November 2, 2007 10:13
Obama vs. Bush: The Great Mideast Debate
If Obama is trying to distinguish himself from other American leaders on the Middle East, he's doing a great job. His published views today on Iran are smart, measured and statesmanlike, in contrast, for example, to Bush's speech on terrorism last night, in which the president once again raised the specter of Muslim hordes crashing across our borders to destroy the American way of life. Take a look:
Obama on Iran, from today's New York Times:
In an hourlong interview on Wednesday, Mr. Obama made clear that forging a new relationship with Iran would be a major element of a broad effort to stabilize Iraq as he executed a speedy timetable for the withdrawal of American combat troops...Making clear that he planned to talk to Iran without preconditions, Mr. Obama emphasized further that “changes in behavior” by Iran could possibly be rewarded with membership in the World Trade Organization, other economic benefits and security guarantees.
"We are willing to talk about certain assurances in the context of them showing some good faith,” he said in the interview at his campaign headquarters here. “I think it is important for us to send a signal that we are not hellbent on regime change, just for the sake of regime change, but expect changes in behavior. And there are both carrots and there are sticks available to them for those changes in behavior."
Bush speaking to the Heritage Foundation:
...on September the 11th, 2001...our nation was attacked by a brutal enemy that despises freedom, that rejects tolerance, that kills the innocent in the pursuit of a dark vision. These folks believe that it's okay to subjugate women and indoctrinate children and murder those who oppose their harsh rule. They have stated clearly they want to impose this ideology on millions. They're at war with America because they hate what they stand for -- and they understand we stand in their way.We must take the words of the enemy seriously. The terrorists have stated their objectives. They intend to build a totalitarian Islamic empire -- encompassing all current and former Muslim lands, stretching from Europe to North Africa, the Middle East and Southeast Asia. In pursuit of their imperial aims, these extremists say there can be no compromise or dialog with those they call infidels -- a category that includes America, the world's free nation [sic], Jews, and all Muslims who reject their extreme vision of Islam. They reject the possibility of peaceful coexistence with the free world. Again, hear the words of Osama bin Laden last year: "Death is better than living on this Earth with the unbelievers among us."
Given the nature of the enemy and the words of its leaders, politicians who deny that we are at war are either being disingenuous or naive. Either way, it is dangerous for our country. We are at war -- and we cannot win this war by wishing it away or pretending it does not exist.
Take notice: on Iran, at least, Obama is speaking a new kind of language for mainstream American politics. For nearly 30 years since the Iranian revolution kicked out a shah who had been installed by the CIA, American leaders have been too timid to engage in a constructive dialogue with Iran. That includes Hillary's husband, whose curiosity was aroused by the moderate Khatami but failed to rise to the challenge of how to achieve a diplomatic opening for the good of both countries. Now Obama says he's willing to go to Iran to talk without preconditions, reward Iran with positive changes in behavior and demonstrate that the U.S. is not hellbent on regime change.
Contrast that with the Bush administration's approach, which, by the way, is getting a loud echo in the campaign of Republican frontrunner Rudy Giuliani. First, on terrorism, the subject of his latest speech. Bush speaks as if Bin Laden is the Sultan of Islam--he cited Bin Laden by name four times in one speech--with the world's billion Muslims on the verge of strapping on suicide vests for his final onslaught against Judeo-Christian civilization. Ten years after Al Qaeda burst on to the scene, there is no sign that Bin Laden has been able to build a popular political movement, even among supporters of Islamic fundamentalist organizations. The vast majority of Muslims reject Bin Laden's ideology, his methods and his leadership. When opinion polls show some sympathy for Bin Laden, it is almost entirely because those people see him, rightly or wrongly, as a lone Muslim ranger standing up to the West's onslaught against Islam. From the time that Bin Laden declared his jihad in 1996 until Bush invaded Iraq, Bin Laden and his sympathizers had managed to pull off a handful of suicide operations. The invasion of Iraq has seen an unprecedented wave of suicide bombings, numbering more than 700 in four years. Historians will have to decide whether it was Bin Laden who created the bombers, Bush's invasion or a combination of both.
Getting back to Iran, Condi Rice launched a small breakthrough by offering Iran negotiations and economic incentives if Iran suspended its uranium enrichment program--a program to which Iran is legally entitled as a signatory of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. At the same time, Cheney offers the opposite, saying that the Iranian regime is a despicable one whose demise America eagerly awaits--meaning, in effect, that the Bush administration's policy is really about the use of force with the objective of triumphing over Iran, one way or the other. You can't expect Iran to take Rice's conciliatory offer seriously if it is withdrawn in the next breath of bravado that Cheney takes. It's called setting up Rice's olive branch to fail. The Cheney/Bush approach would have a wee more credibility if U.S. pressure on Iran for three decades had had the least impact, and if America's increasing projection of power in the Middle East was achieving positive rather than negative results. It seems to me that in most of the Middle East's contests of the last 30 years, Iran has won most of them and America has won very few. Obama's approach thus makes more sense: it's coherent, it's humble, it's realistic, it might produce important results, and it strengthens America's moral authority and political standing if it proposes tough action against a recklessly recalcitrant Iran down the line.
From Cairo, of course, I have scant insight as to whether Obama's frank, realistic--and I would even say politically courageous--step toward Iran is in step with the mood of the American people. But certainly Americans now are getting a starker choice in the ways to approach the Middle East.
Let the debates continue!
--By Scott MacLeod/Cairo
| Sphere Related Blogs & Articles | | |
 |
Daily Email
Recent Posts
The Middle East Blog Archives
July 2008
Choose a day to view events.
<< Previous Months
Reader Comments
Posted by Honesty
November 2, 2007
But the entire quote from Bush is correct, so what is wrong with being accurate?
Posted by Honesty
November 2, 2007
After giving this some more thought, do you really think Osama Bin Laden is the only extremist? Have you not heard of the Muslim Brotherhood? There have been documented terrorist attacks by muslims against non-muslims since 9/11 in Britain, Spain, Russia, Morrocco, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, India, the Philippines and of course Iraq and Afghanistan. I'm sure there are several more that I'm just not aware of off the top of my head.
To blame that all exclusively on Bush or Bin Laden or a combindation of the two is absurd.
Posted by Joe
November 3, 2007
Obama do belong to worldly and brighter crop of politicians, unfortunately his chance of being elected is small, not only being black and inexperience make it difficult for him to get votes in mid and southern US state, also this single issue of Iran will put him at conflict with AIPAC and other Zionist lobby let along other issues, brave comments in his part and detrimental to his chances of being elected at same time, Iranian issue can only be solved when Israel influences over all US branches of government and society can be curtailed and managed, last thing Israel wants is a friendly relationship between US and Iran which will put Israel in second tier of geostrategic importance for US in that region relative to Iranian location, location, location!
Posted by Silverspoon
November 3, 2007
Obama is speaking for the majority of Americans tired of the ideological fights of the cold war of their grandparents and baby boomer parents.
This is the future of America that leads with respect not fear.
Posted by Silly
November 3, 2007
Forging a new relationship with Iran?
Moving away from regime change against Tehran?
What a couple of silly ideas! Given our glorious victories in Iraq and Afghanistan, why would anyone even consider non military solutions? Besides, our employers at Halliburton and AIPAC would never approved of such a silly idea.
Posted by horsham
November 3, 2007
Obama's approach to Iran is a sound one, much more likely to succeed than the current administration's bellicose approach. International relations are reactive--much alike personal ones: if you show courtesy, understanding and willingness to compromise to others, you will much more likely get the same in return. The problem of assuming the worst from your opponent is that you will never have a genuine chance of reconciliation, and as consequence you have to do all kinds of crazy things to deal with the presumed worst outcome. It's simply a downward spiral that sees no end.
I know Obama does not have a good chance to be elected, partly because people don't feel assured about his "inexperience"; voters tend to gravitate towards a glib opportunist such as Hilliary. Hillary will do fine as president, but Obama has the potential to do great things for this country.
Too bad that the average American voter is not bright enough to tell the difference.
Posted by norman ravitch
November 3, 2007
Good for Obama! He is the only candidate distancing himself from the Israel Lobby propaganda vs. Iran. I hope he can take the heat.
Posted by norman ravitch
November 3, 2007
You know, Ahmadinejad is no bargain, but if Israel stopped exploiting the Holocaust to justify its every extreme measure vs. peace in the Middle East perhaps Ahmadinejad would stop pretending the Holocaust never happened.
Posted by RuthieM
November 3, 2007
It strikes me as foreign, weird, not understanding, sad, outrageous, and incomprehensible that here in America I read and hear much too often that 'Oh Obama won't be elected'. And I ask myself why? Because he is black? Because they say he is too young, 46? How old should he be, 90? Because they say he has no experience? Who does? Who has? What kind makes one 'ready'? Sounds to me Obama might be 'overqualified'. I listen to the white Attorneys on news talk radio dismiss Obama's getting elected because he is black. Another dismisses him because he has no 'Executive Experience' he says. And these are attorneys saying this in our America, in 2007! People who are supposed to be representing people, people who are supposed to be openminded. Yet, day after day after day, Obama to me has come out on top of all these baffoons in his hope, his vision, his passion for America, his knowledge of world affairs, his abilities to bridge gaps in the world, and more. This is the real stuff I don't see or hear in any other candidate, republican or democrat. I only see and hear 'politics' as usual with them. And I think if America continues to view this new political landscape as though it is the same as the ones in the past, we will lose out on the chance to have one of the greatest presidents America has ever had. I think America cannot afford to turn their backs on Obama if they want a new America, a better America for us and our children, black and white, if they want a new direction, if they want to 'take back America'. And so the only way for that to be done is to elect Barack Obama in '08.
Posted by Frank
November 3, 2007
Thanks you Proud American for expressing a view that all decent American can agree on!
Posted by It's rainy in boston
November 4, 2007
Driesen, first off Obama doesn't take money from PAC's, and secondly he doesn't seem like he is missing any money from the 'Jews' or their PAC's, have you seen his fund raising numbers?
Also, I think that Obama's policy stance is very smart. The Bush rhetoric illicts anger from Iranians, and beating the drums of war isn't going to make them want to negotiate. Treating them with respect and sitting down at a table is the way to go.
All countries have their own self interests at heart, and clearly Iran doesn't want war with the US, but if the president keeps talking the way he has been it makes it harder for the Iranians to step back from this confrontation.
Posted by Scott MacLeod
November 4, 2007
FYI:
From time to time, the Middle East Blog finds itself needing to delete inappropriate comments, such as these two that came in on this blog post:
“You know if someone would just put a bullet in xxx’s head our world would be a little better place.
“US Jews are just bloodthirsty for war with Iran and will push their agenda at any cost.”
Reminder to fellow commentators: Let’s have a good discussion, as heated as you like, but please keep prejudice and hate speech out of the posts if you want to see them on the site.
Posted by denis
November 4, 2007
Removal of the second comment, despite its unfortunate use of the word "bllodthirsty" means to me that this blog will cave to American Jewish pressure, and has thereby disqualified itself as an open fprm for discussion. If we Americans can't comment on the untoward influence of Jews, Armenians, Poles and other ethnic interest groups, then we truly need another revolution, to restore true and effective free speech. If people can question Romney's Mormonism and Mormon influence, why can't others question Jewish influence?
Posted by Mark
November 4, 2007
Scott you think Obama's comments are so great because you are a liberal moron who doesn't know squat about the Middle East either.
You are both buffoons and liberals. No wonder you agree. At least Obama admits he is a liberal.
Posted by dave
November 4, 2007
Hi Denis
Regardless of whether this blog is censored or not, I really thing America is in urgent need of another revolution.
America is moving away from the spirit of freedom, justice and democracy with an accelerated speed. Can you recount any other time in history when American president and administration was so much the symbol of war, bullying, and puppet in the hands of Zionist lobby group and big corporate for the interest of a small group of people?
From the market of Cairo to the streets of Indonesia, bars of France and pubs of Germany , opinion polls in Canada, political comments of Ahmadinejad etc, unfortunately America has become the great bully that no longer respects the rules of fairness.
We all know about, Kyoto, Guatanamo, Iraq, Afghanistan, censorship and phone tapping at home and respect for human dignity and rights in cases like Maher Arar etc.
I think that is unfortunate given the positive role a great power could play to solve the world's problems.
I think like all great civilizations and powers in the history of mankind America has started its decline, politically, economically and morally. Maybe just maybe another revolution could save it. Maybe this revolution would be electing a more conscious president. But then again miracles rarely happen!
Posted by Not Mark
November 4, 2007
Mark
You seem very angry and frustrated! Why because you think everybody should speak the same voice of Zionist driven media?
Can't bear to hear a different opinion?
I think the guys know alot about Middle East at least more than a low IQ, fascist, loser like you would ever know!
I acutally always envy people like you how don't see the depth of the matters and are intellectullay challenged.
Posted by norman ravitch
November 4, 2007
The problem with the Israel Lobby is that the Democrats are even more beholden to it than the Republicans. I am sure Bush 41, James Baker, and that crowd have never understood why Dubya has fallen so completely for the right wing Zionist line.
As for right wing Zionism, of course it has the right to propagandize just like any other group. But do you know what right wing Zionism is? It is a form of integral nationalism, which originated in Austria, Germany, and France at the end of the 19th Century. It is essentially anti-democratic, it submits the individual to the welfare of the organic whole (state or movement or both). In other words, it is Fascism. Ironically its first victims and targets were the Jews, who then adopted the same ideology in self-defense.
Posted by Nathan
November 4, 2007
Ok, Bush. I get it. America never lets their enemies get away. The cat may run up the tree, but screw barking all night; America cuts the tree down. But seriously...its getting old; the world isn't going to end just because some crazy guy with a beard screamed jihad.
Everyone just needs to relax, take a nice long drink of the great envigorating elixer known as rationalism, and quit jumping on the war train just for the sake of sounding tough. Bush could learn a thing or two from Obama.
Posted by Always rains in Ireland
November 5, 2007
Why is it you Americans agree that
1)Bush is a bad leader
2) Obama would make a great presidant
3) America needs a social and proxy-political revolution
But you still vote in drum beating idiots with all the vision and diplomacy of a used sponge??????
Posted by N. Picker
November 6, 2007
I'm a nit-picker. It's hordes, not hoards. Well, not unless someone has a cache of Muslims that's about to topple over into our country. That'd be pretty damn irresponsible.
Posted by Scott MacLeod
November 6, 2007
Mr. Picker:
Right you are, of course. Many thanks.
Posted by Rhonda
January 10, 2008
Hey rains in Ireland! How do you know how they voted? You Don't know! You know I hate to be the _ _ _ hole here but, you admit that they vote not you. so obviously you don't know the struggles that Americans go through trying to pick a President that won't get the whole damned country killed. Unless you have a good way that no one else knows to be able to see who is a liar, and who is not . Well then who is the idiot here?