Sunday, July 27, 2008
A commenter forwards me to this Jerusalem Post interview with Barack Obama: Obama on Iran, Syria, and Jerusalem. My impression? It's a yawn, and does nothing to dispel the impression that Obama's policy thinking goes beyond just enough to pander to a political base.
Horovitz begins by describing contrasting previous interviews with George Bush and John McCain, noting both came armed with knowledgeable advisers. But why do you need sharp advisers when you know you're never going to get in to any details -- either because you're not going to offer them yourself or because you know you're not going to be asked questions in detail. Is Horovitz really going to ask Obama questions that might embarrass him? Questions Obama couldn't slip by with a generalized answer? Not likely.
A few examples of the type of weak beer on offer:
Can you assure the people of Israel, and beyond, that as president you will prevent Iran attaining nuclear weapons?
What I can do is assure that I will do everything in my power as president to prevent Iran attaining nuclear weapons. And I think that begins with engaging in tough, direct talks with Iran, sending a clear message to Iran that they shouldn't wait for the next administration but should start engaging in the P5 process [involving the five permanent members of the UN Security Council] that's taking place right now, and elevating this to the top of our national security priorities, so that we are mobilizing the entire international community, including Russia and China, on this issue...
Boilerplate Democratic nonsense. They trash Bush for being too tough then try to claim that really, they'll be the tough ones. Bzzzz...you can't have it both ways. I've discussed before in brief why this talk of "tough direct talks" is a mistake and simply puts Iran in the driver's seat (as if the Iranians are shaking in their shoes over Obama's tough talk and "clear messages"). Oh, and we haven't mobilized the rest of the international community? This is the same straw man nonsense the Democrats were talking last time out. They set up an image of Bush as someone who refuses to work with the rest of the world, but that's just not true. We've let other countries be full partners in both Iran and North Korea, and where has it gotten us? We went in to Iraq with a Coalition of the Willing because they were utterly impotent -- even working against us in many cases.
And Russia and China? Problems the world over. Earth to Obama -- they see their goals in contravention of ours. That's not about to change.
One of the failures, I think, of our approach in the past has been to use a lot of strong rhetoric but not follow through with the kinds of both carrots and sticks that might change the calculus of the Iranian regime. But I have also said that I would not take any options off the table, including military.
You've taken the military option off the table. Everyone knows it. You and the Democrat Party with your base, opportunistic and disgraceful rhetoric against our efforts in Iraq have almost completely de-balled our ability to maintain a credible military threat against the Islamic Republic. And what kind of carrots and sticks is Obama talking about that the international community -- such as it is -- hasn't already tried? Horovitz doesn't ask. It's pure sophistry.
There is nothing in the rest of the interview that can possibly give one confidence that we are hearing from a real leader here whose instincts we can trust. Given his past statements and connections, his string of problematic advisers and his party's defeatist and appeasenik propensities, I'll take a pass on Barack.
Here's one aspect to the Iran issue and discussion, an aspect that is essentially right, excerpt:
"... I don’t think logic necessarily compels those that share this perception [concerning war with Iran] to favor immediate efforts to ease tensions or seek greater diplomatic engagement with Iran. (By the way; does anybody know exactly what greater diplomatic engagement with Iran might consist of? There can’t be many countries which have had busier foreign ministries in recent years what with the various efforts of the EU, the IAEA and the Security Council on the nuclear issue. Even the USA has been softening its line on diplomatic contacts with Iran of late.)"
Again, that is essentially correct. And it's not a matter of wanting to engage in a "unilateral bellicosity cloaked in the utopian rhetoric of freedom and democracy" (Joe Klein's recent phrasing) - to the contrary it's the need to better understand the dialectics of power, what can be viably and responsibly achieved in the short term and the long term, whether or not democratic polities in this hyper-ideological age are susceptible to sound forms of suasion, etc., etc.
Barack - tire inflater extraordinaire - Obama - how to save energy. H/t PowerLine.