4 thoughts on “Flynt Leverett on the Inadequacy of Obama Administration Policy Toward Iran – Tikun Olam תיקון עולם إصلاح العالم
task-attention.png
Comments are published at the sole discretion of the owner.
 

  1. If its true that “the president said that he did not realize, when he came to office, how “hard” the Iran problem would be,” and therefor balks and retreats from his publicly avowed policies because of these internal “problems,” then he deserves to be destroyed.

    Regardless of Hillary, Ross or any of the civilian/political appointees in the chief executive, Leverett is expressing the views of the majority within the uniformed and career civil service agencies and departments of the national security state. He himself, having been a ‘national security official’ must have all his articles or analysis’s reviewed by the CIA before publication.

    The previous administration ran roughshod over these uniformed and career civil servants, shifting blame unto them for their failures. This ultimately let to a fight that a journalist called the “war in heaven.” Another war Bushites and their neocon/Likudnik allies started and lost. Maybe Obama will discover as Bush learned, that his greatest opponents aren’t in Congress, foreign lobbies or traitors within his own administration.

    If Obama is going to be the President he advertised himself to be, he has to act sometime on or shortly after 12 June next. He doesn’t have till the end of the year, which makes a red herring out of any so called compromises or give away to Netanyahu. Leverett, Cobban and others are warning about the constituencies and interests driving conflict and war, and unless Obama acts decisively and soon any and all opportunities to prevent it will be gone by December.

  2. Here’s the thing. Hillary was more liberal on domestic policy than Obama. The reason that so many of us voted for Obama was for a change in foreign policy, especially with respect to Hillary’s threat to “obliterate Iran.” If Obama lied about changing our foreign policy, I would just as soon have Hillary and, I would heartily agree that Obama deserves to be destroyed.

  3. Again Roger Cohen in the New York Times surprises:

    /snip/
    The president ceded to Israeli pressure for a timetable on any Iran talks, saying a “reassessment” should be possible by year’s end (Israel had pressed for an October deadline). Obama talked of the possibility of “much stronger international sanctions” against Iran, undermining his groundbreaking earlier overture that included a core truth: “This process will not be advanced by threats.”

    Obama also allowed Netanyahu to compliment him for “leaving all options on the table” — the standard formula for a possible U.S. military strike against Iran — when he said nothing of the sort. The president did, however, use that tired phrase in a Newsweek interview this month — another mistake given the unthinkable consequences of a third U.S. war front in the Muslim world.
    /snip/
    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/28/opinion/28iht-edcohen.html?_r=1&ref=global

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Share via
Copy link