RSS Feed Menuis the topic of my column this weekend in the National Post:
Well that was a productive meeting!
In the Oval Office alongside Prime Minister Netanyahu, President Obama promised that he will spend the next year trying to reach a deal with Iran about nuclear weapons. If (surprise, surprise) negotiations go nowhere, at that point the President promises he will think very seriously about what to do next.
A year of talks followed by a promise to think about what to do next if talks fail: Does presidential decision-making get tougher than that?
balconesfault // May 24, 2009 at 7:55 pm
I read Obama to say that he would give to the end of the year – not an entire year – to see how negotiations could proceed with a new Administration. I can tell you right now that Obama is not going to enter into negotiations with a threat already on the table, since this would be a way of poisoning the process from the start, and likely would put us on a pathway to military showdown being an inevitability. If we wanted that, America would have elected the “Bomb Iran” guy.
danbmil99 // May 24, 2009 at 11:51 pm
Bomb Bomb Bomb, Bomb Bomb Iran!Sorry, but Middle East policy is the one area where neo-con ideology is so thoroughly demolished that even the undead Dick Cheney cannot help bring it back to life.I’m all for not appeasing terrorists. I’m all for spreading democracy. I’m quite willing to have the USA push its weight around when it serves our interest. But a policy of zero engagement with Iran (coupled with a completely hypocritical policy of endless, useless engagement with North Korea) is simply stupid.I know everyone is worried that those crafty Iranians will outfox a newbie like O. Newsflash: they outsmarted the last (neo-con powered) administration to such a degree that they are now on the verge of a quantum leap in their level of influence over their corner of the Universe.While W and pals worked themselves into a big lather over Iraq (no WMD’s, no involvement in 9/11), not only did they leave Iran alone to work on nukes, they played directly into their hands by failing to even bother to understand the Sunni/Shiite dynamics of the region. How can anyone take the neo-con perspective seriously ever again?All credibility shot. Let the new team take a crack, they simply cannot f* it up any worse than the last bunch.
mlindroo // May 25, 2009 at 5:02 am
What a thoroughly depressing opinion column!Frum is essentially implying the following:————————————————————————–Attempting another peace process in the Middle East is futile in general, and anyway Obama should not force Israel to make any concessions.-Negotiations with the Palestinians in particular are a waste of time under any circumstances since they are leaderless and evil.-The idea that Jerusalem (1/3 Muslim with a local tradition dating back to 638 A.D. as well as a rich Christian heritage) should be divided or internationalized is ridiculous.-Any negotiations with Iran concerning WMDs are futile (and probably a sign of American “weakness” and lack of “moral clarity”), and Obama need not consider his next move anyway…presumably he should immediately state that Iran is part of the “Axis of Evil” and imply there will be a forced “regime change”. He needs to show “resolve” like Bush did.-Obama should, as a minimum, not oppose an Israeli attack on Iran in any way.-If U.S./ Israeli relations deteriorate, American neocons will always blame America first in this case.————————————————————————-Look — I know fully well there is a veritable army of unreasonable, crazed fundamentalists on the anti-Israel side. But it still depressing to see this kind of reflexive defense of the status quo. Shouldn’t we be a wee bit more open to a different way of thinking — especially when one considers the lackluster results of the previous Administration’s bellicose and uncompromising Middle East policy? MARCU$
midcon // May 25, 2009 at 6:15 am
Obama did exactly the right thing – make empathizing noises while committing to nothing.This particular President does not seem to be prone to the “damn the torpedoes” snydrome. When it’s time to back off throttle he does so. If he needs to rethink his position (Gitmo) he does it. Isn’t that much better than what we had before? Of course that characteristic could also be considered wishy washy but right now it is positive deliberative characteristic. Ask me again in a year, and we will see if that has changed from a positive to a negative characteristic.How we deal with Iran needs to be in America’s interests. Where that coincides with Israel’s interests, cool beans! Where it doesn’t, well I guess it just doesn’t. Our interests and ideals have to come first.
ericna // May 25, 2009 at 6:46 am
You have to wonder about this guy Netanyahu. “Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. It has always been, will remain so forever and will never be divided.” This is simply not true as Tel Aviv was the capital until 1949. But that is a quibble. What is more disturbing is that there is no official Israeli position on what a peace agreement should look like. We know what Hamas wants (kick the Israelis out) and what Fatah wants (grudgingly) a two-state solution. But apart from Netanyahu’s statement on Jerusalem we don’t really know how Israel thinks the conflict should be settled. A main priority of the US administration should be to figure out what the Israelis actually want.
dragonlady // May 25, 2009 at 6:30 pm
danbmil99, if you don’t think Obama can do worst damage than the neocons, watch what happens in the region if Iran is allowed to acquire nuclear weapons. And btw, the Bush admin talked to Iran at the ambassador level and above nearly 30 times.
dragonlady // May 25, 2009 at 6:31 pm
“balconesfault: Obama is not going to enter into negotiations with a threat already on the table, since this would be a way of poisoning the process from the start.” Oh, I’m sure that’s why the Europeans are always so successful in diplomacy–all carrots and no sticks.
danbmil99 // May 25, 2009 at 7:12 pm
What the neocons always fail to understand is that talking tough does not equal being tough, or being respected for your might. They trivialize the culture of the Middle east, and take the leaders there for simpletons.Bush was like the short guy on the playground who always picked a fight to prove how tough he was. Obama is the cool guy, who just smiles and says bland things. But go up to that guy and try to sucker-punch him — it doesn’t always go so well.Who was it who said, “speak softly and carry a big stick”? That’s what I think is going on here.And for the record, where the f* were the Bushies while NKorea got their bomb? In fact, while Iran was busy getting close (with NK’s help), they were obsessed with a country that turned out to have nada. Why? Because they thought Saddam had made them ‘lose face’ during Bush 41.So basically, we screwed up the world, and let 2 nasty regimes get closer to nuclear capability, because of wounded pride. Great going, guys. That’s real sophisticated thinking you got there.
balconesfault // May 26, 2009 at 8:22 am
“What the neocons always fail to understand is that talking tough does not equal being tough, or being respected for your might. They trivialize the culture of the Middle east, and take the leaders there for simpletons.”Lest we forget – the mantra that was being repeated by many right wing talk hosts back in 2001/2002 was “the Arabs only understand force – if we go over there and show we’re willing to use force, they’ll fold up and follow our directions.”How some of the most nationalistic people on earth can’t grasp the power of nationalism elsewhere is always staggering to me.
sinz54 // May 26, 2009 at 12:18 pm
danbmil99 sez: “Obama is the cool guy, who just smiles and says bland things. But go up to that guy and try to sucker-punch him — it doesn’t always go so well.”That is not yet proven.Obama hasn’t yet been “sucker-punched” by Osama bin Laden, or by Iran, or by North Korea. We haven’t seen how he would handle such an invent.Indeed, our very own “ottovbvs,” who is a big fan of Obama, thinks that its futile to stop Iran from building an arsenal of nuclear weapons anyway. That this would make Israel’s strategic position untenable (imagine Hezbollah armed with nuclear weapons) doesn’t matter to him.