Obama's Conundrum

“I wish I hadn’t said that.” How often have we all thought that? Certainly, some more than others but we’ve all said things that we wished we could have taken back. I would think our President is thinking along those lines as the chaotic climate in Iran continues to escalate. When the election results were announced and the protests began; Obama stated that there were no significant differences between the incumbent and alleged victor President Ahmadinejad and his opponent, Mir Hossein Mousavi. The President’s statement, in my opinion, was a safety net of sorts implemented to maintain the possibility of future negotiations with Iran.

In light of the continued violence and statements made by those who are truly in charge, the clerics; that difference appears to become more and more significant. Ayotollah Ahmed Khatami, a senior cleric, declared in a prayer sermon (yeah, a prayer sermon) “that the government should punish leaders of protests, who were supported by the united States and Israel, strongly and with cruelty so it will be a lesson for everyone.” How very holy of him!! www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31564910/ns/world_news-mideastn_africa I confess that I originally thought that the President’s olive branch extension was a wise move considering the previous administration’s position proved to be fruitless. Well, my new position is a simple one: Screw them!!

A recent article in Newsweek entitled Theocracy and Its Discontents by Fareed Zakaria outlines the power structure in Iran and the possibility of its complete collapse. While President Ahmadinejad can promise to be receptive to the West’s new approach (which is bullshit anyway); the fact remains that he does not set foreign policy. Foreign policy is set by those men of God, the Guardian Council and its Supreme Leader, Ayotollah Ali Khamenei. The persistence of the protestors is perceived by many to be a serious blow to the religious regime. These protests are akin to those in 1979 which enabled these hypocritical bastards to assume control. “Although Iran is Shia and most of the Islamic world is Sunni, Khomeni’s rise to power was a shock to every Muslim country, a sign that Islamic fundamentalism was a force to be reckoned with.” Now, the very tactics employed by the late Ayotollah Khomeni are being used to bite his successors right in their holy asses.

The point of this article (I admit to being derailed) is that though Obama may be right when he says he sees little difference; it has nothing to do with Ahmadinejad and Mousavi. It has to do with the fact that as long as the present regime, cloaked in religious dogma, has control; there is no chance of any reversal in Iran’s dealings with the U.S. They have long memories and vindictive tendencies. They will never forgive the U.S. for masterminding the coup of 1953 or its unholy alliance with the Shah preceding and following (not our finest hour) his removal from power.

Perhaps the President doesn’t need to retract his statement but clarify it. There is no difference, and there won’t be, until those men of God are removed from power. We have enough to deal with here at home with our own religious zealots who justify violence with religious rhetoric (abortion clinic bombings and murders). In regard to Iran; it may be prudent to step back and wait and see how effective these protests turn out to be.

Netanyahu vies for control of Israel

Last evening, President Obama primarily addressed economic and budgetary topics in his press conference. I was surprised that more attention was not given to the inevitable problems he will have to confront regarding the new government being formed in Israel. Israel now has the capability of presenting even further problems for an already beleaguered president. Personally, I am entering unchartered waters in regard to the nuances involved in the precarious state that Israel has been in for generations. So feel free to weigh in should I veer off-course.

I was prompted to research this potentially problematic situation by an article in MSNBC News, as I often am. See http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29862967. The story revolves around the creation of a new government headed by Benjamin Netanyahu, Prime Minister-designate and Chairman of the Lukid Party. He was given this task by Israeli President Peres in February of this year. He has wasted little time attempting to unite the various parties in order to gain complete control of the Knesset, the legislative branch of Israel. He has recently struck a deal with the Labor Party which is center-left. This is a significant accomplishment considering the Lukid Party is conservative. The Labor Party has joined the Shas, a conservative religious party, in siding with Netanyahu. As a result, the chairman of the Lukid’s negotiation team stated “Now, 53 members of the Knesset are bound by agreement to support a government headed by Benjamin Netanyahu…” as reported by Globes, Israel business news.

Standing between Netanyahu and complete control of the Knesset is the Kadima Party headed by Tzipi Livini. In the past election, the Kadima Party won 28 seats besting the Lukid Party, which won 27. (Still with me?) Many believe that Netanyahu will be able to win over the Kadima Party since it consists of former members of both the Labor and Lukid parties. Should he pull this off, he will have secured 80 seats out of a possible 120 in the Knesset.

Where am I going with all this you ask? An Israeli government led by Benjamin Netanyahu presents several obstacles to Washington’s quest to establish a two-state solution to the Palestinian/Israeli conflict. Netanyahu is not an advocate of this two-state system and his Foreign Minister, Avigdor Lieberman (must be the name) is “fervently anti-Arab.” While the Obama administration vows to work with whatever government is in control; its primary goal would appear to be out of reach. Part of the problem is that Netanyahu has cautiously begun negotiations with Syria. This is where it gets very interesting or very confusing; depending on your knowledge of the history between the two nations.

In the 1967 Six Day War; Israel was able to obtain the Golan Heights which is considered to be very important strategically. As part of the newly proposed negotiations, Syria would like the Golan Heights returned to them. 70% of Israelis vehemently oppose this move. Also as part of the agreement, Syria has insisted that Israel return some of the land it acquired in the war to Palestine as well; namely the West Bank. Hold the phone! Netanyahu has an almost pathological hatred of Iran, as do most Israelis. He feels that concessions previously made have already jeopardized the security of Israel. He cites the withdrawal from Lebanon in 2000 and from the Gaza Strip 5 years later as examples. For more on the fascinating story of The Six Day War; I recommend you visit http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761570433/six-day_war.html.

It is impossible to encapsulate the party differences, historical precedents, and omnipresent conflicts in a single article. So I will return to my original point. While we, as Americans, would settle for a modicum of bipartisanship; Netanyahu is seeking complete and unabated control of Israel’s legislative body. Should this transpire; President Obama will be faced with yet another dilemma. Can he continue to negotiate for a two-state solution at the risk of alienating our only ally in the Middle East? Or does he simply acquiesce and allow them to sort it out? Given our history; I’m afraid the former is the route he will choose.