... one of the chief tenets of the Obama campaign is that the United States would commit to diplomatic rather than militarily inteventionist solutions to the world's problems.
So what does it mean, only a month into the new administration, when the Secretary of State publicly announces that she doesn't think diplomacy will succeed in resolving the question of Iran's nuclear program?
Let's see: if diplomacy doesn't work, and trade embargos haven't worked, that leaves, uh, a choice between impotence and war, right?
Stark question, one that should have been asked since the mid-1990s:
Does America even have a foreign policy, or do we just make up stuff for every situation as we go along, secure in the knowledge that whoever is killing who, they'll both have to buy weapons from us?
So what does it mean, only a month into the new administration, when the Secretary of State publicly announces that she doesn't think diplomacy will succeed in resolving the question of Iran's nuclear program?
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton says she has serious doubts that Iran would respond to the Obama Administration’s interest to engage in diplomacy on its nuclear program, and that “our eyes are wide open on Iran.”
Secretary Clinton apparently did not believe that the Iranian President’s remarks during last month’s 30th anniversary of the Iranian revolution celebration that his nation was ready to talk with the United States constituted a response. Nor apparently did the numerous other times since President Obama’s elections in which the Iranian government spoke of its eagerness to improve relations.
But Iranian Foreign Ministry Spokesman Hassan Ghashghavi again told reporters that the repeated US claims that his government was attempting to make a nuclear weapon were “baseless remarks, even from the technical viewpoint, and just for political propaganda.”
The spokesman pointed to the fact that the latest accusations, made by Admiral Mullen, were immediately contradicted by Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, adding that his government is neither capable nor willing to begin enriching uranium to the levels necessary to make nuclear weapons. The IAEA has repeatedly confirmed that the uranium enriched so far to only the low levels needed for its upcoming nuclear power plant has not been diverted to any other use.
Let's see: if diplomacy doesn't work, and trade embargos haven't worked, that leaves, uh, a choice between impotence and war, right?
Stark question, one that should have been asked since the mid-1990s:
Does America even have a foreign policy, or do we just make up stuff for every situation as we go along, secure in the knowledge that whoever is killing who, they'll both have to buy weapons from us?
Comments