Barack Obama in the Carpet Bazaar
There is a background to this nonsense. Obama’s website proposes “tough” presidential diplomacy with Iran “without preconditions.” But when it comes to saying what will happen if Iran refuses to abandon nuclear weaponizing and support for terrorism, the website limply says “we will step up our political pressure and diplomatic isolation.” This is exactly what the U.S. and our allies have been doing for five years without success.
Scrutinizing Obama’s Senate record shows why his “policy” is chimerical. Last September, the Senate considered the Kyl-Lieberman Resolution “to express the sense of the Senate” that Iran’s Revolutionary Guards are terrorists. The Resolution — predicated on findings, including “evidence of complicity of Iran in murders of members of U.S. Armed Forces,” Ambassador Crocker’s report on futile discussions with Iranian officials in Baghdad plus continued “Iranian training and funding of illegal Shi’a militants that attack Iraqi and coalition forces and civilians” — passed by 76-22. Supporters included such notable “war-mongers” as Democratic Senators Clinton (N.Y.), Schumer (N.Y.), Whip Durbin (Ill.), Armed Services Chair Levin (Mich.), Majority Leader Reid (Nev.), and Intel Chair Rockefeller (w.va.).
The Senate Ignores Obama
Obama, unable to vote because he was campaigning, did more than announce his opposition. He introduced a counter-resolution to prohibit the U.S. from attacking Iran without explicit congressional approval. It is not clear whether or not Obama understood that Kyl-Lieberman is non-binding or whether he realized that the resolution prohibits U.S. forces from firing on Iran in self-defense, but his Senate colleagues understood his fecklessness. Obama could not attract a single co-sponsor; his Resolution is gathering cobwebs in the archives.
Absent in Obama’s rhetoric of “tough” diplomacy” is a recognition that use of force might ever be necessary to deter Iranian threats. Whether this omission is founded on pandering to