Posted by
Bill Crawford on Wednesday, June 24, 2009 10:45:46 PM
This is a question being forced by the turmoil in Iran right now. Even if the Muslim Clerics running the country put down the uprising and stabilize things, it has been established internationally that their hold on power is way more tenuous than anybody could have guessed a few weeks ago.
So this White House seems to be committed to continuing negotiations with the Mullahs to deal with their nuke program. At the same time, Obama seems to think he can plow closer to a Palestinean State solution than any of his predecessors.
Based on what? The power of his persuasion? Does he not only think he can convince the Isrealis to not act against Iran unilaterally, but use Teheran's nuke program as some sort of bargaining chip with the Likkud government?
Before the re-election sham, I could see the plausibility of trying that, if you were convinced (as Barrack obviously is) that an 'honest broker' approach with a smooth talker like Obama would win over both sides to concede enough.
Now it is obvious to more people than last week that dealing with Iran is an exercise in futility. Will this White House switch gears, or will he continue to chase after diplomacy in Teheran?
Herein lyeth the lesson du jour: George W. Bush wasn't quite as stupid or stubborn as he was made out to be. If the admission of that is a requirement to change course here, it will never happen.
And that is a crying shame.