eeling from President Bush’s criticism of the
proposition that we should negotiate with terrorists,
“as if some ingenious argument will persuade
them they have been wrong all along,” Barack
Obama was at first indignant, declaring: “George
Bush knows that I have never supported engagement
with terrorists.” But apparently he doesn’t consider
Iran, for all the genocidal bellicosity of its President
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, a terrorist state: on Monday
he reaffirmed that he would indeed sit down with the
leaders of Iran (as well as with those of Cuba and
Venezuela), and that no one should be disturbed by
this, since these countries “don’t pose a serious threat
to us the way the Soviet Union posed a threat to us.”
And speaking specifically about Iran, the presumptive
Democratic nominee continued: “If Iran ever tried
to pose a serious threat to us, they wouldn’t stand a
chance. And we should use that position of strength
that we have to be bold enough to go ahead and listen.
That doesn’t mean we agree with them on everything.
We might not compromise on any issues, but at least,
we should find out other areas of potential common
interest, and we can reduce some of the tensions that
has caused us so many problems around the world.”
Yes, he really said that “we should find out other
areas of potential common interest.” He didn’t
explain what these might be, but here John McCain’s
comment was particularly apposite. “It shows naivete
and inexperience and lack of judgment,” observed the
GOP standard-bearer, “to say that he wants to sit
down across the table from an individual who leads a
country that says that Israel is a ‘stinking corpse,’ that
is dedicated to the extinction of the state of Israel. My
question is, what does he want to talk about?”
That’s not all. Obama is apparently not aware that
Ahmadinejad has made it clear that he is in no mood
to sit down with Americans unless the Americans
know their place. “The American administration,”
he said in 2006, “is still dreaming of returning the
Iranian people 30 years backwards. As long as America
has this dream, these [relations] will not happen.”
What should America do instead? “They should
wake up from this dream and see the facts. They
should change their behavior and mend their ways.
They should take a fair position. We have told them
what they have to do, and if they do it, there will be
no problem as far as we are concerned.”
“We have told them what they have to do, and if
they do it, there will be no problem as far as we are
concerned”! As if that weren’t clear enough, he
warned America and its allies that “if you want to
have good relations with the Iranian people in the
future, you should acknowledge the right and the
might of the Iranian people, and you should bow and
surrender to the might of the Iranian people. If you
do not accept this, the Iranian people will force you
to bow and surrender.”
Would Iran’s Thug-In-Chief regard Obama’s invitation
to sit down and chat as a sign that he was willing to
“bow and surrender”? There is no reason to think he
would regard it in any other way. Islamic law stipulates
that Islamic forces may only ask for a truce with the
enemy under two conditions: if they have a reasonable
expectation that the enemy may convert to Islam, or —
more commonly — if the Muslims are weak and need to
buy some time to recover their strength to fight again
more effectively. With this understanding, the Iranian
mullahs might be forgiven for assuming that if Obama is
coming to them hat-in-hand, he must be weak. Given
Ahmadinejad’s oft-repeated declarations that Israel will
soon cease to exist (it was only last week that he said that
it was “on its way to annihilation”), weakness might not
be the wisest thing to project to them at this point.
Unless, of course, the bright new President Obama
is prepared to deal with a nuclear mushroom cloud
over Tel Aviv. That will certainly give him and
Ahmadinejad plenty to talk about.