«--Previous Post | Blog Index | Next Post--»

On Iran, Bush May Talk Tough, But the Results Are Lacking

Shmuel Rosner, chief Washington correspondent for Israel's leading newspaper Ha'aretz, has been a critical observer of presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama. But in an analysis of Bush's Iran comments in Israel this past week, he points out that while Bush has talked tough on Iran, his Iran policy has thus far been a failure:

Bush should be measured by the same yardstick. Meetings will not stop Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, but neither will speeches in Knesset.

Bush may not be as naive as Obama, but U.S. foreign policy under his leadership has failed time after time on the Iranian issue. International sanctions are too skimpy to mount any real pressure against Iran's uranium enrichment program, and Tehran is gaining.

One knowledgeable observer was using this baseball metaphor yesterday. The Iranians have players waiting on all three bases. Hamas on first, Syria on second and Hezbollah on third. All they need now is the grand slam homerun - a nuclear bomb in the hands of Iran that will send them running around the bases for home.

Bush often says he learned a thing or two from his years as the owner of the Texas Rangers baseball team: "I developed a thick skin against criticism. I learned to ignore minor setbacks and focus on the long haul." But in the case of Iran, the long haul is creeping ever closer, and it appears Bush plans to leave the problem for his successor.

The proof is in the pudding. While some worry over the "signs" that the administration plans to strike Iran before it leaves office, other, arguably closer observers such as Rosner seem to detect something different: that the rhetoric vs. results gap regarding Iran from the Bush administration remains far apart. As Rosner writes:

Earlier this week, [Bush] gave the Israeli press a rather complicated answer regarding what he hopes to accomplish during his term. "I think what definitely will be done is a structure on how to deal with this, to try to resolve this diplomatically. In other words, sanctions, pressures, financial sanctions; a history of pressure that will serve as a framework to make sure other countries are involved."

In other words, as recently departed US undersecretary of state for political affairs Nick Burns, who handled the US's Iran portfolio, said in February, Iran's nuclear issue most likely will not be resolved by the time Bush leaves office. Which arguably may not be a failure at all, but a sign of restraint, or a recognition of constraints, as well as wiser counsel, in conflict with some of the president's deepest inclinations.

Comments

The USA has no business interfering in the affairs of Iran, but it is typical of this warmonger that has usurped elected governments, assassinated elected leaders and made war illegally. Iran has every right to a nuclear enrichment program and is not compelled to accept inducements to stop this legal activity. As for American accusations about Iranian nuclear weapons, they are about as valid as the mythical WMD in Iraq. The IAEA is satisfied with Iran's program, there is no evidence of diversion to a weapons program, so it is high time the USA was told to shut up and mind its own business, as the Middle East is a long way from the USA and the Americans have no business sticking their noses into the affairs of nations on the other side of the planet.

Posted by: Ziggy on 05/19/08 at 3:08 AM Respond

Iran is a threat to Israel, the only democracy in the middle east. We must support them. Iran will be destroyed. VP Chaney has said as much.

Posted by: Issac Cohen on 05/19/08 at 8:02 AM Respond

Is this what 'supporters' of Israel have sunk to? Destroying Iran? McCain is their man, 'bomb bomb' Iran.

No wonder Likudism looks worse and worse as time goes by.

Posted by: Elydog on 05/19/08 at 10:08 AM Respond

Personally (it don't mean a thing), I used to be an advocate of Isreal's policy of bull-dozing the homes of the parents of terrorists... Though, certainly, they should have the opportunity to defend themselves in court... Like..., I brought my children up to respect all life...

Nowadays I think I would cease and desist such reprisals, simply to keep the peace...

I agree with Ziggy (only I would never have the balls to come right out and say what he/she? did).

On the other hand, the clerics in Iran are too strict... Sure thing, Draconian Laws are apt to discourage crime..., but didn't Jesus sacrifice himself to save a thief...

However, the practice of Confession would seem to encourage crime... Yet, there is that old Human Conscience thing...

Life is too tough already for Government Officials and Co. to go around whining and venting their spleen... Like it's always a question of ineffectual Government and never corrupt Government...

RIGHT!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: Michael L. Wagner on 05/19/08 at 10:37 AM Respond

It occurs to me that all concerned here are pretty much the same: We can count on the Office of Homeland Security to act corruptly, same as the Islamic Hit Parade included Simon Rushdie; personally, I can't imagine committing cold blooded murder...

On the subject of such, wasn't McCain a Pheonix Force (SEALS/Vietnam War) assassin. Wonder if they too used Hashish to get in the mood...???

Posted by: Michael L. Wagner on 05/19/08 at 10:49 AM Respond

Barack Obama gave a description of Iran and the threat it poses to the United States and our national interests at an appearance in Oregon last night. “They don’t pose a serious threat to us in the way the Soviet Union posed a threat to us,” Obama told a cheering audience, explaining why he doesn’t think we need to worry about “tiny” countries like Venezuela, Cuba, North Korea, and Iran.

Posted by: MaryAnn on 05/19/08 at 11:08 AM Respond

No..., you can buy M-16s in the Baghdad blackmarket..., wouldn't it seem the danger comes from us (arms proliferation...)...

Posted by: Michael L. Wagner on 05/19/08 at 12:15 PM Respond

"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary," H.L. Mencken.

In his book, Web of Deceit, Barry Lando says a competent defense lawyer would have little trouble implicating others in Saddam's crimes:

"Those leaders would include, but certainly not limited to, American Presidents ... ... the US and its allies had steadfastly blocked international moves to condemn Saddam for his use of mustard and nerve gasses," from Piece of Mind Wordpress.

Perhaps here Obama is worried that if we become too alarmed...

Or maybe after he's elected he plans on doing a George W. 180 degree turn-around (just to piss draftees off...???????)?

Posted by: Michael L. Wagner on 05/19/08 at 12:38 PM Respond

Now, why I am I so not surpised to see Laura pushing the Likudnik line?

I know - it's because her entire career depends on keeping her "inside sources" happy.

Posted by: Rowan Berkeley on 05/20/08 at 1:42 AM Respond

"VP Chaney has said as much." - Issac Cohen

Oh my god!! Well if Chaney said it, it *must* be so!

Well, actually it *might* be true. But only because at some point, he has to say *something* that is true. Doesn't he? I mean the laws of probability indicate that he has to say something that is true; even if just once in his life.

Posted by: DaveD on 05/20/08 at 5:06 AM Respond

"US President George W. Bush intends to attack Iran in the upcoming months, before the end of his term, IDF Army Radio quoted a senior official in Jerusalem as saying Tuesday.
The official claimed that a senior member of the president's entourage, which concluded a trip to Israel last week, said during a closed meeting that Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney were of the opinion that military action was called for. "
Bush will deliver to Israel, Iran's head.

Posted by: Issac Cohen on 05/20/08 at 5:24 AM Respond

Iraq has failed

Posted by: Frank on 05/20/08 at 6:28 AM Respond