This is the type of regime with which Obama wants to negotiate. Yes, I realize he's backed away from that somewhat for now. But the emphasis should be on "for now".
There were no real surprises in what this regime is like. And let's not forget their efforts in Iraq that targeted the American military. Can you imagine that? Obama is such a liberal ideologue that negotiating with a state actively engaged in covert operations against America was not a problem. Putin must be drawing up new street maps of Georgia and the Ukraine now, so he's prepared.
Obama's tepid change on Iran is born of political necessity, not a change of heart, or an awareness of how evil they are.
Regime thugs shoot down at democracy protesters on the street from a rooftop in Tehran.
Dan, surely you recall Rahm Emmanuel's (sp?) most famous line to date, "never waste a crisis"?
Tell me, why did the Administration waste this crisis in Iran?
(Yes, I'm being completely cynical but it is a question worth asking O at his next press conference.)
Posted by: Mrs. Peperium | Monday, June 29, 2009 at 12:36 PM
the process for regime change in Iran should be pretty evident for the admin, but their pride is blinding their ability to assess the changes they need to make.
Their outreach to our enemies is like watching "cold sale" calls. The figure if they reach out to 50 fringe lemenets in the world, a couple are going to be willing to let them get a foot in the door.
Their best policy for changing the iranian regime?
run the Iran policy thru Sistani/Iraq.
the left HAD been obsessively pointing to the potential rise of a persian state, with the merging of iran/iraq shiites. Their proof? Muqtada Al Sadr. Quite an irony that the left prides themsleves upon being knowledgable about the world, but refuses to accept reality as it occurs, conflicting with their beliefs.
Instead of looking for a model where the iranian regime could back away from from political authority, but maintain its role in a religious society-IRAQ, the admin is trying to legitimize their role in politics. Even if the the mullahs wanted to move away from political activism, the obama admin is still willing to set them up as the arbiters of the political future of Iran.
If we were running our policy with sistani as the intermediary with the iranian regime, he is a messenger they would have to listen to. There does exist a divide within the shiites, which is rippling thru Iran, as they look to the freer western state of Iraq. There are high level clergy sympathetic to the sepreation of power. There is a significant leader that we already have extensive dealings with who could still play a significant role in Iran.
The only problems?
the dems cannot acknowledge many SUCCESSFUL aspects of Iraq...
they won't point to it as a model for Iran's future, even when it is growing in their face.
they won't acknowledge that many possibilities exist, that were not present before 2003.
they can NEVER entertain the thought of using any comparison of the achievement of Iraq, or the achievments that bush had created from dealing with individuals in Iraq.
So the left desires to deal with Iran?
their first priority is to keep bush's legacy down, and establish a working framework for success in Iran, second.
I wonder how long it is going to take for them to figure out that the two ideas are mutually exclusive, and their priorities are ass-backwards.
Posted by: mark l. | Monday, June 29, 2009 at 01:28 PM