"Of all the sins which a leader can be guilty, few are as egregious as the simple refusal to lead. Watching President Barack Obama's at first deafening silence and then weak and hyper-cautious words on Iran has been disappointing and painful.
Our president must decide if he will serve as leader, or spectator, of the free world. This time no one is asking an American president to send in troops; no one is suggesting the deployment of laser-guided bombs. All it takes is a forthright statement from the leader of the free world: 'The people of the United States support the people of Iran in their legitimate quest for democracy and freedom and will hold accountable any and all parties responsible for the bloodshed of nonviolent demonstrators.'
"...Forty-six years ago another young charismatic president went to the very symbol of Soviet oppression in Berlin and directly inserted himself into Soviet affairs by identifying himself with the people who were risking their lives for liberty. 'All free men, wherever they may live, are citizens of Berlin, and, therefore, as a free man, I take pride in the words Ich bin ein Berliner.'
With every passing day I grow more concerned about what might be termed the Obama doctrine. What is it? As best as I can discern, it is a preservation of the status quo. As Obama himself put it, 'America does not presume to know what is best for everyone.'
"Rarely before has an American president spoken out so forcefully in favor of moral relativism." (emphasis added)
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1245184900453&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
~~~~~~~~~~
The supreme irony is that while Obama stands on his head to avoid what he calls "meddling" in Iran, the regime is accusing him of meddling.
~~~~~~~~~~
It pleases me that our leaders have now decided to speak considerably more forcefully on Iran.
Yesterday Foreign Minister Lieberman called for involvement of the UN Security Council in the course of a statement that was clear and direct. In Ottawa to meet with Canadian Foreign Minister Lawrence Cannon, he expressed his position to the press:
...that what has been going on in Iran was the result "of a crazy regime (this man does not mince words) shooting at its citizen in the streets. Everyone needs to be clear about the danger of that type of regime holding nuclear weapons.
"...the events in Iran over the last few days obligate a clear response from the international community, first of all to convene an emergency session of the UN Security Council."
~~~~~~~~~~
PM Netanyahu, for his part, focused more on the positive. In an interview with the German newspaper, Bild, he said:
"What would be good news for Israel is a regime that stops crushing dissent, stops supporting terror, and stops trying to build nuclear weapons.
"It would mean a regime that stops denying the Holocaust and stops threatening Israel with destruction. There is no conflict between the Iranian people and the people of Israel and under a different regime the friendly relations that prevailed in the past could be restored."
He further said that what the regime had done had "unmasked" them. "What we have seen in Iran is a powerful desire on the part of the people to be free..."
~~~~~~~~~~
Tom Gross, writing on the National Review Online Blog, asks, "So were the Neo-Cons right all along?"
"President Bush said liberating Iraq would have a regional domino effect and give people a taste for freedom and democracy. Is this what we’re seeing now in Iran?"
~~~~~~~~~~
Today Netanyahu started a three day visit -- to Rome, first, and then Paris.
In his meeting with Italian Premier Silvio Berlusconi, Iran was discussed at considerable length. Italy is one of the EU nations most kindly disposed to Israel, and interaction is warm and cordial.
What is startling is that Italy is also the number one European trade partner with Iran, accounting for 26% of the import-export trade between EU countries and Iran. Berlusconi said this would continue as long as the US approved.
~~~~~~~~~~
On another score: Just days ago, PM Netanyahu, in his major address, advocated a "demilitarized state" for the Palestinians. I may return to this with further detail, but wanted to mention here that this concept is not being well-received. Obviously not with the Palestinians, who won't hear of it, but in other quarters as well, notably with the Obama administration.
There is the issue of rendering the "Palestinian state" demilitarized, which means physically removing armaments from them, and then making certain they stay that way. Netanyahu has since expanded on his original statement, saying that he wasn't asking for international forces to go in, but rather for their recognition that Israel would be able to do what was necessary in this respect, and that Israel would reserve the right to go into that state after its formation, if necessary.
It seems to me that the big problem here is that he decided, in a nod to Obama, to label this area he was proposing for the Palestinians a "state," rather than using a term such as "autonomy." Because what he is describing isn't a state and now he is in a catch-22 situation of his own creation.
A state has a right to sanctity of borders and a right to defend itself. And he is suggesting that we would be able to cross the borders of this "state," and deprive it (this is all theoretical, of course) of the means for self-defense. It's not going to play, I think. (Although Berlusconi endorsed it today.)
~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~