There is one main reason why Iran is making conciliatory noises about its relationship with the U.S. and about the future of its nuclear program, and there is one main reason why Bashar al-Assad, the Syrian dictator, is signaling his intention to give up his stockpiles of chemical weapons.
The reason: President Barack Obama's toughness.
Yes, I know. Toughness isn’t a quality lately ascribed to the president. But hear me out.
Obama has crippled the Iranian economy by organizing some of the harshest sanctions imaginable, and he has stated repeatedly that he won't allow the Iranian leadership to acquire a nuclear weapon. The constant displays of American military might in the waters off of Iran these past four years, coupled with clear statements that the U.S. would use force to thwart the regime's plans, have also impressed Iranian leaders.
Many Americans doubt Obama's willingness to use force against Iran, and many of Iran's Middle Eastern foes do, too. But the Iranian leadership, which wants to have a nuclear capability despite its fantastical protestations to the contrary, is beginning to understand the price it is paying for its atomic desires.
On Syria, Obama's record is disturbing in many ways. He indicated that he would attack the regime as punishment for crossing the "red line" he drew on the use of chemical weapons, but he flinched when the moment came to launch a strike. He has at times seemed disorganized and hesitant, and his critics -- including me -- saw him as vacillating.
Yet Assad, and his Russian sponsor, Vladimir Putin, both weighed the situation and came to the conclusion that the U.S. meant what it said. It is for this reason -- and this reason alone -- that Putin and Assad have agreed in principle to arrange for the removal of chemical weapons. Without Obama's threat, the Assad regime would still be free to gas its people.
Goldberg goes on to say that he has little hope that the Syria deal will work, but then must admit that without Obama's tough stance that NOTHING would be happening at this point.
Well you know what that means right? Jeffrey Goldberg might as well hand in is conservative decoder ring right now, because he has performed the cardinal sin of saying something positive about the President.
Personally I believe that in the coming months there will be a whole lot of journalists previously considered stalwart conservatives who will have no choice but to praise this President's achievements. Especially as finding achievements on the Republican side of the aisle is becoming akin to finding pots of gold at the end of rainbows.
He "flinched?" No, he acted like a mature adult instead of a power hungry conservative toddler. Obama paused just long enough to let Assad comsider his options. He worked WITH Putin, and brokered a deal that would not include militarty force. I know conservatives want to swing the big stick first, and worry about collateral damage later (or not at all,) but this President doesn't blink. He learns everythig he can (you know, GOP, FACTS?) and talks to everyone with a hand in the game, and then he does what is best for all people, not just some bloated American egos. And I repsect him for that. The world respects him for that caution. And so, it seems, do some in the GOP who care to to take off their blinders. Must have been tough for him to write, and you are correct, Gryph, he will get blowback.
ReplyDelete"On Syria, Obama's record is disturbing in many ways. He indicated that he would attack the regime as punishment for crossing the "red line" he drew on the use of chemical weapons, but he flinched when the moment came to launch a strike. He has at times seemed disorganized and hesitant, and his critics -- including me -- saw him as vacillating."
ReplyDelete----------------------------------------
This illustrates the right wing's problems in dealing with the President perfectly. They fit his actions into their pre-defined way of seeing him as weak, vacillating, man-child, inexperienced, affirmative action, in over his head, and on and on and on.
He did not want to bomb Syria. What he wanted was for Syria to not (and not be able) to gas its citizens. Period.
Other countries know that it is in their own best interests to assess the President of the United States, his abilities, his motivations, his capabilities, and his word accurately. That is why Iran is indicating a willingness to work with the West.
The president did not flinch. He was not disorganized. He was not hesitant. He knew what he was doing. The right wing has been out-played by this President for five years because they fight their highly inaccurate image of Obama, not the real man.
This new comment box is almost unusable and the preview is even worse. What changed?
If anyone was listening to the Real Time panel two weeks ago they would have heard Michael Steele say that the forfeiture of chemical weapons had been on the diplomatic back channels long before John Kerry opened his mouth. No doubt the same Republicans who called the President names knew it, too- and also knew that Obama would gladly allow the devil himself to take credit for it if it worked. The fact that they trashed him and gave the credit to Putin is just another day at the office for President Obama; he wouldn't give a damn.
DeleteGreat post. I have the feeling that Obama could care less what the GOP says about him. He is in office to govern, to do what is best for the US and the world, and he is not there to placate, hold hands, and bend to whatever Biehner and McConnell (and the Kochs) think is appropriate. More power to him, and may Boehner and the rest go down in flames next year, if not before.
DeleteIf anyone should understand the concept of threats, it should be the GOP since they hold our country and economy hostage all the time. If you don't do THIS, then we'll do THIS.
DeleteThe President wanted Syria to be unable to use chemical weapons. Period. He used the threat of an attack to convince the Syrians that giving up their chemical weapons was a much better idea than getting bombed by the US military. Threat issued and demand accomplished, all without a shot being fired by the US.
What keeps the GOP so confused it that they simply cannot comprehend that someone might care more about achieving the goal than about taking credit for it.
5:36 -
DeleteI have no doubt that this plan was in the works for months, if not years. An agreement of this magnitude and complexity is just not put together in a matter of days. Diplomacy and negotiations take a long time and involve many layers of the governments involved.
And every single one of the Republicans trashing the President knows that.
Hmmm rilly Gryphen? That Goldberg fella has already committed such sins as going against Queen Esther. He's called it when he saw it from the get-go. Even seizing on her curious "Jewish flocking to Israel" comment to Barbara Walters, showing her fundy colors. Love his take-down of her Hamas answer, it's as epic as CNN's Jack Cafferty on Sarah's bail-out answer to Couric.
ReplyDeleteSarah Palin Endorses Hamas
Jeffrey Goldberg Sep 29 2008, 10:43 AM ET
The issue here is not that Palin didn't know the answer. There are many possible answers to this question, some of which are right and some of which are wrong. The issue here is that she didn't know the question. Because she was apparently ignorant of the subject, she endorsed Hamas' victory, and, in essence, called for the U.S. to "protect" Islamists who seek to use democratic elections to lever themselves into power. And, of course, Ahmadinejad came to power in a more-or-less democratic election. Palin's answer was truly remarkable. A person who could be President of the United States has shown herself to be completely ignorant of one of the most vexing and important foreign policy questions of the day. Freshman congressmen know how to answer this question.
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2008/09/sarah-palin-endorses-hamas/8877/
Sarah Palin and the Rapture
Jeffrey Goldberg Nov 20 2009, 1:23 PM ET
I've been writing about these belief systems for a while, and an alarm bell went off in my head when I heard Palin talk about "days and weeks." It's quite one thing to say that Israel needs settlements to contain its growing population (a belief unsupported by the facts, but I'll deal with that another time), but it's something else entirely to predict that Jews in the Diaspora will imminently be flooding the Holy Land. I asked Dr. Ice if he thought that this statement by Palin, who has been exposed to this brand of evangelical thinking in her Alaska churches, was informed by these beliefs.
"I've read that Palin has been part of an apparently unique movement I've heard of -- that her pastor, when she was in the Assembly of God, believed based on some personal revelation he claims to have gotten from God, that the Jews would move to Alaska during the Tribulation. But nevertheless, my understanding from what I've seen is that she holds fairly typical Protestant Zionist beliefs, and one of those beliefs is the regathering of the Jews in Israel."
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2009/11/sarah-palin-and-the-rapture/30587/
Jeffrey Goldberg @JeffreyGoldberg
Sarah Palin's use of 'shuck and jive' isn't an example of a racist dog-whistle because it's too obviously racist to be considered code.
Obama's Strategy Of Talking To Countries Instead Of Going To War Might Just Be Crazy Enough To Work
ReplyDeleteWhen a less-gray-haired Sen. Barack Obama declared, early in his first presidential campaign, that he would be willing to meet with the leaders of estranged nations like Iran and Syria without preconditions, he was roundly chastised by both Democrats and Republicans alike for naivete.
But now, after six arduous, solitary years of standing by a policy of preferring accord with rogue nations over recourse to full-on war, his approach seems to be on the verge of bearing fruit.
In Syria, President Bashar Assad has agreed to open his chemical weapons program to international oversight, and eventual destruction, after a furious round of diplomacy involving Secretary of State John Kerry and top Russian diplomats. And in Iran, a new, moderate president has responded to a personal letter from Obama, engaging in direct communication for the first time in years and hinting that he might be willing to pull back from his country's controversial nuclear program in exchange for a reduction of painful economic sanctions.
None of the developments has occurred without context or notes of caution, but it's nevertheless a remarkable turn of events for a president whose foreign policy, even a month ago, appeared to be in hapless disarray. If the diplomatic tracks in Syria and Iran pan out, proponents say they could point the way to the resolution of two of the most significant international crises facing the nation, without any American-caused warfare.
"The administration's willingness to show both strength and smarts is paying off," said Joel Rubin, the director of policy at the Ploughshares Fund and a former State Department official, who has worked to promote conflict resolution in the Middle East through discourse.
"On Syria, the president demonstrated that there was a clear point that he did not want the regime to pass, and then took a window of opportunity to cut a deal that actually advances American security interests even more," Rubin added. "An ancillary benefit has been that it's demonstrated to the Iranians that the U.S. is thinking before it's shooting, and that's a pretty new trend for the U.S."
Next week, the new Iranian president, Hassan Rouhani, travels to New York for the opening session of the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA). His arrival brings perhaps the greatest hope for a diplomatic breakthrough between Washington and Tehran in recent memory, and in turn, a possible vindication of Obama's refusal to condone military strikes against the country.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/21/obama-iran_n_3966606.html
This weekend brings us two pieces of huge news on President Obama's diplomatic success in the middle east: Syria has complied with the first deadline in the US-Russia agreement to rid it of all its chemical weapons, and Iran is moving towards dismantling its nuclear program. News broke today that the international organization monitoring chemical weapons has received, on time, Syria's disclosures of chemical weapons.
ReplyDeleteThe Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) said on Saturday it had "received the expected disclosure" from Damascus, 24 hours after saying it had been given a partial document from Syrian authorities.
It said it was reviewing the information, handed over after President Bashar al-Assad agreed to destroy Syria's chemical weapons in the wake of a sarin gas strike in Damascus's suburbs last month - the world's deadliest chemical attack in 25 years.
You may remember that John Kerry laid out the timetable last week, and said in no unequivocal terms that the United States planned to hold Syria to it. Seems like the pressure is working as Syria meets the first deadline. Optimism - if guarded - is in order.
Seeing President Obama's tough but fair stand on Syria, Iran too wants to jump into the window of opportunity. Iran's new president has been exchanging letters with Obama, in the hopes that if Iran curbs its nuclear program and submits it to international inspection to ensure abandonment of its nuclear weapons ambition.
The adviser, who participated in top-level discussions of the country’s diplomatic strategy, said that Mr. Obama’s letter, delivered to Iran’s new president, Hassan Rouhani, about three weeks ago, promised relief from sanctions if Tehran demonstrated a willingness to “cooperate with the international community, keep your commitments and remove ambiguities.”
It seems that the Iranians are taking heed, as the White House opened door to a meeting between Iran's new president Hassan Rouhani at the UN's general assembly meeting in New York with cautious optimism. President Obama confirmed the exchange of letters, and Secretary of State Kerry and Press Secretary Jay Carney expressed hope with a reminder that Iran's compliance must be verifiable:
http://www.thepeoplesview.net/2013/09/first-syria-now-iran-fair-but-resolute.html
It takes critical thinking to understand the enormity of what didn't happen, whatever crisis was avoided because of the President's actions. The relief of disaster avoided never equals what we would be feeling if disaster had actually happened. I think it was a brilliant move on Obama's part.
ReplyDeleteMaybe not as flashy as some of our previous Presidents, but still always the smartest person in the room!
DeleteI'd take smart over flashy any day!
DeleteI have always been proud of President Obama, and have never wavered in my 100% support for him.
ReplyDeleteDitto, ditto, a thousand times DITTO!
DeleteHe is so underestimated by our stupid talking heads and political pundits, it's rather sad, indeed. He has CONSISTENTLY worked to help this country, and the world, in ways that he promised he would, and he has kept those promises in every way he can without becoming a 'dictator'. Just imagine the difference if he didn't have to deal with these assholes in Congress. I would vote for him for another term if it were possible, that's for sure!
7:48 -
DeleteIsn't it sad how people in our own government and media continue to underestimate the President, while leaders of other countries seem to have tremendous respect for him?
Pat Buchanan today in his column gives his very grudging support for what President Obama has achieved in Syria. Of course, it was all prefaced with remarks about the clumsiness and the stumbling around - required if a conservative is ever going to say anything good about President Obama. Personally I do not see the clumsiness or the stumbling; all effective diplomacy requires tentative steps and a lot of thought and consideration of alternatives.
ReplyDeleteBeaglemom
Agreed. Obama is a rogue without making himself out as one. Unafraid to try new ways of getting what you want by showing respect, listening, triangulating, keeping his eye on the goal, and erring on the side of nonmilitary intervention.
DeleteOur POTUS is going to go down in history as one of our best! The Republicans - McConnell, Cantor, Boehner etc. are literally going to have to eat their words!
ReplyDeleteThey've done nothing but obstruct, be racist and evil doers (i.e. taking food stamp funding away from the poor and needy!), but President Obama has continued to work around them and be successful! Love the fact he doesn't toot his own horn too!
History will be good to the guy! I'm proud I voted for him both times!
Assad: Syria Will Allow Access To Chemical Sites
ReplyDeletehttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/23/assad-chemical-weapons-access_n_3975014.html
Who Would Have Thought It — GOP Promoting Obamacare In Texas
ReplyDelete...Important to note is that the letter correctly echoes the benefits of Obamacare for the millions in Texas and the United States with preexisting conditions. It correctly states that someone with a preexisting condition can no longer be denied coverage. It states forcefully (with an underline) that everyone is guaranteed the same rate given one’s age. It also correctly states that many will qualify for subsidies.
The letter even goes further in promoting Obamacare. It correctly states that there are no more lifetime maximums (in other words insurance companies cannot stop paying up to some maximum; bankruptcies be gone). It correctly states that 100% coverage for preventative care is provided, and all policies now cover doctor visits hospitalization, and prescriptions. In other words charlatans can no longer sell worthless policies. Most importantly, the letter sends Texans to the correct website that will provide them accurate information instead of all the lies and misinformation provided in an orchestrated manner by the Republican Party. The misinformation and lies will directly cause the unnecessary deaths of many, mostly their own constituents and base.
This letter from a Texas agency is the best justification for Obamacare. This Texas government agency placed the well being of Texans over politics.
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2013/09/23/who-would-have-thought-it-gop-promoting-obamacare-in-texas/
He's a brilliant strategist. Who knew?
ReplyDeleteI adore him. Whenever he speaks, I get what he's saying. and it makes perfect sense to me. I come from a family of PhDs and teachers, so this kind of talk is regular kitchen table stuff. When he speaks at one of those terrible shootings, I know what he's going to say before he says it; my father was a United Methodist minister and renowned for his public speaking. I wish that he was alive to meet him now, two of a kind: brilliant, progressive, thoughtful and pragmatic.