The man who has not been right about one thing in the last eight years wants the world to believe that he is absolutely right about how to deal with Iran. In May Dr. Bolton wrote an op-ed for the WSJ encouraging the foreign policy debate between Obama and the neoconservative foreign policy view that Iran must be bombed. He calls Obama naive for wanting to talk with Iran:
The real debate is radically different. On one side are those who believe that negotiations should be used to resolve international disputes 99% of the time. That is where I am, and where I think Mr. McCain is. On the other side are those like Mr. Obama, who apparently want to use negotiations 100% of the time. It is the 100%-ers who suffer from an obsession that is naïve and dangerous.In the GOP Fantasy World where Bolton and so many Republicans live he insists that he is for negotiations 99% of the time. That begs the question, what color is the sky in his fantasy world? Here’s a guy who has advocated invading nearly every country in the Middle East including any other country that he might not like that week and he says he’s for diplomacy 99% of the time. Also here’s a guy who hasn’t been right about one thing in the last eight years yet that hasn’t stopped him from getting op-ed access and television airtime whenever he feels the urge. There just isn’t any logical reason to believe anything the man says.
In Bolton's Republican Fantasy World, supporting negotiations 99% of the time means knee jerk wars and blind obedience to our Grand Anointed Leader, George W. Bush.
Then today he has another op-ed in the LA Times again calling Obama naive for comparing talking with the Soviet to talking with Iran.
What is implicit in Obama's reference to "tiny" threats is that they are sufficiently insignificant that negotiations alone can resolve them. Indeed, he has gone even further, arguing that the lack of negotiations with Iran caused the threats: "And the fact that we have not talked to them means that they have been developing nuclear weapons, funding Hamas, funding Hezbollah."The only thing implicit is the thing that emboldened Iran the most was when the U.S. removed their biggest threat and greatest enemy Saddam Hussein. The emboldening of Iran, if you will, was directly related to U.S. policy-- the invasion of Iraq and the removal of Saddam (U.S. policy) directly empowered Iran more than any other country in the world. And after seizing control of two of Iran's neighboring states (Iraq and Afghanistan) Iranian policy to protect its borders and its existence against a much greater threat than Saddam ever proved is natural state behavior when facing hostile and uncertain futures. So yes, contrary to what John Bolton thinks, U.S. policy does motivate Iran. Just like it motivates Canada. Or any other country that has the worlds most powerful military occupying two adjacent countries.
This is perhaps the most breathtakingly naive statement of all, implying as it does that it is actually U.S. policy that motivates Iran rather than Iran's own perceived ambitions and interests. That would be news to the mullahs in Tehran, not to mention the leaders of Hamas and Hezbollah.
In the Republican Fantasy World the invasion of Iraq has had no ill effects on the world especially the Middle East. Instead it's naivete from liberal terrorist supporting Democrats like Obama who want to appease the islamofasciststerrorists that's causing all the troubles. Never mind the fact that what kept Iran from being expansionist was Iraq. And never mind the fact that bin Laden is Sunni and Iran is Shiite. And how can Iran's own perceived interests and ambitions not be about survival. Thinking that an American foreign policy that calls for preventive invasions and already occupies two of Iran's neighbors and a country Bolton has already advocated invading doesn't effect Iran's interests and ambitions is one of the dumbest things any foreign service officer could ever say.
Posts
0 comments :
Post a Comment