October 24, 2008
Will Obama Attack Iran?
Another reason to suspect Obama:
… if Tehran is not eventually prepared to permanently abandon its enrichment of uranium on its own soil — a position that is certain to be rejected by Iran ab initio — then war becomes inevitable, and all intermediate steps, even including direct talks if the new president chooses to pursue them, will amount to going through the motions (presumably to gather international support for when push comes to shove). While I would certainly not be surprised if such an approach were adopted by a McCain administration, what is a top Obama adviser doing signing on to it?
Update: I should have pointed out that the Obama advisor Jim Lobe is referring to is the same Dennis Ross I objected to on Wednesday.
Posted by Chuck Dupree at October 24, 2008 03:37 PM
A new blog favorite of mine, Progressive Curmudgeon, has a post today called GOP Hope Chest: 3 Possible October Surprises. Iran is definitely on his list, with the idea that Israel may attack in the next couple of weeks.
What Dennis Ross and the rest of the foreign policy establishment (or cesspool if you prefer) need to realize is that the Non-Proliferation Treaty ALLOWS signatory nations to enrich uranium. Setting the bar for a unilateral attack (new war crime) that low is ridiculous, not to mention criminal.
There ain't gonna be any change, people will lose hope, and the Dems will prove as they have over the last 2 years to be no different than the Republicans except in tone. If they had nominated a sane and healthy individual, I would say there is no difference. As it is, it is a difference of personality not policy.
Barack Obama does seem to have a habit of picking advisers who represent independent points of view from his own. I would not assume that what Jim Lobe says represents Obama's own view.
Charley's right as usual. Except that Ross et.al. very much do realize that the NPT allows what Iran is doing.
That's precisely the point: the cesspool intends to show the world exactly the same face that Bush shows. Namely, laws don't apply to us, we decide what matters and what doesn't and who can do what. Treaties, including those that have the force of Constitutional law, mean no more to these players of the geostrategic game than the Constitution itself. What they object to about the war in Iraq is the ineptitude in stealing the oil, not the illegality, immorality, or stupidity of the invasion itself. In other words, these are Clinton-style people. 'Nuff said.
As for Obama picking independent advisors, I've seen no evidence of that: everyone he picks is a right-wing Democrat or a Republican (if you can name an exception please do). But I agree it's a possibility. What's certain is that Obama gathers believers. Hopefully these believers will become citizens. But most of the young people I meet who Believe in Obama will not, I fear, vote again for a long time, because Obama won't perform the miracles they expect from the all-powerful Commander in Chief.
Finally, I note in passing the point Einstein famously made, that you can't simultaneously prepare for and prevent war. There's no question that many in the cesspool want war always and everywhere, and are constantly preparing for it, as well as lying to make it happen; Bush is not at all unusual. You can't give those people a seat at the table. Obama will, or more accurately does.
Iran can shut down the Strait of Hormuz in a skinny minute and keep it shut. Ain't gonna happen unless the wells are all dry in the whole Gulf. This is posturing. We can't afford it anyway.
Chuck, if you'll note what I said, I did not say that Barack Obama's advisers were politically independent, only that they were independent points of view from his own. He has said this explicitly, when discussing his choice of Joe Biden, that he did not want a vice president who reflected his own views back to him.
It is the nature of successful political campaigns that candidates run to the base in the primaries, and run to the center in the general election. Barack Obama is correct to presume the support of the Dennis Kucinich wing of the Democratic party, but also needs the support of independent and disaffected Republican voters to win.
Mahakal, I did note what you said. That's what I was disagreeing with. I don't see a smidgen of evidence that Obama picks people who disagree with him. I'm unaware of a single person he's ever consulted who is liberal or progressive in any way. Obama is a right-winger who surrounds himself with right-wingers.
While the campaigns of the Democrats have traditionally moved right during the general election, they've also moved right during the primaries. They did the same this time.
If I wanted a Republican I'd vote for one. Obama could win much bigger if he pulled in the left wing than if he went to the right. He goes where his predilictions lead him.
Actually, I overstated. What I should have said was that I'm unaware of any liberal or progressive he's consulted in the last decade.
He is center right, but so is the Democratic party. You can argue that there are a lot of left of center voices that are unheard: we continue to exist on the blogs, but we do not have the money or institutional support to win nationwide elective office in 2008.
With that said, I think my representative in congress, Barbara Lee, is pretty good. And I believe she is endorsing Barack Obama for president.