Saturday, October 31, 2009

US Foreign Policy in the Middle East under the Obama Administration - Nine Months Later

Siding with Israel over Iran does not mean that it's OK to sell out American principles on peace in the Middle East.

I don't mean to be pessimistic on a new administration. Generally it's good to give people a chance to get some experience and confidence going on their new job. Still, when the new kid on the block repeatedly foments controversy, it's hard to ignore what is going on.

Why does it seem that every time Vice President Biden and Secretary of State Clinton make a statement in favor of Israel we need to tell ourselves to wait 24 to 48 hours until there is a retraction of some kind?

There needs to be ideological consistency out the White House. You can't blame Iran for being dangerous and then turn around and support Hamas.

On the matter of Iran, as said before, if there is military action against Iran, I would hope that it were by the US not Israel -not for Israel's sake, but for the well being of our troops overseas who are easier targets than anyone in the Land of Israel is. I don't care if they are holding guns, these brave soldiers are young Americans who are potentially in harm's way. America can and should protect it's own.

The prime responsibility of an American President is as Commander in Chief of the military. Iran's current regime is a potential threat to many members of that military.

Whereas the prime goal of foreign policy is to further national interests in a way that does not harm our allies, otherwise few trusted allies we would have, indeed. The territorial dispute in Israel should have zero to do with the foreign policy we show towards a world class dangerous regime in a different part of the Middle East. Please don't confuse the two.

Every time a tough statement is made against Iran, the current practice of this White House is to make some sort of corresponding verbal slight against Israeli rights to their land. If this is a calculated choice, it would be an effort at even handedness for the sake of even handedness, in a way that is not even handed at all.

Separate these two theaters of conflict within your foreign policy to prevent one large theater of war from believed intertwining interests that never existed until some foolish speech writer linked it all into a hodgepodge of pseudo even handedness and outright untruthfulness. The goal is to avoid conflict, not hasten it.

Please consider that perhaps the unintended message of this methodology is speaking louder than the intended message. The enemies of civilization tend pick and choose that which they want to hear. Therefore the upholders of civilization must be more circumspect in their speech.

No comments: