Posted by
heymanj on Tuesday, December 29, 2009 2:49:49 PM
One has to wonder what the intention is when our only ally (and only democracy) in a region continues to get scolded for it's actions in self preservation. At the same time, our sworn enemy (since 1979's revolution) continues to get spoken to softly to as though being wooed as though we were attempting to marry it. So stands the stark contrast between the way the current administration is treating Israel (ally) and Iran (enemy).
Since taking office in January, this president has done his utmost to try to distance himself from his predecessor and his predecessor's policies. So, rather than let Israel and it's neighbors work out their problems - as only they can solve the current situation - he strode into the situation, assigned as specific envoy, and then lectured Israel on what it can and cannot do.
One of the big issues has always been expansion of settlements, but now the US position is that no expansion should be allowed. No US President has ever tried to force Israeli domestic policy in such a way before. Note, that this not only means in the settlements, but also anywhere in the 'occupied territories.' Having had the US lay down that gauntlet, the PA has jumped at the chance to be on the same side and has insisted it won't return to negotiations until Israel complies.
Additional actions/comments taken by this administration makes one wonder how it can consider itself an [dis]honest broker for negotiations. Yesterday's public demand for an explanation of the IDF's action taking out three Al-Aska brigade members, is just the latest move. Previously there had been the public comments belittling the Israeli Ambassador to the US for failing to meet with the pro-Arab Jewish lobby known as J Street. With these actions, can one wonder why Israeli's have such a low regard for the President's support of their country?
Now take the other extreme, Iran, which has been promised direct diplomatic engagement by the current President. This is again, something that the previous administration would not consider, a promise of new beginning. Since the last administration refused to acknowledge that Iran was directly responsible for US forces deaths in Iraq/Afghanistan, one might hope that a new approach would be helpful in that regard - but no, not an issue to be discussed. In the year that the new policy has been in effect, we've seen IEDs used more and more in Afghanistan, Hezbollah (Iranian proxy) gain veto power over all of Lebanon's government, the repression of it's own people over an openly false election result, and the continued march to the creation of a nuclear bomb. The reaction from this president? Making sure that the Islamic Republic of Iran is always called by it's correct title, continuing to negotiate (along with the Perm5+Germany) over ways in which Iran could still be allowed nuclear capabilities, and some mealy mouthed platitudes about supporting "fundamental rights" of the governed.
The December 31st date will arrive in 36hours - this was the date given by the president for Iran to give up it's nuclear ambitions and become a willing member in the "family of nations". As this date closes in, one has to wonder what additional actions - not words, but actions - will be offered up by this administration?
I predict the following will be mentioned, but not acted upon to avoid a veto by either China or Russia:
1) stoppage of refined petroleum going into Iran
2) penalties/sanctions carried out on companies (and their subsidiaries) that continue to do business in Iran (not US companies, as those are already illegal)
3) harsh condemnation of the clerical theocracy that runs Iran
In the end, after December 31st, I do not believe that we will see any different approach. The argument will be that the Iranians haven't had enough time to determine if the inducements are real, or that we (the US) is actually serious in working with them. More time will be the mantra.