Free Markets, Free People

Amateur hour in foreign affairs

What’s the saying? “It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt?

Living proof:

Iran is enduring economic sanctions designed to slow the country’s nuclear weapons program, but President Obama’s team thought the regime might abandon dictator Bashar Assad over his use of chemical weapons in Syria’s civil war.

Samantha Power, the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, hoped that a team of UN investigators — many of whom, presumably, have a longstanding relationship with Iranian leaders — could write a report that would convince Iran to abandon its ally at the behest of the United States.

“We worked with the UN to create a group of inspectors and then worked for more than six months to get them access to the country on the logic that perhaps the presence of an investigative team in the country might deter future attacks,” Power said at the Center for American Progress as she made the case for intervening in Syria.

“Or, if not, at a minimum, we thought perhaps a shared evidentiary base could convince Russia or Iran — itself a victim of Saddam Hussein’s monstrous chemical weapons attacks in 1987-1988 — to cast loose a regime that was gassing it’s people,” she said.

Good lord … how freakin’ naive and inept is this bunch, really?

Result of naive thinking?

Rather than “cast loose” Assad after the latest chemical weapons attack, as the Obama team hoped, “Iran’s supreme leader Ayatollah Khamenei has warned the Obama administration against any proposed military strike on Syria,” as the International Business Times reports.

Look, it’s fairly simple – if the US is “for” something, Iran is most likely going to be against it. It has been like that for decades. And, in Iran’s world, Iraq does not equal Syria. More importantly, no matter what Syria does, it isn’t the “Great Satan”. And nothing his bunch has done in 4 1/2 years has changed that calculation one bit.

Incompetence on a level not yet seen before.


Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUponShare on RedditPin on PinterestEmail this to someone

32 Responses to Amateur hour in foreign affairs

  • McQ, as I think we both know, this is not incompetence.
    This is the result of living in a delusional cloud, which the Collective adopts as an article of faith.  To be part of that Collective, you must believe in lies.  And you must call all those who do not hold to the dogma various forms of evil.
    Pres. Red Line is not merely incompetent.  He is a Collectivist, and, hence, someone for whom all “facts” are plastic, all truths infinitely malleable, all ethics situational.

  • Not looking good for Team Obama.  They’ll have to cook-up some better false flags ‘ere they gets the votes from Congress…

    • The media is praying for an earthquake or murderer on the loose or another neglectful mother who killed her baby.

      • Or some guy to shoot up a school.  Or some dumb-ass black thug to get killed by someone with a white name.

  • They’re getting better though, I don’t see any blame cast on a YouTube film for this one……yet

  • Not to throw water on the party, but I seem to remember a story about an administration who tried to impress the Iranians with a Bible and a cake … or some such.


    A retired Central Intelligence Agency official has confirmed to the Senate Intelligence Committee that on the secret mission to Teheran last May, Robert C. McFarlane and his party carried a Bible with a handwritten verse from President Reagan for Iranian leaders.
    According to a person who has read the committee’s draft report, the retired C.I.A. official, George W. Cave, an Iran expert who was part of the mission, said the group had 10 falsified passports, believed to be Irish, and a key-shaped cake to symbolize the anticipated ”opening” to Iran.

    I guess a cake in the shape of a key isn’t quite as naive as believing the Iranians would abandon a client state.

    • Then perhaps it’s the serial incompetence at every thing they touch that is being highlighted.

    • I kinda see a bunch from the Reagan administration going on a totally sub-rosa trip to find anybody in Iran they could work with in 1987 fundamentally different than what Powers was talking about.
      We call that “readily distinguishable” in reviewing case-law.

    • Context … this happened a few years after the embassy takeover.  An argument can be made that the relationship with Iran hadn’t hardened to the point of no hope.  That argument can’t be made now or, for that matter, for the last 30 years at least.

      • I think we wanted to counterbalance the monster that was made with Saddam and the fact saddam started cozying up to the Soviets. 

    • That actually sounds more like Clinton’s “reset” button she presented to the Russians. Except I suspect Reagan’s team didn’t mess up the translations.

  • [F]or this administration to redeem its credibility now would require a change of direction and method so radical it would be the national equivalent of the comeback of Lazarus: a miraculous revolution in the condition of an individual (President Obama), and a comparable metamorphosis (or a comprehensive replacement) of the astonishingly implausible claque around him.
    Until recently, it would have been unimaginable to conceive of John Kerry as the strongman of the National Security Council. This is the man who attended political catechism classes from the North Vietnamese to memorize and repeat their accusations against his country of war crimes in Indochina, and, inter alia, ran for president in 2004 asserting that while he had voted to invade Iraq in 2003, he was not implicated in that decision because he did not vote to fund the invasion once underway. (Perhaps Thomas E. Dewey would have been an upset presidential winner in 1944 if he had proclaimed his support for the D-Day landings but advocated an immediate cut-off of funds for General Eisenhower’s armies of liberation.)

    We have certainly sunk low.  Erp and his ilk must be so proud.


    • I wonder if President Go it alone is wondering if returning Churchill’s bust and other insults directed at the UK are serving him well now?

      • That could be a factor, but I doubt very much of one.
        I think the Brits are just voting their interests, and they don’t see much of any interest in backing the Obamic Operation SaveFace.
        Moreover, contra Erp, Iraq was not a foreign policy disaster.  I was certainly a PR and propaganda disaster.  The Collective was very successful in making it all that, world-wide.
        It was SO successful, that now people who would knee-jerk to support Obama’s dreaminess are pulling up short…thinking all that bullspit will fall on them now.

        • “The Collective was very successful in making it all that, world-wide.”
          Right up there with the way we ‘lost’ the Tet-offensive in ’68.
          Now though, we’re supposed to turn line up with flags so Benghazi Barry can have his face saving offensive in Syria.

  • What we are witnessing now in the United States, by contrast, is just the backwash of inept policy-making in Washington, and nothing that could not eventually be put right. But for this administration to redeem its credibility now would require a change of direction and method so radical it would be the national equivalent of the comeback of Lazarus: a miraculous revolution in the condition of an individual (President Obama), and a comparable metamorphosis (or a comprehensive replacement) of the astonishingly implausible claque around him.
    Ouch !!


    “We will be able to hold Bashar al-Assad accountable without engaging in troops on the ground or any other prolonged kind of effort in a very limited, very targeted, short-term effort that degrades his capacity to deliver chemical weapons without assuming responsibility for Syria’s civil war. That is exactly what we are talking about doing – unbelievably small, limited kind of effort.”

    Yeeeup.  I find that statement totally believable.  Assad will find it “unbelievably small”…as in ineffective.

  • And now…..
    In response to the idea that the US can bomb Syria directly…..we shouldn’t consider ourselves ‘at war’ it seems, and we’re not to take any Syrian threats about retaliation seriously.
    Let’s check some similar situations –
    The Japanese launch an attack with bombs only, no boots on the ground, to degrade American military capabilities in December of 1941.
    And let me guess they figured we wouldn’t retaliate?   That any threat of American retaliation was not to be taken seriously?
    And were we being unreasonable when we decided we should?
    This business of us bombing people, and thinking it’s okay if we bomb people, in limited capacity as if it’s NOT an act of war is getting way the f* out of hand
    or is it just me?

    • And let me go a step further and ask….
      If Syrian agents, knowing they can’t bring ships and guns and planes across the ocean to attack us directly…..if they decide to blow something up here in the US using ‘spies’….after we
      bomb Syria.
      Is it an act of war?  is it an act of terror?   Or is it just another case of Work Place Violence?
      And if it’s an act of terror, why is them bombing us on foot an act of terror, but us using high tech to bomb them NOT an act of terror?

      • Easy for them to say…

        • Well, yeah, they’re spending some ridiculous amount on barrage balloons with FLIR and heaven knows what else to protect Washington from cruise missile attack.
          Last time I checked we peasants are on our own so when spoldiedopes walk across the non-existent ‘secure’ border we’ll have to hope for the best.  Perhaps some Dutch film director here on vacation will stop them  because our SWAT teams are busy taking out dangerous 107 year old men, rousting gold miners in Alaska and killing fawns in animal shelters.