Iran's Stubbornness Is Obama's "Achievement"

Wednesday, November 27, 2013

Editor's Note: I wish my readers a happy Thanksgiving: I plan to take tomorrow off. 

Following the recently-ended year of "negotiations" with Iran, Caroline Glick concludes the following regarding President Obama's foreign policy goals:

When we consider Obama's decision to wait for a year to sign the deal that enables Iran to become a nuclear power in the context of his main activities over the past year, we understand his foreign policy.

His goal is not to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear power. It isn't even to facilitate a rapprochement between America and Iran. The goal of Obama's foreign policy is to weaken the State of Israel.
That is certainly a tempting and understandable conclusion, but it might be giving too much credit to the feckless empty suit to attribute to him enough long-range thought to have overall goals of his own. That said, Glick's kind of analysis can be extended to the President's actions generally and is spot-on in this crucial respect: Actions speak louder than words. Whatever is going on between Obama's ears, it is undeniable that its consistent effect has been to undermine his own country at home and abroad.

-- CAV

PS: It is most instructive to note, as Glick does, that in over a year of "negotiations" with this state sponsor of terrorism, "the final deal reflects Iran's opening positions."


Anonymous said...

Hi Gus,

Re: "the final deal reflects Iran's opening positions."

My sister took Russian in college from a Latvian refugee who expressed boundless frustration with the US State Dept's apparent policy of "incremental capitulation." That during negotiations, the USSR would put forth their position. The US would put forth theirs. In the second round, the same would happen except that the Soviet position would not change. The US position would move closer to the Russians and after sufficient iterations of this process, the US position would substantially BE the Soviets' opening position. This went on consistently in the years after Nixon-Kissinger's "Détente" until Reagan.

For a domestic example of this approach, look at Republican "negotiation" with Democrats. Until the Tea Party, it was substantially incremental capitulation with the opposition to the original Obamacare vote being the rare exception. Even when the Republicans had the majority in both houses AND the White House as epitomized by the GOP giving up their procedural majority on Congressional committees "to be fair" in the face of Democrat charges of "unfairness" and "lack of inclusiveness." Of course, the Democrats never act in such an appeasing fashion when they hold the majority. Perhaps because the Dems, unlike the GOP, actually have the courage of their convictions?

This is altruism writ large on the political level. As Rand wrote;

It stands to reason that where there's sacrifice, there's someone collecting sacrificial offerings. Where there's service, there's someone being served. The man who speaks to you of sacrifice, speaks of slaves and masters. And intends to be the master.

And as Rand pointed out elsewhere and dramatized in Jim Taggart's last meeting with his sister, Dagny, altruism requires surrender of a value on one side and expropriation of that value on the other.

I find it instructive that, while domestically the GOP are the chronic capitulators and the Dems are the expropriators, in the world at large, the Dhims are the ones surrendering American values to the Islamists and other collectivists abroad without even a fig leaf of national interest to cover their naked altruism. And while this may seem contradictory in the concrete - collecting 'values' domestically while surrendering them internationally - the integrating consistency behind their action even if it is unacknowledged - it accomplishes the degradation of Enlightenment values both at home and abroad.

c. andrew

Anonymous said...

Oh, and Happy Thanksgiving to you and yours as well. We should recognize and celebrate the values that remain intact.

c. andrew

Steve D said...

'The goal of Obama's foreign policy is to weaken the State of Israel.'
No, but the objective of Obama's foreign policy may be to weaken the United States and Israel just got caught in the cross-hairs?
'the feckless empty suit'
In one sense you are right. It is not logical for an intelligent American president, hungry for power like Obama to deliberately weaken the US, especially its armed forces. If the US collapses, any dreams Obama might have of world domination will end.
On the other hand, he is a disintegrator (from DIM), so that’s the way he thinks. It’s alien to you and me but this probably explains his behavior. It’s neither stupidity nor malevolence per se, as much as his mode of thinking (ideology).
Also, he’s got advisors. It is unlikely all of them are as feckless and empty as he is.

He's got a lot of advisors, though. It is unlikely that all of them are as feckless as he is.

Gus Van Horn said...


Based on you comments, justice demands that I not single out Obama as a worthless negotiator, setting aside the propriety of these negotiations for a moment.


I agree, but perhaps tha wasn't made clear. I think that AS a disintegrator, it is impossible to Obama to HAVE strong values. Also, AS a pragmatist, wha Obama regards as "working" will reflect the goals and values of those around him, be they the hippie mother who raised him or his American-hating preacher from Chicago or the left-wing intelligentsia and politicians he consorts with now.


Steve D said...

'the integrating consistency behind their action even if it is unacknowledged'

C; I can't quote Ayn Rand verbatim like you do but I remember that she made the point that in any disagreement, the most consistent position always wins.

That is why the conservatives always lose and far more importantly, why they are surprised when they lose. Ayn Rand explained the reason to them, decades ago. They still haven't caught on. They twiddle with their political 'fixes' while our civilization dwindles away.

Like this for example:

Anonymous said...

Hi Steve,

It certainly appears that the conservatives are helpless in the face of arbitrary assertions by the statist left, be it Obamacare or AGW. They seem to feel that they must settle for having them "Run their course" instead of a straightforward takedown of the statist premises underlying them.

I salute the GOP for having the gumption to not surrender a single vote to the Obamacare monstrosity. However their opposition was not principled but more along the lines of crying, "Too Much!" rather than pointing out the moral bankruptcy of the idea. They did a decent job of demonstrating the practical issues, some of which were borderline moral - death panels, rationing, comparisons to other countries that have Obama-like care, etc., but such practical asides do not win ideological contests. If we dodge a bullet in the takedown of Obamacare, it will be sheer incompetence on the part of the democratic governing bureaucrats and steadfast practical opposition by the prospective victims of the same - the middle class American citizenry. And GOP opposition to Obamacare is probably the best job they've done opposing gov't expansion in the last 20 years. That's damning them with faint praise.

On AGW, the majority of Republicans were left hollering "Too Much!" rather than pointing out the immoral basis, let alone the fact that the "science" was a species of Lysenkoism where the political impact mattered more than the facts did. And I believe there were a number of GOP that signed on to AGW and EPA initiatives; I believe the man who signed the bill phasing out incandescents in the US was a Republican. Bush was a GOP president right? (smiles ironically)

If any good is to come out of this 8 years of fascism, (16 if you count Bush, which I do) it is to be hoped that the consistent violations of individual rights will wake up the citizenry to the fact that no gov't, regardless of its political polarity, can be trusted with these illicit powers. If they don't wake up and water the Tree of Liberty with the bloody ruins of 90% of political and bureaucratic careers everywhere, then they will prove Jefferson's truism in practice;

1."If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."

c. andrew