Barry Rubin writes at the end of Helping Hillary while keeping Israel safe:
Of course, the two governments must begin to reach understandings about Iran. The new administration is determined to try engaging Teheran. Israel must convey the point that Washington should be alert to Iranian efforts to bully or fool the new president. The goal of stopping Iran’s nuclear weapons’ drive has to be the top priority; unilateral concessions in exchange for nothing should be avoided.
And the White House will hopefully not be shy in admitting when it finally concludes that Iran doesn’t want to be friends. President Barack Obama has spoken of opening Iran’s clenched fist. The danger is that Iran will do so only to slap America silly.
Presumably towards that end, according to Haaretz, Israel has drawn up suggestions for the American administration (via memeorandum):
1. Any dialogue must be both preceded by and accompanied by harsher sanctions against Iran, both within the framework of the UN Security Council and outside it. Otherwise, the talks are liable to be perceived by both Iran and the international community as acceptance of Iran’s nuclear program.
2. Before the dialogue begins, the U.S. should formulate an action plan with Russia, China, France, Germany and Britain regarding what to do if the talks fail. Specifically, there must be an agreement that the talks’ failure will prompt extremely harsh international sanctions on Iran.
3. A time limit must be set for the talks, to prevent Iran from merely buying time to complete its nuclear development. The talks should also be defined as a “one-time opportunity” for Tehran.
4. Timing is critical, and the U.S. should consider whether it makes sense to begin the talks before Iran’s presidential election in June.
According to Ha’aretz, these suggestions or “red-lines” were drawn up by the Foreign and Defense mininstries, and approved by outgoing PM Olmert. Apparently PM designate Netanyahu has also been briefed on these suggestions.
(The Washington Note writes that Israel is going too far in presenting “red lines” to the Secretary of State. But is “red line” an Israeli term or the terminology of the reporter?)
Not one of these suggestions seems unreasonable. And I have a hard time believing that Israel would dictate anything to the United States. Hopefully the new Secretary of State, will be amenable to Israel’s ideas.
Crossposted on Soccer Dad.
Seriously, the whole “unclench your fist” statement was the most naive mindless statement since some moron uttered “peace in our time.” We can always hope he’s really not that stupid, but then again, he is a liberal…
I think Obama really is that stupid, and his advisers as well. I suspect he thinks he can charm his way into the good graces of foreign leaders, irrespective of their analyses of their own interests. After all, that’s how he got to be President, charming the voters without them considering whether he was up to the job. But he’s playing in a different league now.
Not all liberals are stupid about international affairs and defense, but I have seen few who were not since the fall of the Scoop Jackson Wing of the Democratic Party. It’s gone now. Only lonely individuals among the Dems are left upholding the idea of strength (including all of physical strength, moral strength, and willpower) abroad and liberalsism at home. The hostile reaction of so many liberals to liberating the Iraqis from tyranny shows how they have lost their moral compass.