Ahmadinejad rejects Obama Doctrine — or are his ears ... Clogged With Wax
by Barbara Donnelly Lane
September 30, 2012 01:21 AM | 2772 views | 9 9 comments | 25 25 recommendations | email to a friend | print
As Jews strove to be worthy of God on Yom Kippur, Iran’s President Ahmadinejad built his case for a new world order in which the “hegemonic powers” have been tumbled, and all countries have a more equal voice in the Security Council. After all, “given our interdependence, any world order that elevates one nation or group over another will inevitably fail.”

Of course, that last quote is not from President Ahamdinejad’s speech. It’s from President Obama’s remarks in Cairo, which put forth a new foreign policy strategy at the beginning of his term in which the United States would strive to “use diplomacy and build international consensus to resolve our problems whenever possible.”

To coincide with this perhaps worthy intention, the Obama Doctrine relies on a strategy of “broader engagement” which has never acknowledged a “war on terror” or a “global war” because such positioning might invite an unwarranted clash of civilizations. Instead, the administration has sought to rebuild the image of a kinder, gentler America abroad through the unmatched eloquence of one man’s soaring words.

To support this assertion, President Obama has consistently repudiated national security efforts of the past, and as John Brennan — chief counterterrorism advisor — noted in 2009, people “can see (the administration’s) new approach most vividly in the president’s personal engagement with the world — his trips, his speeches, his town halls with foreign audiences — where he [has addressed] terrorism directly and forcefully.”

Yet almost four years later, President Ahmadinejad still told the Associated Press that, “Even elementary school kids throughout the world have understood that the United States government is following an international policy of bullying.”

Did he somehow miss the Obama Doctrine’s message of Hope and Change?

While watching Ahamdinejad’s finger punctuate the air as he addressed the United Nations — as he questioned the veracity of 9/11 in light of the murder of Osama bin Laden, referred to “the uncivilized Zionists,” and repudiated the current international order of “materialism” and “selfish interests” led by the West — I thought about one of those personal engagements President Obama had earlier this year that might “vividly” show the attitude others have about his policies after one term.

In April 2012, Elie Wiesel, a Nobel Laureate and Holocaust survivor whose life’s work has been to illuminate the “night” that fell so completely over his people during World War II, asked the president directly, “How is it that the Holocaust’s number one denier is still a president? He who threatens to use nuclear weapons — to use nuclear weapons — to destroy the Jewish state?”

Did Mr. Wiesel deserve a reply?

Or perhaps this question was an unfair one for an American president who made his philosophy quite clear in Cairo when he said, “No system of government can or should be imposed by one nation on any other.”

Therefore the United States should not be faulted now for not supporting the Green Movement that might have toppled Ahmadinejad way back in 2009. After all, even amidst the Arab Spring, the Obama Doctrine has relied on ousting dictators only when the United States can be seen as “leading from behind.”

Of course, according to Ahmadinejad, Wiesel should be upset anyway. Israel has no real “roots” in the history of the Middle East, so calls for its destruction by any means are righteous. It does not matter that the Jews found their “promised land” thousands of years before Christ was born, or that Christ was born centuries before the debut of Islam’s prophet.

President Ahmadinejad also purported, “Everyone is aware the nuclear issue is, in a way, an imposition of will of the United States government on Iran.”

Clearly that man’s ears have been clogged with wax since 2009.

While Obama reiterated in his own 2012 U.N. address that, “the United States will do what we must to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon,” he also said in Cairo that, “no single nation should pick and choose which nation holds nuclear weapons.” One should understand this is not a contradiction because under the Obama Doctrine, the United States “(seeks) a world in which no nations hold nuclear weapons” at all.

Until that time when we have actually created a new world order that weakens the U.S. and makes President Ahmadinejad happy — He’s probably just upset about a movie! — Americans need not worry that the Middle East is on fire, an American ambassador is dead, or that Iran continues to spin centrifuges.

President Obama is still working on putting his policies into practice by speaking vividly about that war in which we aren’t engaged against terrorism. Not with other world leaders, mind, but he did go on The View.

Barbara Donnelly Lane lives in east Cobb and blogs on the MDJonline.com web site.
Comments-icon Post a Comment
B D Lane
October 01, 2012

The United States decisively ended a horrible, long and bloody world war with the atomic bomb. However, I agree when you say that ridding the world of nuclear weapons now is a pipe dream.

Mr. Foley,

The last few weeks show that if killing Osama bin Laden was President Obama's best shot at keeping Americans safe, he has missed the mark by quite a bit because Americans are clearly not safe abroad.

But thank you for adding the full text about Obama's vision of ridding the world of nuclear weapons. (I didn't have space for the whole paragraph in my column.) Obviously the idea that Iran is only concerned with nuclear power is why the White House chose to give Iran another four years to develop their program with little interference. That's been just... awesome.

The words you've contributed further underscore the naivete of the Obama Doctrine, which has always implied that words--especially words emphatically stated--have the power to change the actions of men like Ahmadinejad. In light of reality, this just further begs Mr. Wiesel's question to President Obama to be answered. It was a way of saying, "Okay. So what are your results?" (Mr. Wiesel is hardly a conservative Republican.)

Anyway, rather than calling my assessment of an exceedingly simplistic policy "simplistic," I would love it if you considered why things are falling apart in the Middle East. It can't be George W. Bush's fault, can it? Even the White House--except the president--no longer blames the movie. What complex reasoning can you offer for this state of affairs?

Can't you at least admit--as a thinking human being who cares about his country--that Obama's going to Las Vegas after learning the United States that he's supposed to be leading has been attacked by terrorists wasn't the best choice for a sitting president? Do you really think going on The View showed a country reacting with strength to the murder of our citizens??? Really?

Honestly, Mr. Foley. They won't kick you out of the Obama fan club if you admit this was poor leadership. There are other Democrats who thought this was exceedingly weak. We don't need to debate the issue. Just think about it.
Kevin Foley
October 01, 2012
@ B.D. - If you don't think offing OBL and his top commanders is a big deal, you can consider this. Unlike the Bush administration, avery terrorist plot targeting the U.S. homeland has failed.

You're straining again.
B D Lane
October 02, 2012
I never said that killing "OBL" wasn't a good thing. But it cannot be the ONLY thing by which one assesses foreign policy. Especially when THAT feat was partially made possible by intelligence gathering methods from the PREVIOUS administration. After all, if John McCain had been elected instead of President Obama--and the intelligence was the same--Osama bin Laden would still be dead.

Therefore, one must look at what Obama has done that is DIFFERENT from what a conservative leader would do. The Obama Doctrine IS different, and it has had lots of consequences. It's not a "strain" to say "leading from behind" has compromised American strength... and American relevance.

Btw, when American soldiers are killed on an American base in the American homeland by a radicalized Islamic terrorist who has been in touch with a major al-Quaeda operative, how is that not an act of terrorism at home? Just asking.

And, of course, I suppose from your obfuscating re-direct that I must assume you think when an American ambassador is murdered, it's fine to skip a security briefing and go to Las Vegas to raise money? It's fine to lie about the nature of an attack to the American people and hope no one notices? It's fine to not meet with other heads of state but reiterate a false narrative about a video in regards to Libya in a speech to the UN? It's fine to dodge real questions from real journalists as long as people get to see a smiling you on The View as the Middle East burns? (I did love Michelle's dress. Very pretty. Useless interview.)

Since that's your idea of strong leadership, Mr. Foley, okay. I'm glad we have that out on the table. In my opinion, it's a weak performance. But, yeah. You're right. Osama bin Laden is dead.
September 30, 2012
Didn't you hear though Barb? Amadin. endorses Obama.

So does the Muslim Brotherhood, North Korea, Al Shabob, Al Quaeda, Jamat al Fuqra,all the Gitmo detainees, including the one released last week by Obama and of course the anti-first amendment Muslim protesters who just demonstrated their hate for the U.S. Constitution in Dearborn, Michigan on Friday.

Obama and his minions lied about events in Benghazi on 9-11, lied right to the American people over and over for almost two weeks.

What's wrong with this picture?
Jim Takats
September 30, 2012
I long for the days when the world knows where we stand and knows we can and will do something. After doing absolutely nothing to stop the killing of 30,000 people and counting in Syria, the U.S. isn't exactly the most feared country. Hopefully we will have a change in foreign policy in the next three months.
Kevin Foley
September 30, 2012
Ms. Donnelly offers a simplistic assessment of Obama's foreign policy in trotting out the tired canard that the president is pussy footing around Muslim extremism (as Obama also said, "tell that to Osama bin Laden").

Iran is a dangerous rogue state. Nobody denies that and Obama has said Iran will never have a nuclear weapon on his watch. That is pretty clear.

Yes, Obama said “no single nation should pick and choose which nation holds nuclear weapons.”

But the following line puts the remark into context:

"That is why I strongly reaffirmed America's commitment to seek a world in which no nations hold nuclear weapons. And any nation – including Iran – should have the right to access peaceful nuclear power if it complies with its responsibilities under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty."
October 01, 2012
Mr. Foley wrote, "...Obama has said Iran will never have a nuclear weapon on his watch..."

Sounds great; wonderful, in fact, but I'm not confident that Obama can deliver as he has not delivered on other matters.

This is yet another vapid statement that will end up in his circular file of platitudes along with, cut the deficit in half by the end of his first term, the health care negotiations will be on C-Span, the stimulus will keep unemployment below 8%. You know, stuff like that.

In matters of statecraft, Obama needs to man-up and put on his big boy pants. I just don't see that happening.
September 30, 2012

*We welcome your comments on the stories and issues of the day and seek to provide a forum for the community to voice opinions. All comments are subject to moderator approval before being made visible on the website but are not edited. The use of profanity, obscene and vulgar language, hate speech, and racial slurs is strictly prohibited. Advertisements, promotions, and spam will also be rejected. Please read our terms of service for full guides