Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said at a joint press conference with President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva in Brazil last November that the threat of a US or Israeli military strike against Iran was no longer an issue because "they don't have the courage [to attack Iran]. The age of military attacks is over, now we've reached the time for dialogue and understanding. Weapons and threats are a thing of the past."
You can take this kind of rhetoric two ways:
|
The liberal-progressive way:
"See, we told you that Obama would change the bellicose paradigm of the Bush/Cheney era and that he would return meaningful dialogue and diplomacy to our international relationships -- even with our so-called enemies." |
| |
|
The realistic way:
"That Holocaust-denying thug just thumbed his nose at Obama again. He skipped over the 'I dare you' protocol and went right to 'I double dog dare you to attack our nuclear facilities!' The administration and most of the media never even mentioned it, so it is doubtful that Obama will respond even when Ahmadinejad says: 'I triple dog dare you!' " |
The outgoing head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Mohamed ElBaradei, said in Vienna (subsequent to Ahmadinejad's remarks) that his probe of Iran's nuclear program is at "a dead end" and that trust in Tehran's credibility is shrinking after its belated revelation that it was secretly building a nuclear facility.
ElBaradei had, prior to that statement, approached the Iran nukes issue the liberal progressive way apparently in order to keep his cushy job. But his blunt criticism of the Islamic Republic of Iran, just four days prior to leaving his office, suddenly validated what the Bush administration had always said -- that the IAEA was soft on Iran.
The interesting part of the story as it relates to Barack Hussein Obama -- aside from ElBaradei being a fellow Nobel Peace Prize recipient -- is that ElBaradei has actually "[sat] down with dictators with no pre-conditions", not merely as a representative of the world's official diplomatic organization but as a citizen of Egypt, a major Islamic nation. Do you think that Egyptians want a nuclear attack on their nearby neighbor Israel any more than Israelis do?
Back to Vienna.
Subsequent to ElBaradei's "dead end" statement the IAEA has actually censured Iran with 25 nations backing a resolution that demands Tehran immediately freeze construction of its newly revealed nuclear facility and heed Security Council resolutions calling on it to stop uranium enrichment. The USA, Russia, China, Britain, France and Germany have all signed onto the censure, reflecting a rare unity in the UN's Iran nukes stance.
Apparently, world powers -- and even the softies at the IAEA -- have been forced to adopt the realistic way of taking Ahmadinejad's threats. However, our own representative's statement does not give us confidence that the president will feel empowered by the resolution to continue handling this situation in anything but a liberal progressive manner.
"The United States remains firmly committed to a peaceful resolution to international concerns over Iran's nuclear program," said chief US IAEA delegate, Glyn Davis. "We also remain willing to engage Iran to work toward a diplomatic solution to the nuclear dilemma it has created itself, if Iran would only choose such a course."
It may take the Chinese, the Russians and ultimately the Israelis to punch the world out of the dead end in Iran. Regardless of their diverse political philosophies, not one of those nations can be accused of being anything but realistic about world affairs.
In that respect, Ahmadinejad is only half-right in his recent assessment of US and Israeli military courage. Only the US is trapped in the dead end of liberal progressive-ism.