Anybody else find it disturbing when our enemy, a crazed radical Islamist intent on going nuclear, who talks often of the destruction of Israel and is in complete defiance of the UN, makes statements such as these:
Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei on Friday called U.S. President George W. Bush’s defeat in congressional elections a victory for Iran.
Bush has accused Iran of trying to make a nuclear bomb, being a state sponsor of terrorism and stoking sectarian conflict in Iraq, all charges Tehran denies.
“This issue (the elections) is not a purely domestic issue for America, but it is the defeat of Bush’s hawkish policies in the world,” Khamenei said in remarks reported by Iran’s student news agency ISNA on Friday.
“Since Washington’s hostile and hawkish policies have always been against the Iranian nation, this defeat is actually an obvious victory for the Iranian nation.”
. . .
But, he said: “With the scandalous defeat of America’s policies in Iraq, Palestine, Lebanon and Afghanistan, America’s threats are empty threats on an international scale.”
I find it quite disconcerting that our enemies rejoice when Democrats gain back some power. Maybe they hope for the return of the Clintonian foreign policy: talk a lot, lob some Tomahawks, and flee if soldiers start dying.
In light of Iran’s ignoring of UN pleas to stop uranium enrichment, this article seems especially timely. The author surveys some of the current right-wing and left-wing drawing of analogies between Iran and previous world conflicts, and concludes both are misguided in some way. His conclusion:
What these commentators are picking up is not an exact parallel to any one event of the 1930s—hence their scattershot of historical analogies. Instead, what they are picking up is a sense of the overall direction of world events: we are clearly headed toward a much larger, bloodier conflict in the Middle East, but no one in the West wants to acknowledge it, prepare for it, or begin to fight it.
My friend Soini IMed me a link yesterday that I found to be more enlightening than even he probably anticipated. Check this out. First you’ll notice text about how Iran’s president is once again describing tiny Israel as a threat to 20 other Arab nations and it will be “eliminated”:
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad called Israel a “permanent threat” to the Middle East that will “soon” be liberated. He also appeared to again question whether the Holocaust really happened.
“Like it or not, the Zionist regime is heading toward annihilation,” Ahmadinejad said at the opening of a conference in support of the Palestinians. “The Zionist regime is a rotten, dried tree that will be eliminated by one storm.”
“But, Steve,” you say, “This is nothing new. How is this enlightening?” Ah, look at the pictures now:
Look at how short he is! He can barely see over the podium! Yes, our next war may very well be sparked because of one dude’s serious case of Little Man Syndrome. Somebody just give him a big SUV and all will be well.
Another failure of diplomacy. Iran has joined the nuclear club. It’s unsurprising that El Baradei, the IAEA, and the UN failed. Diplomacy may work when you’re dealing with people who are rational, not diametrically opposed to you, and not belligerent, but I think it’s usefulness ends there. You just can’t talk a guy with a messianic complex who has called for the utter destruction of other countries out of his toys. I think I’ll start placing bets on when Israel bombs the crap out of Iran’s nuclear facilities, which would be a nice distraction for Iran from pumping terrorists into Iraq.
In all seriousness, can anybody point to one time when diplomacy undeniably caused a rogue state/dictator/belligerent country to give up his weapons/cease hostilities? Diplomatic success immediately after coups, massive internal changes, and the deaths of heads of state doesn’t count. I can’t think of a single instance. Libya might be an option, but I would argue that decades of diplomacy and embargos did nothing until the Coalition’s show of force in Iraq toppled Saddam. If anybody can think of any, I’d like to hear it. (via Drudge)
Another failure of appeasement. It’s perplexing that the French — of all people! — haven’t learned this lesson:
French students, emboldened by President Jacques Chirac’s cave-in on a youth jobs measure, prepared new protests Tuesday to try to get rid of other government labor reforms.
Unions declared victory on Monday after Chirac abandoned the measure that had spurred nationwide unrest, paralyzed secondary schools and universities and created a crisis for the government.
Maybe they think appeasement just doesn’t work when dealing with Nazis. I also can’t help but point out that a 22% jobless rate among youths is amazingly high. Our youth (16 – 24) unemployment rate last summer was 11%. (via Cox and Forkum)