations Security Council and IAEA mandates, there must be consequences,” Clinton insisted. Iran has been cooperating with the IAEA to the extent that the Non-Proliferation Treaty requires, but has balked at the Additional Protocol to their Safeguards Agreement. The United Nations Security Council complaints with respect to Iran have largely stemmed from this as well, though Iran has indicated they would consider resuming voluntary cooperation with the Additional Protocol if the situations is referred back to the IAEA instead of the Security Council.


Remember back during the campaign when everybody was saying that Barack Obama was dangerous because he'd be soft on Iran? Well, aside from Dick Cheney, the few people actually watching American foreign policy these days have decided not to worry, because they know now where the new administration is headed...

... pretty much where the old one was going.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

A Libertarian Martin Luther King Jr. Day post

In which we travel into interesting waters . . . (for a fairly long trip, so be prepared) Dr. King's 1968 book, Where do we go from here:  chaos or community? , is profound in that it criticizes anti-poverty programs for their piecemeal approach, as John Schlosberg of the Center for a Stateless Society  [C4SS] observes: King noted that the antipoverty programs of the time “proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils,” with separate programs each dedicated to individual issues such as education and housing. Though in his view “none of these remedies in itself is unsound,” they “all have a fatal disadvantage” of being “piecemeal,” with their implementation having “fluctuated at the whims of legislative bodies” or been “entangled in bureaucratic stalling.”   The result is that “fragmentary and spasmodic reforms have failed to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.” Such single-issue approaches also have “another common failing — ...

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...

A reply to Salon's R. J. Eskrow, and his 11 stupid questions about Libertarians

Posts here have been in short supply as I have been living life and trying to get a campaign off the ground. But "11 questions to see if Libertarians are hypocrites" by R. J. Eskrow, picked up at Salon , was just so freaking lame that I spent half an hour answering them. In the end (but I'll leave it to your judgment), it is not that Libertarians or Libertarian theory looks hypocritical, but that the best that can be said for Mr. Eskrow is that he doesn't have the faintest clue what he's talking about. That's ok, because even ill-informed attacks by people like this make an important point:  Libertarian ideas (as opposed to Conservative ideas, which are completely different) are making a comeback as the dynamic counterpoint to "politics as usual," and so every hack you can imagine must be dragged out to refute them. Ergo:  Mr. Eskrow's 11 questions, with answers: 1.       Are unions, political parties, elections, and ...