Iran, Cuba, Venezuela, these countries are tiny compared to the Soviet Union. They don't pose a serious threat to us the way the Soviet Union posed a threat to us,” Obama saidThe ironic hypocrisy of this statement is astounding. This is the same candidate that has been against the Iraq War from the beginning calling it a strategic blunder. He claims we cannot defeat a group of terrorists with even less military resources than Iran militarily, and yet he brushes off a war with Iran as though that would be a cakewalk. Of course, everything that applies in Iraq would apply in Iran, and yet he makes that war seem so easy.
Obama seemed to brush off these concerns about Iran’s threats while campaigning in Oregon. “Iran, they spend 1/100th of what we spend on the military. If Iran ever tried to pose a serious threat to us, they wouldn't stand a chance,” Obama said.
Furthermore, the mullahs and Ahmadinejad are different than the Soviets in a very important way. The Soviets believed in the basic human condition of self preservation. One thing they cherished is their own existence. The mullahs and Ahmadinejad aren't like that at all. They would welcome an all out war as long as millions of Americans go with them because they believe that is their ultimate destiny anyway.
Furthermore, Iran doesn't need to attack us directly. They can hand off any weapon to any terrorist group including Hamas and Hezbollah and have them use it on our nation.
Barack Obama is caught with a serious foreign policy gaffe. He is on record as wanting to meet with our worst enemies with no pre conditions, and that is dangerous. Because he is now in a position to defend the indefensible, he continues to dig a hole deeper and deeper and this latest statement is yet another example.
Just recently, three prominent Democrats distanced themselves from the policy of unconditional talks with Iran.
Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. of Delaware, former Sen. Gary Hart of Colorado and former Rep. Harold E. Ford Jr. of Tennessee distanced themselves from Mr. Obama's position, each saying that preconditions for any such meeting would be essential.That's a large concession because that is the center piece of the Obama doctrine. The article continues...
"I'll concede, you cannot meet with foreign leaders — with terrorists, rather, those that lead rogue nations — without some conditions," Mr. Ford said on NBC's "Meet the Press."
"I don't think Barack Obama or any other president is going to meet with a head of state without lower-level discussions preceding that," he said on CNN's "Late Edition." "What you do is send diplomats and negotiators to explore areas of mutual interest. And if it does seem profitable, then you go to the heads of state."
Mr. Biden, who is chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and sought the Democratic presidential nod this year, said Mr. Obama gave the "wrong answer" in the debate, but added that the senator from Illinois has "learned a hell of a lot."
Of course, this wasn't simply a wrong answer in a debate. On his own web site, Barack Obama touted himself as being the only candidate ready to proceed with unconditional negotiations with our enemies.
The fact is that Barack Obama's foreign policy is the center piece of someone with little foreign policy experience. That's why he thinks that sitting down with Ahmadinejad is a good idea. He simply doesn't know any better. The longer he continues to try and defend the policy the worse it is for him.
Here is how the McCain campaign responded...
Before I begin my prepared remarks, I want to respond briefly to a commentSenator Obama made yesterday about the threat posed to the United States by the Government of Iran. Senator Obama claimed that the threat Iran poses to our security is “tiny” compared to the threat once posed by the former Soviet Union. Obviously, Iran isn’t a superpower and doesn’t possess the military power the Soviet Union had. But that does not mean that the threat posed by Iran is insignificant. On the contrary, right now Iran provides some of the deadliest explosive devices used in Iraq to kill our soldiers. They are the chief sponsor of Shia extremists in Iraq, and terrorist organizations in the Middle East. And their President, who has called Israel a “stinking corpse,” has repeatedly made clear his government’s commitment to Israel’s destruction. Most worrying, Iran is intent on acquiring nuclear weapons. The biggest national security challenge the United States currently faces is keeping nuclear material out of the hands of terrorists. Should Iran acquire nuclear weapons, that danger would become very dire, indeed. They might not be a superpower, but the threat the Government of Iran poses is anything but “tiny.”Last week, I pointed out that Barack Obama made a tactical political error by forcing foreign policy into the spotlight. As he continues to make naive statements that will bear out even more. On the other hand, the future of our foreign policy is a debate worth having, and thus it is a good thing that both Barack Obama's and John McCain's foreign policy vision are now front and center.
“Senator Obama has declared, and repeatedly reaffirmed his intention to meet the President of Iran without any preconditions, likening it to meetings between former American Presidents and the leaders of the Soviet Union. Such a statement betrays
the depth of Senator Obama’s inexperience and reckless judgment. Those are very serious deficiencies for an American president to possess. An ill conceived meeting between the President of the United States and the President of Iran, and the massive world media coverage it would attract, would increase the prestige of an implacable foe of the United States, and reinforce his confidence that Iran’s dedication to acquiring nuclear weapons, supporting terrorists and destroying the State of Israel had succeeded in winning concessions from the most powerful nation on earth. And he is unlikely to abandon the dangerous ambitions that will have given him a prominent role on the world stage.
“This is not to suggest that the United States should not communicate with Iran our concerns about their behavior. Those communications have already occurred at an appropriate level, which the Iranians recently suspended. But a summit meeting with the President of the United States, which is what Senator Obama proposes, is the most prestigious card we have to play in international diplomacy. It is not a card to be played lightly. Summit meetings must be much more than personal get-acquainted sessions. They must be designed to advance American interests.
An unconditional summit meeting with the next American president would confer both international legitimacy on the Iranian president and could strengthen him domestically when he is unpopular among the Iranian people. It is likely such a meeting would not only fail to persuade him to abandon Iran’s nuclear ambitions; its support of terrorists and commitment to Israel’s extinction, it could very well convince him that those policies are succeeding in strengthening his hold on power, and embolden him to continue his very dangerous behavior. The next President ought to understand such basic realities of international relations.”