Obama "Appalled and Outraged," but ... Surprised?

I've been mulling over this for a while. The latest news of Iranian national police tear gassing protesters at a prayer sermon this week was the impetus for my blogging about it now.

Obama has stated since the before his presidency that he wants to create a more open dialogue with the Iranians, a statement Hillary Clinton correctly labelled naive. Let's look at the facts: the current Iranian government knowingly harbors terrorists (whose main mission is to eradicate all "infidels"); it has a history of breaking UN agreements, including attempting to build nuclear weapons; it designs missiles able to target Israel, and it has openly declared its enemies as Israel and the US, going so far as to have all students in Iran ritually curse Israel and US every morning after prayer. Most recently, it has counterfeited election results, and violently suppressed its political opponents. Obama, considering Iran’s history, did you expect more from them?

Is President Obama truly naive enough to believe a national government so mired in hatred for the US in both rhetoric and action will change if we engage in some heart-to-heart talks? I hate to be a naysayer, here. After all, it's clear that the best way to misunderstand someone--anyone--is to create distance from them, and so in this way the long diplomatic silence (thirty years) with Iran is at the very least counterproductive. "Keep your friends close and your enemies closer," so said Sun-tzu. This is Good Diplomacy 101. Whether it is because he truly admires these men or because he is trying to garner a more positive image, Obama, for all of his liberal leanings, has been trying to channel Ronald Reagan and Abraham Lincoln since the beginning of his campaign for president. And it was Reagan who played a part in melting the iron curtain and Lincoln who said, "With malice towards none; with charity for all." I see much wisdom in this approach.

But I believe Obama takes it too far. Perhaps his gestures toward Iran and the rest of the Muslim world are empty--political flourishes to garner more public support if he takes a hard stance against them later. They could also be the result of his Muslim background. Either way, when Obama declared himself "appalled and outraged" by the deaths and intimidation of protesters in Tehran's streets, I have to ask, is he really that surprised?

Again, this is a country that harbors terrorists--maybe not the same terrorists of 9-11, but definitely on the same side. In March 2006, U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said, “Iran has been the country that has been in many ways a kind of central banker for terrorism in important regions like Lebanon through Hezbollah in the Middle East, in the Palestinian Territories, and we have deep concerns about what Iran is doing in the south of Iraq.” U.S. Director of National Intelligence Michael McConnell told CFR.org in June 2007 there is “overwhelming evidence” that Iran supports terrorists in Iraq and “compelling” evidence that it does the same in Afghanistan.

Again, this is a government that has rejected and rebelled against UN sanctions and requests. Shortly after Obama's meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu last month, Iran announced that it had test-fired a missile with a range of 1350 miles (capable of hitting Israel). Subtle threat. In the same announcement
President Ahmadinejad again insisted that Iran would not give in to any pressure over its nuclear program. In his words: "They (Western governments) said if you don't stop, we will adopt (sanctions) resolutions. They thought we would retreat but that will not happen."

"I told them you can adopt 100 sets of sanctions but nothing will change."
(http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iran/5354673/Iran-fires-missile-capable-of-hitting-Israel.html)

(The UN Security Council has imposed three packages of sanctions against Iran after it failed to heed successive ultimatums to suspend uranium enrichment.)

In his speech in Cairo at the beginning of June, Obama called for a new beginning in ties w/ Muslim community, "This cycle of suspicion and discord must end," he said, which was met with the following response:

"Highlighting hostility the U.S. leader faces from some quarters, al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden, in a message on a website, warned Muslims against alliance with Christians and Jews, saying it would annul their faith.

The supreme leader of Washington's regional arch foe, Iran's Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, said in a speech before Obama spoke that America was "deeply hated" and only action, not "slogans," could change that." (http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSL410341420090604?sp=true)

The simple truth is that Iranian hard-liners do not want genuinely improved relations with the United States. They see the U.S. as the "Great Satan," and they fear that better relations with the U.S. will pose a threat to their hold on power. Moreover, making the compromises that would be necessary to open the door to improved relations would undermine the legitimacy of their revolutionary ideology and weaken their claim to leadership of the Muslim world.

Last month, Obama said he shared the world's "deep concerns about the [Iranian] election" but asserted that it was "not productive, given the history of U.S.-Iranian relations, to be seen as meddling." He further stated Iran's leaders will face consequences if they continue "the threats, the beatings and imprisonments" against protesters, but he has declined to say what those consequences might be.

I'm not saying Obama needs to start a fight with Iran--perhaps he is right to try and avoid one. But then again, it would seem that Iran has already taken its gloves off and is on a path to become a stronger threat to us and to the Middle East. They will be the ones to start the fight, surely, when they have the power to also end it. We must prevent them from gaining that advantage. The only real hope Obama's speeches have of succeeding is if they embolden the citizens of Iran to continue their protests against the government. We should be helping the protesters more-- at the very least, condemning the brutality of their current leaders, and altering our rhetoric to reflect the truth of what is really happening.

Considering Iran's actions, Obama's statement that he expects a "positive response" from his diplomatic outreach to Iran on stopping its nuclear program by the end of the year is laughable. I submit that talk about reconciliation represents the foolishness of wishful thinking over our actual disappointing experience. Tehran may go through the motions of a diplomatic dialogue, as it often has in the past, to deflect pressure from international sanctions and temporarily defuse the nuclear standoff with Israel. But a "Grand Bargain" strategy is likely to result in endless "talks about talks" that will only enable Iran to buy time to run out the clock, as it completes a nuclear weapon.