An Affinity for Tyranny

An Affinity for Tyranny

President Obama has an affinity for the advance of tyranny, how else can you explain the various statements and policy decisions that often coincide with anniversaries that mark such events. For example, over the summer, on the anniversary of the soviet invasion of Poland the President officially scraped the eastern European missile defense shield, leaving the polls and some of the other former soviet satellite nations who had lobbied extensively for the missile shield out to dry. Coincidently, an ever more belligerent Russia simulated the use of nuclear weapons during aggressive military exercises along the polish border that same day. He then celebrated the fall of the Berlin wall by declining an invitation to attend the ceremonies and basically phoned in some remarks. It would seem that flying off to Copenhagen to lobby for the Olympics, is higher on Obama’s list of priorities than marking one of the seminal events in the advancement of Human liberty.

On November 4, the 33rd anniversary of the siege of the U.S. embassy in Tehran by Islamic fundamentalist which resulted a 444-day hostage crisis, Obama issued an absolutely sophomoric press release regarding Iran. In the statement the President describes the hostage crisis as an event “that set the U.S. and Iran on the path of sustained suspicion.” But the Islamic revolution was built on fundamentalist Muslim rejection of western culture. The hostage crisis was not the start of those hostilities but an end result. Glaringly absent was any reference to the American hostages whom Iran has had in captivity for four months.

The President Declared America’s willingness to develop relations with “The Islamic Republic of Iran based on mutual interest and respect,” He noted that his administration has condemned acts of terrorism on Iranian soil. He was referencing a suicide bombing on Iran’s revolutionary guard by Sunni militants. Now if only the president can begin to actually recognize a terror attack on our soil, maybe we’d have something. He also made it a point to mention that his administration will not interfere in Iran’s internal affairs, not interfering with another nations internal affairs may be all well and good, but in this instance it is a rebuke of the Iranian people who have marched in the streets of Iran in rejection of the fundamentalist regime and gives credibility to an illegitimate government that is hostile to it’s people. How can we establish mutual interest and respect with a nation whose government is illegitimate in the eyes of its people? Obama did make a passing reference to the continuing uprising in Iran, “The world continues to bear witness to their powerful calls for justice.” This is the moral equivalent of saying your routinely a witness to the mugging of little old ladies, eventually you cease to be a bystander and become an accomplice. What mutual respect could we possibly share with a regime who would gun down its citizens in the streets for exercising their fundamental rites in the quest for a more representative government, not to mention its militant stance against other nations in the region. Should we seek relations with such a government just for the sake of relations, and if those relations are sought at the risk of alienating longtime allies what exactly have we gained?

The President also made reference to his willingness to negotiate in regards to Iran’s nuclear program, his acceptance of an IAEA proposal in which Iran would import low enriched uranium for peaceful purposes. Iran has rejected this proposal, and it is becoming painfully obvious that Iran is only using these negotiations as a stall tactic, as they continue to advance their weapon’s program. And what of the diplomatic assistance we assumed from Russia in reciprocity for caving on the eastern European missile shield? That assistance has yet to develop, and don’t hold your breath, Russia is in no hurry for IAEA inspectors to find their fingerprints allover the Iranian nuke program, besides, a nuclear Iran serves Russian interest. A nuked up Iran is a threat not only to Israel, the Saudi’s and other Arab nations are extremely squeamish with the idea, these nations will have to negotiate through Russia, their economic and military influence with the radical regime in Iran will elevate them to the position of number one power player in the region. Russia could also use Iran to instigate conflict within the region, which would drive up oil prices, benefitting Russia economically.

When you throw in the Honduran debacle where Obama threw all of the United States diplomatic weight behind Zelaya the Chavez wannabe who sought to undermine his countries constitution, you begin to see the disturbing pattern of a U.S. President who is quite comfortable with the spread of oppression around the globe.

Anthony D Dolpies