What a difference a day makes.
Barak Obama has stumbled his way to almost locking in the Democratic nomination. Yet he continues to provide ample evidence that he is not quite ready for prime time. In just 24 hours, Obama reversed directions faster than it takes Jeremiah Wright to damn America.
"I mean, think about it. Iran, Cuba, Venezuela. These countries are tiny, compared to the Soviet Union. They don't pose a serious threat to us the way, the Soviet Union, posed a threat to us... If Iran ever tried to pose a serious threat to us, they wouldn't stand a chance."
Billings, Montana, May 19, 2008. After John McCain calls Obama to task as reckless and naive for stating that Iran was not a threat to the US, Obama tells a crowd in Montana:
"I've made it clear for years that the threat from Iran is grave...Iran is a grave threat."
In addition to his problems with history and geography, Obama has a bit of an issue with the concept of time. He's made it clear for years, that Iran is a grave threat. Yet just the day before, Obama clearly stated that "tiny" Iran did not pose a "serious threat" to the United States. Even in dog years, his claim that he has considered Iran a grave threat for "years" seems to be a bit of a stretch.
While Obama focused on the USSR's stockpile of thousands of nuclear missles to establish a strategic equivalence between Iran and the Soviet Union in order to defend and justify his position on engaging Iran in discussions without preconditions, Obama's time warp shows through. This is not the 1970's. And the leaders of Iran are not Soviet-era leaders.
The USSR's stockpile of nuclear weapons during the cold war was offset by the USA's stockpile of nuclear weapons. Those equivalent armories froze both countries from the use of those weapons under the doctrine of "MAD", or Mutual Assured Destruction. The initiation of a nuclear conflict by one party would lead to the obliteration of both parties. More than ample incentive to avoid a nuclear conflict at all costs.
One point Obama so sorely misses is that the greater threat is not from a country with thousands of missles, but from a nation possessing a handful, or a terrorist group that has one such weapon. Another point he fails to see is that secular governments like the former Soviet Union take no comfort in the rewards to be had in the next life for religious martyrs. The incentives to a secular government to avoid the use of nuclear weapons under doctrines like MAD turn into incentives to actually deploy such devices in the hands of governments and groups driven a religious belief that their use will reward the user in paradise.
Obama's lack of historical knowledge strikes further into his Billings, Montana speech. Obama attempts to inextricably link McCain to Bush to further his claim that they are one in the same. In doing so, Obama stated:
“The reason Iran is so much more powerful than it was a few years ago is because of the Bush-McCain policy of fighting in Iraq and refusing to pursue direct diplomacy with Iran. They’re the ones who have not dealt with Iran wisely.”
Unbelievable. And factually inaccurate and misleading.
The reason Iran is where it is today vis a vis where it was a few years ago is because the US opted to defer to the European strategy of diplomacy without sanctions. And with regard to sanctions, the United Nations has seen fit, via China and Russia, to block any substantive measures through the Security Council.
But we can easily trace Iran’s beginnings as a rouge state and sponsor of terrorism to one Jimmy Carter. When Iran overthrew the Shah, the US did nothing to assist their ally. Emboldened by their success, the Iranian revolutionary movement stormed the US Embassy in Iran, taking it over and taking its occupants hostage. For over 400 days, Carter did nothing to respond to an invasion of US territory (the Embassy), nor did he do anything to convince the Iranians to release their captives. We cannot count the failed rescue attempt, since the failure was primarily attributable to Carter’s micromanagement of a field operation from Washington.
Carter’s weakness and lack of resolve was the catalyst for radical Islam’s entry onto the world stage.
The only thing that “convinced” the Iranians to release the American hostages was Carter’s failure to gain reelection. The hostages were released on the very day Reagan was sworn into office. A final rebuke from the Iranians against Carter, and a very public acknowledgment that the “diplomacy” of force trumped talk.
While Obama will continue to try to link McCain to Bush, that strategy may backfire. McCain's "maverick" label stuck long before the 2008 Presidential race, and most Americans are intelligent enough to know that McCain is not George Bush. However, the similarities between Obama and Jimmy carter are indeed compelling, and cry out for comparison. In one of Obama's recent speeches, he sounded like he was channelling Jimmy Carter when he admonished the nation to adjust their thermostats and quit hogging all that oil. And, more to the point, Obama's desire to talk to state sponsors of terrorism like Iran is virtually a carbon copy of Jimmy Carter's policies on Iran in the late 1970's and early 1980's. For all intents and purposes, Obama is the second coming of Jimmy Carter.
The Bush/McCain link may not stick, but a Carter/Obama tag just might get some mileage.
Obama would do well to heed the time proven advice of George Santayana: "Those that cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it". And the American voters would do well to remember that in November.