U.S. Realpolitik Readies to Betray Iran Opposition

An interesting article yesterday in the NY Times magazine by Roger Cohen, detailing the U.S. administration's maneuvering in relation to Iran. Cutting through the rhetoric of "concern" about the post-election outcome, Ross delivers this dire nugget of realpolitik:

'The Obama administration’s strong conviction, as several officials told me, is that Ahmadinejad’s election was fraudulent. But in the American interest, it is ready to overlook that and to talk. Restored relations with the Soviet Union came in 1933 at the time of the Great Terror, and with China in 1972 in the middle of the Cultural Revolution. But of course the bloodshed then — of an altogether different dimension — was not being YouTubed around the globe.'

Unlike Obama, the people of Iran are not prepared to "overlook" the theft of their democratic rights.

Much of the article revolves around Dennis Ross, a Beltway veteran with Israeli sympathies who has been drafted into the National Security Council and into the heart of Obama's Iran team. Cohen's article assures us that:

'Israel, which sees an existential threat in a nuclear Iran, has made clear that its patience is limited. The Ross team does not think Israelis are bluffing. They believe Israel views Iran in life-and-death terms.'

Israeli Zionists view everything in life-and-death terms, but no matter.

Further on, Cohen returns to the question of a strike on Iran's nuclear facilities by Israel:

'It is also clear to me that a military strike on Iran by Israel is Obama’s least-favored outcome: it would inflame the region he’s trying to quiet and sabotage his outreach to the Muslim world, while perhaps only delaying Iran’s nuclear program a year or two.'

A less fawning analysis than Cohen's might take his focus on realpolitik to it's logical conclusion:

1) Obama could care less about Iran's opposition; could care less if an Israeli strike scuppers the Iranian Uprising.

2) Israel is Obama's iron fist, already licenced to strike by Joe Biden's conveniently loose mouth about Israel's national interest.

3) Hollow platitudes are Obama's velvet glove. Ignore them.

A democratic, reformist Iran right now would depolarize the War on Terror. That climate would soon lead to questioning of the rationale for Obama's Afghanistan campaign; would lead to questions also about Israeli intransigence over a Middle-East resolution.

The Iranian uprising is inconveniently four years too early. The (ongoing!) War on Terror needs a hardline Iranian government to reinforce the notion of a noble battle against maniacal "towel-heads". Zionist nationalist rationale equally needs a hardline Iranian government. A sad loss such a government would be to both the above causes.

It's not what Obama says that matters. It's what Israel does.

Get your revolution on! The clock is ticking towards this Fall.