The results of "smart power"

Iranian Lawmakers Reject Uranium Plan

"So far the paybacks have been minimal."
--character Chase Hammond from the film "Drive Me Crazy"

If pressed to come up with the positive aspects of the Obama administration's foreign policy, we have little more than a Nobel prize to show thus far.

What if interviewers asked Obama about striking Iranian nuclear facilities?

Interviewers have asked Obama questions somewhat similar to that Charles Gibson posed to vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin. But it hasn't occurred often, and a collective memory hole seems to have eradicated the recollection that Obama's answers haven't been much different from Palin's in substance.

Here's a rundown on many of the Obama interviews, along with portions relevant to the Iranian problem.

Melissa Block greets Barack Obama at the Democratic National Convention with softballs on behalf of NPR (July 27, 2004). No mention of Iran; not much reason for it in 2004.

Larry King interviews Barack Obama on CNN (Mar 19, 2007). No questions about Iran at all.

Newsweek interviews Barack Obama (July 8, 2007). No mention of Iran at all.

Charles Gibson interviews Barack Obama for ABC (Nov 1, 2007). No mention of Iran at all.

Jeff Zeleny interviews Barack Obama for The New York Times (Nov 1, 2007). No question about backing Israel, but this pair of questions end up in the ballpark:

Q. When Vice President Cheney said we cannot allow Iran to become a nuclear weapon state, do you agree with that?

A. What I believe is that we should do everything in our power to prevent that in the broader context of our long-term security interests.

Q. And if we fail to prevent it?

A. I’m not going to speculate on whether we’re going to fail.

How about speculating on your reaction to Israel doing everything in its power to prevent that? No? Credit to Obama on this one. With the second question his savvy was comparable to Palin's.

Linda Douglass interviews Barack Obama for National Journal (Nov 6, 2007). No questions about Iran at all.

Tim Russert interviews Barack Obama on NBC's "Meet the Pres" (Nov 11, 2007). Russert asks about Iran, and Obama reiterates that he favors diplomacy and will not take military action off the table.

George Stephanopoulos interviews Barack Obama for ABC News (Jan 27, 2008). No mention of Iran at all.

Politico interviews Barack Obama (Feb 12, 2008). No questions about Iran at all.

The Chicago Sun Times editorial board interviews Barack Obama (Mar 15, 2008). No mention of Iran at all.

Gwen Ifill interviews Barack Obama for PBS (Mar 17, 2008). No questions about Iran at all.

Terry Moran interviews Barack Obama for ABC News (Mar 19, 2008). No mention of Iran at all.

Maria Bartiromo interviews Barack Obama for CNBC (Mar 27, 2008). No mention of Iran at all.

James O'Toole interviews Barack Obama for the Pittsburg Post-Gazette (Mar 31, 2008). No mention of Iran at all.

Chris Wallace interviews Barack Obama for Fox News (April 27, 2008). No questions about Iran.

Wolf Blitzer interviews Barack Obama for CNN (May 8, 2008). No questions about Iran.

Jake Tapper interviews Barack Obama for ABC News (June 16, 2008). No mention of Iran at all.

Alexis Glick interviews Barack Obama for Fox News (June 26, 2008). The mention of Iran is brief.

GLICK: Iran.

OBAMA: Threat.

Katie Couric gets the goods during her interview with Obama (July 22, 2008).

Couric: If they reject negotiations, how likely do you think a preemptive military strike by Israel against Iran may be?

Obama: I will not hypothesize on that. I think Israel has a right to defend itself. But I will not speculate on … the difficult judgment that they would have to make in a whole host of possible scenarios.

C'mon, Katie! Do a follow up! Repeat the question until he answers it!

David Horovitz interviews Barack Obama for the The Jerusalem Post (July 24, 2008), and asks a question very like the one asked of Palin.

You told AIPAC that the Israeli strike on Syria last year was "entirely justified to end that threat." Would you support an Israeli strike at Iranian facilities in the coming months if Israel felt it had no choice but to act?

My goal is to avoid being confronted with that hypothetical. I've said in the past and I will repeat that Israelis, and Israelis alone have to make decisions about their own security. But the grave consequences of either doing nothing or initiating a potential war with Iran are such that we want to do everything we can, to exhaust every avenue to avoid that option.

Sounds almost like Obama wouldn't second guess the Israelis if they felt they needed to take out Iran's nuclear sites, doesn't it?

Candy Crowley interviews Barack Obama for CNN (July 25, 2008). No questions about Iran at all.

Stars and Stripes interviews Barack Obama (Aug 11, 2008). Iran comes up, but nothing specific about striking Iranian nuclear facilities.

Q: The other big issue in the region is Iran. You spoke about that earlier today. Is there a military role in that that you see, or is it all a diplomatic role?

I think, I’ve said before that we never take military options off the table. And Iran poses a grave threat to the region. One of the constant refrains during my travels in the Middle East, not just from the Israelis but from a number of Arab observers as well, is that Iran’s possession of a nuclear weapon would be a game-changer. It would probably trigger a nuclear arms race in the region. At the very least, it would change the balance of power so significantly that Iran would be much more aggressive in some of its activities like supporting Hezbollah and Hamas.

So we need to prevent Iran from possessing a nuclear weapon. I believe our strongest tools at the outset have to be strong diplomacy, big carrots and big sticks that can change their calculus. We’ve tended to have vague carrots and inadequate sticks in dealing with them. So they just keep on blowing through red lines that this administration has set. If we’re serious, then we’re going to have to mobilize the international community, and I think reaching out to Russia and China more than we’re doing is going to be real important.

Q: How effective do you think that will be? There have been efforts to reach out to them that have been unsuccessful.

Part of what we have to do is look at our broad, strategic relationship with the Russians and the Chinese and prioritize what are the issues that are most important in our relations with those two countries. I think that Iran ranks as high as anything. We have to listen carefully to determine what are their interests in order to secure their support.

Keith Olbermann interviews Barack Obama for MSNBC (Sept 8, 2008). No mention of Iran at all.

Bill O'Reilly interviews Barack Obama for Fox News (Sept 10, 2008).

SEN. OBAMA: Here's where you and I agree. It is unacceptable for Iran to possess a nuclear weapon. It would be a game changer, and I've said that repeatedly. I've also said I would never take a military option off the table.

MR. O'REILLY: But would you prepare for one?

SEN. OBAMA: Well, listen --

MR. O'REILLY: Answer the question, Senator. Anybody can say options. Would you prepare for it?

SEN. OBAMA: Look, it is not appropriate for somebody, who is one of two people who could be the president of the United States, to start tipping their hand in terms of what their plans might be with respect to Iran. It's sufficient to say I would not take the military option off the table and that I will never hesitate to use our military force in order to protect the homeland and United States interests.

Another prop for Obama--he's starting to learn from his mistakes. Now he keeps his mouth zipped when there's a downside to talking specifics. Too bad he didn't do that with respect to Pakistan or Israel's intentions toward Iran.

Palin has demonstrated the better application of judicious silence, on balance.



Sept 22, 2008: Fixed a handful of typos where I substituted "Iraq" for "Iran."

Barack Obama and incoherent foreign policy

Barack Obama's campaign has provided yet another instance of foreign policy incomprehensibility, this time by backing off from Obama's particularly public statements about meeting with our enemies without precondition.

Ed Morrissey over at Hot Air has the details.




This guy Obama is unbelievable. Take that for what it's worth.

Reuters headline set to fuel fever swamp (Updated)

Report contradicts Bush on Iran nuclear program

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A new U.S. intelligence report says Iran halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003 and it remains on hold, contradicting the Bush administration's earlier assertion that Tehran was intent on developing a bomb.

The National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) released on Monday could undermine U.S. efforts to convince other world powers to agree on a third package of U.N. sanctions against Iran for defying demands to halt uranium enrichment activities.

(Reuters)

Is Bush the story here?

Bush is the story if he contradicts the intelligence given him from the intelligence community.

If Bush is relaying information from the intelligence community as he gets it, then Bush isn't the story. The change in the evaluation of the intelligence community is the story. But this Reuters account doesn't give any evidence that was the case.

Administration officials denied the new NIE had exposed a serious intelligence lapse but could not explain how agencies failed to detect for four years that Iran's nuclear weapons program had been halted.

Perhaps the press should consider that the new intelligence isn't necessarily better than the old intelligence. Two years from now we might hear that Iran resumed its attempts to develop a nuclear weapon. Perhaps the story will again emphasize a conflict with the administration's statements based on previous intelligence while noting yet another intelligence failure.

Update:
Norman Podhoretz writes down in some detail what I thought about in general terms.


Hat tip to Power Line.

*****

Bush lied again?

WASHINGTON: US President George W. Bush charged Monday that Iran has openly declared that it seeks nuclear weapons -- an inaccurate accusation at a time of sharp tensions between Washington and Tehran.

"It's up to Iran to prove to the world that they're a stabilizing force as opposed to a destabilizing force. After all, this is a government that has proclaimed its desire to build a nuclear weapon," he said during a joint press conference with Afghan President Hamid Karzai.
(The News)

Oh, really?
It's at least true that Iran has tended to deny that it is seeking nuclear weapons--but occasionally they let their intentions slip.

The clerics in Iran have more power than President Ahmadinejad.

clipped from www.telegraph.co.uk Iran's hardline spiritual leaders have issued an unprecedented new fatwa, or holy order, sanctioning the use of atomic weapons against its enemies. In yet another sign of Teheran's stiffening resolve on the nuclear issue, influential Muslim clerics have for the first time questioned the theocracy's traditional stance that Sharia law forbade the use of nuclear weapons. Missiles beside a portrait of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei One senior mullah has now said it is "only natural" to have nuclear bombs as a "countermeasure" against other nuclear powers, thought to be a reference to America and Israel.

The News reported that the White House said that Bush was talking about Iran's actions. If that's the case, then he could pick a better word than "proclaimed"--or at least modify it by adding "by its actions" afterward.

I can't say I trust the press. Nor am I completely confident in the Administration's explanations of the president's statements after the ridiculous response they made during the "16 words" brouhaha.

Maybe somebody should tell them about "evolving standards"?

Iran has sentenced two dissident journalists from its ethnic Kurdish minority for being "enemies of God".

Rights watchdog Reporters Without Borders (RSF), says Adnan Hassanpour and Hiva Boutimar were sentenced by a court in the eastern city of Marivan.

The two journalists have 20 days to appeal against their sentences, but if their cases are rejected by the Supreme Court the sentence will be carried out.
(BBC News)

It's a miserable time to be a moderate in Iran.

Revolution (as peaceful as possible, preferably) remains one of the better hopes for restraining Iran's nuclear ambitions.