Bush’s Man In Iran Lauds Obama’s Handling Of Iran Crisis
John McCain and other Republicans and conservatives have been hammering away at Obama’s handling of the Iran crisis, saying that it has been insufficiently aggressive. This morning, McCain demanded that Obama “condemn the sham, corrupt election,” in order to “make sure that the world knows that America leads.”
But guess who is praising Obama’s approach and saying Obama’s right to refrain from McCainian chest-thumping: George W. Bush’s top negotiator with Iran, Ambassador Nicholas Burns.
In an interview today with NPR, Burns praised Obama’s handling of the crisis, and said that a more aggressive response would actually play into the hands of President Ahmadinejad.
“President Ahmadinejad would like nothing better than to see a very aggressive series of statements by the United States that would try to put the U.S. in the center of this,” Burns said. “And I think President Obama is avoiding that quite rightly.”
“This is not a dispute for the U.S. to be the center of,” Burns said at another point. “It’s up to Iranians to decide who Iran’s future leaders will be. He said he respects Iran’s sovereignty. I think it was important to do that.”
Burns said that Obama was right to refrain from throwing the U.S.’s weight around while giving props to reformers. He praised Obama for being “low-key” while saying he’s concerned about the plight of reformers and inspired by them, which Burns called a “balancing act.” Audio here.
It’s worth recalling that this is, in a sense, a replay of the 2008 election. McCain repeatedly suggested that Obama couldn’t be trusted to respond to bad actors or crises with aggressive enough displays of American force and will-power. Obama responded that chest-thumping could sometimes prove less productive than a lighter diplomatic touch. On this one, at least, Obama has the support of Bush’s Man in Iran.
The homepage of this blog is here. RSS feed here. Twitter feed here. Email me here.
He’s not the only one praising Obama’s handling. I just saw an article from Pat Buchanan essentially saying that Obama’s middle east strategy is exactly what’s needed. It’s nice to hear some rational voices
Here’s Buchanan’s story:
http://townhall.com/Columnists/PatBuchanan/2009/06/16/outlasting_the_ayatollahs
Whew…how many times would McCain have inched toward the “red button” if he had won in 2008? I mean, have some of these people learned nothing about the lack of “soft power” and diplomacy over the last decade…Props to this guy and Richard Lugar(R) for countering McCain (”Bomb, bomb, bomb, Bomb, bomb Iran”) on this.
For god’s sake – what do they want? They want him to take advantage of this and move in and take over Iran and that’s not happening.
Actually, what is happening now is the most encouraging thing I’ve seen since they overthrew the damn Shah who spent all their money quite lavishly on himself.
The way things are going, we’re seeing actual attempts at change and I think it’s a response to what happened here – with Obama and what he’s said so far. The young intelligentsia in Iran want the same kind of change we got. They’re not going to get it, but for god’s sake, this is the best I’ve seen in Iran for years – Khomeini blinked!
Greg – I’m getting the “you’re posting too fast” this morning.
“Here’s Buchanan’s story:”
I hate to throw cold water on you, but I do not give one damn what that racist Pat Buchanan thinks about ANYTHING. I’m sick of liberals and others quoting that unregenerate racist.
Just leave Buchanan out of this, and everything else please. It reminds me of ‘04, when half the liberals I knew where pushing for Kerry to choose McCain as a running mate. Yeah that would have worked. There’s no reason for CNBC to have Buchanan on at all and I can’t believe they made him their Pet Racist.
Burns is a diplomat. McCain doesn’t do diplomacy. Diplomacy is for the weak.
@ Tena re: Buchanan
Amen! For the life of me I can not understand why people continue to legitimize that racist SOB.
Nicholas Burns is a career diplomat who could hardly be characterized as a conservative voice. Since he is and always has been a strong supporter of diplomacy this opinion does not seem noteworthy in the least. Arguably, his most visible post has been as the Clinton administration’s top State Department spokesman for Warren Christopher and Madeleine Albright.
sbj — is the fact that he can’t be characterized as a conservative voice reason not to listen to him?
War and more war, thank God for Glorious War!!
@Greg: No, it is reason to find this statement entirely unremarkable. I find your headline intentionally misleading, intentionally associating Burns with Bush – as if to say, “Here’s yet another conservative who thinks Obama is doing a great job.”
Greg, I think sbj’s point is that Nick Burns’ opinion doesn’t count because what he said is not irrational and bellicose enough to be considered conservative.
Also, your headline, while correct, is like reality: liberally biased.
sbj: the time for shutting up and allowing the Iranian opposition do engage their government is now. The US has no option but to make encouraging noises. Any strong statement will play into the hands of Ahmadinejad.
I would listen to Mr Burns anytime over John Bolton of Trigger McCain. Both are hot headed and, thankfully, both have no influence on current events.
Greg: I don’t see Burn as Bush’s man. As a pro he had to advance Bush’s policies with some reigning in authorised by Powell, and to a lesser extent Rice. Now if you want to look at Bushies in action at State: John Bolton and Lynn Cheney come to mind.
@SimonJ: Please do not mistake my comment as a criticism of Obama’s approach. Burns is a career diplomat and as such I don’t find his support for Obama’s approach noteworthy. He has already, after all, supported Obama’s talk-to-Iran-without-preconditions strategy. I do believe that Greg’s purpose with the headline and post was to poke at conservative critics and he did this by (accurately) associating Burns with Bush. One could just as easily have written “Clinton No. 3 diplomat supports Obama.” But that wouldn’t have had the same partisan political impact.
.
I think Obama’s approach may be correct although I find it a bit late in coming. I would prefer a slightly more forceful condemnation of the violence perpetrated against peaceful demonstrators – but at least he said something, a balancing act as Burns said. I love the fact that Obama now almost entirely embraces the Bush view that Democracy is the God-given right of all people and I hope that he says more along these lines in future.
“Today we are all Iranians…er, Iranian opposition i mean”
-J McCain
Like I stated in my previous post. Dick Lugar(R) is also countering McCain’s position…
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/16/dick-lugar-obama-doing-th_n_216074.html
And sbj~ you are so accusatory of Greg’s posts (all of them lately), yet there is truth in your very criticism…There ARE conservatives that think Obama is going a good job on foreign policy…TRUE conservatives believe in RESTRAINT on foreign policy issues, not this whole “Nation building/spreading democracy and christianity around the globe” frame of mind that seemed to dominate the Bush/Cheney Admin. The United States displays the power of Democracy, it supports Democracy throughout the World…but invading countries in order to establish a democratic government it is not a conservative position. We are justifiably at war with Al Q in Afghanistan/Pakistain because of 9/11, but as we can all see, the “nation building on behalf of democracy” isn’t going so well in Iraq and if it had been left up to McCain, we could very well be in some sort of military confrontation with N. Korea and Iran by now…also, I believe we are witnessing an end to the “Republican’s are the strongest on national security and foreign policy” mantra that has dominated the talking points…
@JennD: “the “nation building on behalf of democracy” isn’t going so well in Iraq”??????????
.
On the contrary – Democracy in Iraq is remarkable. If we begin to see Democracy spread throughout the Middle East, as is my hope and I believe the hope of Obama, then the Iraq effort will surely be regarded by historians as the starting point.
@JennD: (You’re not supposed to be replying to me!) To address some of your other points. I never even came close to claiming that there were not conservatives who think Obama is doing a good job on foreign policy – my point was that Burns is not one of them. Bush never started a war to spread Christianity throughout the globe – that’s a ridiculous assertion. Invading countries to establish a democratic government it is not a conservative position, but some conservatives DO support the forceful overthrow of violent dictators who commit crimes against their own people. Especially when they control a large portion of the world’s oil reserves – a strategic resource, like it or not, important to our country’s very existence. I’m not sure how you can claim that McCain would now have us at war with N Korea and Iran – that’s also ridiculous.
McCain would have most likely declared war on Czechoslovakia by now.
sbj: the tone of your response is appreciated. I have read your response to JennD and am surprised at your refernce to oil reserves in Iraq. I give you another despotic regime: saudi Arabia. Should we do something there? The do not recall Saddam refusing to sell oil to us.
As for McCain: we have Lugar to thank for a cool Republican’s cautious response. McCain has stopped being sensible about foreign policy some time ago. Mine is a military family. I am struck by how they see war as a very last resort.
The statements McCain and the neo-cons want Obama to make will only strengthen and emboldened A’jad and Khameini. Right now, this is a grass-roots movement. The protestors are motivated mostly by domestic concerns, not by a hatred or love of the US and not by the Iranian nuke – should they or shouldn’t they – question. The moment this movement looks like it has full US backing is the moment that A’jad and his cronies will come out and say that the protestors are merely American stooges, funded and supported by the CIA. These protestors represent mostly the urban educated class and they are relatively young. On the other side are the regime hardliners, folks who will support the regime no matter what. (either because they fall for A’jad’s populist BS – these would be the more religious and poor rural folks – or because they benefit – ie, $$$$ – from being friends of the regime) Then there are a bunch of people who don’t really fall into either camp. Many of these unaligned folks are not particularly happy with the ruling regime. These are the folks the protestors need to win over to their side – numbers matter here. But they won’t win them over if the regime is able to paint the protestors as just a bunch of spoiled university students who are working for the CIA against the Iranian people. Of course, the neo-cons and hotheads like McCain want A’jad to remain in power so it’s not surprising that they want Obama to meddle in this internal Iranian crisis.
@SimonJ: What happens in Saudi Arabia is to be despised and I hope that this country one day also sees Democracy. (I am reminded of Francine in American Dad singing The Worst Place in the World [Stan of Arabia]). Although both countries had oil reserves and a despotic regime in common I otherwise do not find the comparison apt. I’m sure you are aware, Simon, that there were many other factors (besides the importance of oil reserves) in play with regards to the invasion of Iraq (their bellicose nature – invasion of Kuwait, war with Iran, destruction of Kuwait oil fields, support for terrorists, previous use of biological weapons, refusal to comply with UN sanctions, etc). I do not think the two situations analogous. The authorization for the use of force provided many reasons for the invasion of Iraq and, while you might not agree with them, many of the reasons do not apply to Saudi Arabia. I did not say that the only reason conservatives might support an invasion was due to the importance of oil reserves. I am one of those crazies who feels that Iraq did not honor the terms of surrender (Iraq War I) and that therefore our invasion (Iraq War II) was justified on that basis alone.
sbj – “I love the fact that Obama now almost entirely embraces the Bush view that Democracy is the God-given right of all people and I hope that he says more along these lines in future.”
Excuse me? Bush’s view? How about Jefferson and Madison? Remember them? Attributing this basic American perspective to George W. Bush is a bit more than just foolish. As is the implication that Obama ONLY NOW embraces this view that goes back to Jefferson’s penning of the Declaration of Independence.
Jefferson’s view, as that of other Democrats as well as Obama I suspect, is that America’s liberty is to be as a beacon to the world lighting the way to freedom. Liberty is not something that can be merely foisted upon a people in the Bush/Rummy/Cheney style, as those who have read Jefferson’s writings (particularly on the French Revolution) would know.
“Instead of that liberty which takes root and growth in the progress of reason, if recovered by mere force or accident, it becomes with an unprepared people a tyranny still of the many, the few, or the one.” –Thomas Jefferson to Lafayette, 1815. ME 14:245
“In these countries [of Europe],… ignorance, superstition, poverty, and oppression of body and mind, in every form, are so firmly settled on the mass of the people, that their redemption from them can never be hoped. If the Almighty had begotten a thousand sons, instead of one, they would not have sufficed for this task. If all the sovereigns of Europe were to set themselves to work, to emancipate the minds of their subjects from their present ignorance and prejudices, and that, as zealously as they now endeavor the contrary, a thousand years would not place them on that high ground, on which our common people are now setting out.” –Thomas Jefferson to George Wythe, 1786. ME 5:396
Otherwise, the “If Iraq, why not invade Saudi Arabia” argument is valid. And why not Uzbekistan? Or why not any other dictatorship that would require decades of US involvement, trillions of dollars, and thousands of American lives?
Obama may be able to salvage something of Bush’s failed foreign policies, but it’s a long shot at best. That doesn’t mean Bush’s policies weren’t a disaster to begin with. Just because the tow-truck operator is able to pull the bus out of the ditch doesn’t mean the bus driver was a great driver.
@sbl: based upon your list of reasons to invade iraq, we should also then invade n korea and iran (invasion/war with neighbors, ‘bellicosity’, support of terrorists, weapons of mass distruction, flaunting of un sanction – true in both cases). but the world is not as simple as you and the military-dodging, cowboy-esque leaders of the last administration (and the GOP in general) would like it to be. even george sr realized this and stopped at the iraq/kuwait border. the reason we went into iraq is quite simple – bush & co. thought it would be easy, thought it would scare/impress the rest of the world (aka the aforementioned n korea and iran), and thought there was commercial/economic benefit to be had. they were sadly wrong on all counts but that’s what happens when silver-spoon neocons play army.
sbj – “I do not think the two situations analogous. The authorization for the use of force provided many reasons for the invasion of Iraq and, while you might not agree with them, many of the reasons do not apply to Saudi Arabia.”
.
Many of the reasons given to invade Iraq also did not apply to Iraq either. Nor reality.
.
Among the whoppers:
—
Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsi-
bility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests,
including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are
known to be in Iraq;
.
Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security
of the United States and international peace and security in
the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable
breach of its international obligations by, among other things,
continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and
biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons
capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;
Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001,
underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition
of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist
organizations;
.
Whereas Iraq’s demonstrated capability and willingness to use
weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi
regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise
attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide
them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme
magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and
its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by
the United States to defend itself;
http://www.c-span.org/resources/pdf/hjres114.pdf
—
BTW – MOST of the 9/11 terrorists were Saudi. NONE were Iraqi.
.
The two major reasons given in the AUMF were based on the false assumption that Iraq was linked to 9/11, and that Iraq was about to be able to turn an American city into “a mushroom cloud” with the WMD that Rummy said he knew for a fact, existed and where they were in Iraq.
http://www.americanprogress.org/kf/priraqclaimfact1029.htm
.
These two excuses for invading Iraq were known to be false at the time, and time (and the Duelfer Report) has since proven the already dubious claims of the AUMF false.
Where are you guys getting the idea that I support the invasion of several countries? (And thanks for the Jefferson essay.)
sbj: you gloss over the fact that the Saudis funded the madressas in Pakistan which in turn produced so many of the jihadis. Saudi’s used their passports to enter the US for the 9/11 disaster because Saudi passports enabled a travel agent to issue US visas. No other Arab country enjoyed that advantage.
Perhaps we should not revisit the Iraq War; it’s been hashed over but still rears it head in court cases. But any attempt on our part to inject ourselves into the present trouble in Iran will give A’jad and the Ayatollahs an excuse to justify their actions against the protesters. If we have learned anything, it is that our sense of self-righteousness brands us as hypocrites because we are selective about the issues and countries we criticise in the Middle and Near East.
@SimonJ: You know, I have never once in this thread advocated for injecting ourselves into the present trouble in a ham-handed fashion. I disagree that we should do nothing for fear of being branded hypocrites: “A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.” While I agree that we should be careful not to provide an excuse to justify actions, I do think there’s a right way to exert greater influence. (See Reagan/Poland link.) I don’t believe our message should be “we won’t meddle,” and I think that the violence there is more than simply “troubling.” It seems to me that the message we are delivering right now is that we will still talk to this govt without preconditions no matter how badly they stomp on the protesters. There has to be a limit to what we will abide and there should be consequences; I haven’t heard much about the consequences Iran might suffer for a brutal crackdown on dissent.
.
http://hotair.com/archives/2009/06/16/reagan-didnt-remain-silent-on-poland/
.
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NzVhYjk5NGI5ZWU5NmRhYzk5ODY5ZmZiZDNmZTZmMmM=
Links await moderation so I’ll post content in the meantime.
.
@SimonJ: You know, I have never once in this thread advocated for injecting ourselves into the present trouble in a ham-handed fashion. I disagree that we should do nothing for fear of being branded hypocrites: “A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.” While I agree that we should be careful not to provide an excuse to justify actions, I do think there’s a right way to exert greater influence. (See Reagan/Poland link.) I don’t believe our message should be “we won’t meddle,” and I think that the violence there is more than simply “troubling.” It seems to me that the message we are delivering right now is that we will still talk to this govt without preconditions no matter how badly they stomp on the protesters. There has to be a limit to what we will abide and there should be consequences; I haven’t heard much about the consequences Iran might suffer for a brutal crackdown on dissent.
so to the majority of dopes on this post I guess doing nothing is smart power. Only the weak believe weakness is power. Come on 2010!!!
@jax: and only the paranoid or megolomaniacle chose military solutions before exhausting diplomacy. which are you (i’m guessing the former)?
@jax: further, remember the mantra of the 80’s when dealing with the soviets: trust but verify. how do you think it would have worked out if we invaded the ussr instead of using diplomacy to postpone conflict until the system fell apart on it’s own? but that might be asking too much of your type – thinking that is.
Isn’t this what George W Bush told you was going to happen in the Middle East?
Maybe that’s why Barack Obama has so little apparent interest in finishing the job in Iran… no matter how much it benefits the US and free world.
Anyone who expected him to act in the interests of the United States -rather than for his own political security- hasn’t taken a serious look at how Obama got this far in the first place.
President Obama is doing the right thing by staying out from Iran’s issues
the fact that the administration asked Twitter to remain opens means that President Obama understand and closely follow the situation.
If he is smart as I think he is. He should continue to stay out and not get involves
If he starts meddling with Iran, He would fall right into President Ahmadinejad hands.
OBAMA RUNS FROM IRAN!!!
I always thought our colors (flag) never runs…however obama proved me wrong!!!
obama reaction : i ran!!!! (IRAN)
I wonder what triggered all of this. Could it be that young Iranians see what Iraq has now and they want freedom and democracy as well? Was this part of the plan all along? That is what I always thought. I hope Obama can close the deal though.
Do you suppose Obama is nervous about these happenings? Revolutions trigger others and there are many in our country itching for for one. Fortunately, we tend to use a more “civil disobedience”. With that having been said, John F. Kennedy once said, “Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.” So don’t forget what Thomas Jefferson pointed out, “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure.”