Newsweek Revises Recent History of US-Iranian Relations
John on January 2, 2009 at 10:41 am
Dennis Ross, writing for Newsweek, sums up the last eight years this way:
Bush’s policy has failed: Iran wasn’t a nuclear power when he became president, but by the time he leaves office, it will have become one…Iran has pursued nuclear weapons because the Bush administration hasn’t applied enough pressure—or offered Iran enough rewards for giving them up.
The idea that George Bush is responsible for failing to reign in Iran leaves out a few things. For starters, how about Mohammed ElBaradei, the man directly responsible for monitoring Iranian nuclear ambitions. He literally won the Nobel prize for opposing Bush’s “tough talk” yet he is nowhere mentioned in this article. ElBaradei claimed that the US was not being fair to Tehran. That there was no solid evidence Iran was making a bomb. He was lauded and applauded for this around the world. Bush was called a warmonger for wanting to get tough. Was all of this history forgotten by Dennis Ross? Apparently.
And yet, now that we know ElBaradei was wrong and Bush was right about Iran’s intent, it’s Bush’s fault. Now that the President is a lame duck, the answer is “tough talk.” We’re also supposed to forget (and you’d never know it from reading Ross’ piece) that the US has already been engaged in some pretty tough talk with Iran for months. At one point the Iranian representative exploded in a rage and started screaming at the American spokesman. How much tougher can the talk get?
Ultimately, Ross knows talk won’t work. In the same article he notes that only one thing works with Iran:
In 2003…after the U.S. military made short work of the Iraqi Army—something Iran hadn’t managed to do in eight years of war—Tehran quickly reached out to Washington, sending a proposal through the Swiss ambassador in Tehran that sought to allay U.S. concerns about Iran’s weapons program and about its support for Hizbullah and Hamas.
In short, the threat of force works with Iran. Yet that’s exactly what the liberal Cassandras in the press have been warning us Bush was eager to do for most of the year. Suddenly, now that it’s Obama’s problem, Dennis Ross is resetting the game board. All the liberal voices that have hectored and hemmed in the previous President’s attempts to get tough with Iran are gone. All that remains is his inexplicable failure. All you need to know about the history of this process (according to Newsweek) is that it’s George Bush’s fault Iran isn’t in check. What a crock.
I predict that within a year this same idiot will cheer Obama on when we give Israel the go-ahead for preemptive strikes on Iran’s nuke capability. Wait and see. The rules are different for Democrats.
Category: Foreign Affairs |
George Bush was myopic in his foreign policy, seeing Al Quieda under ever tree and to a large extent ignoring some very weighty issues including the Palestian question.
John, his conservative views aside, you are an intelligent man. There are many very intelligent conservatives – Romney, Guiliani, Coburn, Brownback, Sessions
– and many others.
George Bush is not one of them, and in fact, his younger brother seems to be much more of an intellect. Obama may make his own mess, but in the last 8 years it became obvious to most impartial observers that the office of the presidency outdistanced Bush’s capability.
To be fair, having a great intellect (Obama) does not automatically make one a good leader.
January 2, 2009 @ 11:35 amBill Clinton proved that Rick.
January 2, 2009 @ 11:46 amIt’s getting a little old now when Bush gets blamed for Iran’s desire to secure a nuclear weapon. Outside of a physical attack on the nation, there is no conceivable way we could prevent the kook from Iran from trying to develop the bomb. It’s analogous to saying that better dipolmacy could have prevented Hitler from invading Poland. The guy from Iran wants the bomb and he wants to wipe Israel from the face of the earth. No amount of discussion or diplomacy will change these facts. Obama will find this out. But once again, as is Rick’s custom, it’s time to take another cheap shot at Bush and blame him for the whole mess.
By the way, dumbbell Bush received an MBA from Harvard. Stubborn he is, stupid he isn’t.
January 2, 2009 @ 11:54 amTo be clear I did not blame Bush for the entire Iranian situation. Many are culpable including Jimmy Carter. My point was that Bush was consumed with Iraq and neglected other important areas.
I consider his MBA from Harvard to be more of a slight against Harvard than a testimony to his intellectual prowess.
January 2, 2009 @ 12:05 pmBecause Bush doesn’t speak well “off the cuff”, people like you Rick assault the man’s intellect. Harvard doesn’t grant MBA’s unless a person earns it. Who wrote his thesis? Jeb? I think your hatred for the man clouds your reasoning.
January 2, 2009 @ 12:27 pm[...] Sexton parses a Newsweek article on recent relations between the United States and Iran. “I predict that [...]
January 2, 2009 @ 12:34 pm“Who wrote his thesis? Jeb?”
Laura.
January 2, 2009 @ 12:44 pmI respectfully disagree. Bush was fully engaged in dealing with Iran over the last two years. That’s precisely why he was the one saber-rattling (because he saw what it was coming to long ago). The people who did not see this coming were the liberal intelligentsia (like ElBaradei and his friends at the Nobel committee).
Bush should not be blamed for the weak knees in the press and Europe.
January 2, 2009 @ 1:46 pmRick, with the exception of the abortion issue, most of what you write about the president comes from the “Bush-haters” playbook. Assaulting the man’s intellect after he earned an MBA at Harvard is about as low as a person can go.
Historical Review:
Clinton: Bin Laden declares war on the U.S.. The first WTC bombing takes place, embassies are bombed, the Cole is attacked, plans for 9-11 are put into place, etc..
Bush: 9-11 occurs. We go after the terrorists. We kill or capture most of their leaders and fight them in Iraq (and not Chicago or New York). No “Timothy McVeigh” type bombs explode or bridges blow up, plots to kill thousands of Amercians are dismantled by a vigilant president, the president gets tough with North Korea and Iran.
The result: Rick thinks Bush has been a failure in foreign policy and questions his intellect (in short, Bush is an idiot).
January 2, 2009 @ 2:19 pmI never said “idiot”. I reserve that for Jon.
I said “usophisticated” and “momolithic”.
January 2, 2009 @ 4:18 pmOkay, got it. He received his MBA from Harvard because they lowered their standards. He couldn’t posssibly have received his degree legitimately because he’s “unsophisticated”. That’s doesn’t fit. How about monolithic? That doesn’t fit either. I got it – he’s stupid (synonym for stupid = idiot). I’m glad we’ve cleared that up.
January 2, 2009 @ 5:55 pmJohn – what do you make of the report that Bush refused to sell some bunker buster bombs to Israel so they could take out the nuclear reactor? I don’t get that one at all and it may come back to haunt the Middle East. It just doesn’t make sense considering the “Bush doctrine”.
January 10, 2009 @ 9:18 pmThe most frightening thing about this is it’s just one more example of “re-writing history” by the MSM. Unless you pay attention to conservative media and blogs, you really don’t know the truth of what’s happening in the world.
January 11, 2009 @ 6:24 amDuring this whole period while Bush was highlighting how evil and dangerous Iran was there was not a single democrat (Senate or house) who publicly supported his position except Lieberman. The current President elect in fact, frequently stated his willingness to sit down and talk to the mullahs.
The same applies to Iraq where essentially almost every leading democrat was calling for an immediate withdrawal, regardless of the consequences.
Again, during this period there were even few comments from democrats regarding Afghanistan. There were no public comments in support of the effort just criticism that our policy there was ineffective.
In summary, the democrats wanted to negotiate with Iran (read curry favor), bail out of Iraq (‘the war is lost’ – Reid, Murtha, Pelosi)
and did not offer anything but criticism on Afghanistan. Nor did they ever offer congrats to the administration for making North Korea terminate (if only temporarily) their nuclear efforts which was a violation of the agreement they had with the Clinton Administration. Libya is another country that has abandoned it’s terrorism and pursuit of WMD because of Bush and guess what not a single democrat or MSM “journalist” gives a dam.
In my opinion democrat politicians here in the U.S. are like a fifth column, they would rather lose a war if it is the only way to get back in power. Put another way, power is what they seek and they use any and all means to obtain it.
If the battle in Iraq is lost, it is Obama’s issue, if the Iranians become a nuclear power it is Obama’s issue, if Afghanistan fails it is Obama’s issue.
January 11, 2009 @ 9:40 amRick, the report I read about Bush and bunker-buster bombs was from the NY Times. Maybe I’m a little too cynical, but when was the last time the NY Times was fair to Bush? I sincerley doubt that here is even a modicum of truth to this report – just another example of more Bush-hating.
January 11, 2009 @ 10:00 am“If the battle in Iraq is lost, it is Obama’s issue, if the Iranians become a nuclear power it is Obama’s issue, if Afghanistan fails it is Obama’s issue.”
Yes, a balanced, non-partisan assessment.
Jim – I believe the source was Israeli. We will see if there are any denials.
January 11, 2009 @ 11:09 amRick, part of my point is there are always loose ends at the end of any administration. Once the new guy comes in he has the responsibility, period. Clinton did his best with N. Korea but that policy was a failure as we all know. If Bush had said ‘well, it is Clinton’s fault’ and moved on to other hot spots N. Korea today would have a nuclear capability.
The reality is democrats will not ever as a party congratulate the opposition even on something as fundamental as our foreign enemies. I guess they just believe the greatest enemy are republicans.
By the way, this did not use to be the case.
Although I did not mention it in the first entry the same situation applies for the recession. Obama has the reins, congress is controlled by the democrats, therefore there can be no excuses, right?
January 11, 2009 @ 4:22 pmEven Obama has praised Reagan for many things, and to say Bush is leaving Obama with “loose ends” is the understatement of the year. The invasion of Iraq was a colossal mistake, and the residual effects will reverberate for decades. I do not completely blame Bush for the economy, however the oil prices were definitely affected by the war.
And Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, and Bush II are all equally culpable for doing next to nothing in alleviating our dependance on foreign oil. The two greatest achievments of the Bush presidency are the veto of partial birth abortions and the funding of AIDS help in Africa. Coming in a close third is his excellent selections of Supreme Court justices. I believe he would have been better served with a different vice president, not the one who chose himself.
January 11, 2009 @ 5:08 pmWell Rick, we will have to disagree here on a number of issues but I agree his picks for Supreme court justices were outstanding. In fact I believe that is one of his signal achievements along with his aggressive foreign policy.
Btw, Obama’s praise of Reagan were late and politically motivated (i.e. we need votes), they count for nothing in my opinion.
Obviously, we agree on how inhuman partial birth abortions are and in most cases the practitioners are without merit. Let’s see where the new administration goes with it.
January 11, 2009 @ 6:56 pm