Saturday, December 01, 2012

Taking Care of Iran

Consider this for a moment. Do we have any commonality of interest or foreign-policy goals with Iran? Clearly we don't want to engage in a military confrontation, but we certainly need to employ the most severe economic and policy sanctions that we can short of military force. A nuclear weapon equipped Iran is a frightening concept.

Iran continues to pursue development of nuclear weapons. They continue to publicly announce their goal of total destruction of Israel. They continued to supply weapons of terror to rogue nations and jihadist movements throughout the middle east. The strongest possible action seems to be in order.

The Senate of the United States, controlled by the Democrats, supportive of the president, votes 94-0 in favor of strong sanctions against Iran. Does the president offer his thanks to the Senate? Hardly.

President Seeks Thick Pad of Sanction Waivers

In case you missed them here are some selected excerpts from that news item:
The new sanctions too broadly punish companies that supply materials, such as certain metals, that could be used in Iran's nuclear, military, or ballistic missile programs, the White House worries. 
Or what about reporting to Congress? Can the Intel folks handle this little task?
Finally, the White House doesn't want to implement the part of the new legislation that would require reports to Congress on the thousands of boats that dock at Iranian ports and the dozens of Iranian planes that make stops at airports around the world. Those reporting requirements "will impose serious time burdens on the Intelligence Community and sanctions officers," the White House said in the e-mail. 
One has to wonder how serious the president is regarding the imposition of sanctions to compel Iran to join the community of nations and act like a civilized country.


Old NFO said...

He's NOT, defacto he's supporting the cause...

an Donalbane said...

Methinks that in Obama: The Sequel, it's gonna be a lot like Clarence Odbody escorting us through a landscape that looks vaguely familiar, but where significant changes exist.

Or maybe we've all gone down the rabbit hole.

Robman said...

Obama's main foreign policy objective - perhaps his most important policy objective, period - is to shove a Saudi-style "peace agreement" [read: surrender agreement] down Israel's throat. The interests that installed him, that paid for his education, that corrupt our media and our universities, i.e., SAUDIA AND FRIENDS, have programmed him to pursue this objective above all others liks some sort of Frankenstein monster, or "HAL" from that Kubrick flick "2001".

He may not consider a nuclear Iran desirable, but his priority is to coerce Israel.

So, he needs the threat of an imminently nuclear Iran to blackmail Israel into capitulating to the PA on their terms.

That's why he's so frantic to discourage Israel from taking effective action on her own. That would spoil the whole party.

Obama's ideal situation is to prevent Israel from acting until Israel can no longer effectively act on her own, but the U.S. still can, so that he can issue an ultimatum to Israel: "Sign here on the PA deal, or we let Iran go nuclear".

He and his "dump Israel" fellow travelers figure that even if Israel doesn't comply, we can "contain" a nuclear Iran. That is delusional thinking, but anti-Semitism has a way of preventing rational thinking. Just ask Hitler.

Israel must act on her own, as soon as possible, if at all possible. If not, there is going to be a nuclear Iran. The only thing that can stop a regional nuclear war then will be the overthrow of the regime from within before they can field a usable nuclear arsenal. That is a pretty thin reed to lean on, considering the way things played out in North Korea.