Barack Obama–Why Iran but Not Hamas? [Updated]

Barack Obama, why do you insist on talking without pre-conditions to a nation that has attacked us while insisting on pre-conditions before talking to an elected terrorist group that has not directly attacked the United States? I am inclined to say this does not make sense, but then I ask: Who’s your daddy? Political daddy that is. Could it be former President, James Earl Carter? I think, yes. And for those of us old enough to remember, this is a bad thing. Unless you are at least forty three years old, you probably have no significant memory of the disaster that was the presidency of Jimmy Carter. Folks younger than forty only know Jimmy Carter as the avuncular, Habitat for Humanity guy. How can you not like a wrinkled old man wielding a hammer and wearing a nail apron who is spending his dotage building homes of the poor? Easy, just turn back the pages of history and recall his legacy:

Runaway inflation,
Dismantling the CIA,
the Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan
Iran taking Americans hostage
Gas lines

So why do I say Barack is acting like a 21st Century Jimmy Carter, only not as bright?

Look at his contortions on Iran and Hamas. Ignore for a moment last week’s gaffe in which Barack claimed the reason we are having trouble in Pashto-speaking Afghanistan is because our Arabic translators are tied up in Iraq. Let’s ignore the fact that the Afghans don’t speak Arabic. Check out Barack’s contradictory positions on Iran. Speaking in Billings, Montana Barack said:

“Iran is a grave threat. It has an illicit nuclear program. It supports terrorism across the region and militias in Iraq. It threatens Israel’s existence. It denies the Holocaust,” he said. “The reason Iran is so much more powerful than it was a few years ago is because of the Bush-McCain policy of fighting in Iraq and refusing to pursue direct diplomacy with Iran. They’re the ones who have not dealt with Iran wisely.”

But later that same day, before an audience in Portland, Barack said that Iran, among others, was not a serious threat:

We can solve all problems if we just talk to these folks. But here’s the problem for Barack. He wants to convince voters that he is proposing basic diplomacy–you know, just like Reagan talking to Gorbachev–when, in fact, he is proposing the exact opposite. No President since World War II has proposed unconditional negotiations with any of our enemies. But that is exactly what Barack is proposing with respect to Iran. Accoring to the New York Times:

Making clear that he planned to talk to Iran without preconditions, Mr. Obama emphasized further that “changes in behavior” by Iran could possibly be rewarded with membership in the World Trade Organization, other economic benefits and security guarantees. . . .Senator Barack Obama said he would “engage in aggressive personal diplomacy” with Iran if elected president, and would offer economic inducements and a possible promise not to seek “regime change” if Iran stopped meddling in Iraq and cooperated on terrorism and nuclear issues.

Barack does not understand that in dealing with Iran we must make clear that there are fundamental principles we will not compromise.

So perhaps Barack Obama could explain why he insists on pre-conditions for talks with Hamas–an elected entity that has not carried out significant terrorist attacks against the United States–but not Iran, who has conducted more terrorist attacks against the United States than any country or entity in the world? In fact, one could argue that Iran’s support for groups like Hamas (and even more for Hezbollah) would make Hamas but a proxy for Iran. So Barack, depending on his physical location, believe that Iran is and is not a grave threat. He believes that we should talk to Iran without pre-conditions but should not talk to the terrorist group funded by Iran unless they meet certain conditions. Confused? You bet.

Democrats get ready. Barack Obama is Jimmy Carter without the brains. Jimmy Carter was a nuclear scientist. But his failure to confront the threat of Islamic extremism in Iran opened the door for the rise of the Ayatollah Khomeni. This in turn sent shivers through the oil markets. The price of oil went up. Supplies dipped. And Americans were introduced to gas lines. And Carter’s solution? He donned a cardigan sweater and asked Americans to turn down their thermostats to 68 degrees as preliminary steps for confronting the energy crisis. Despite his training as a nuclear scientist, Jimmy Carter was generally perceived as a naive bonehead. He was genuinely surprised when the Soviets invaded Afghanistan in late 1979. His policies of placating the Soviets blew up in his face and ultimately put this nation in peril. The election of Jimmy Carter was in part a reaction to the corruption of the Republicans during Watergate. The subsequent defeat of Jimmy Carter was a reaction to his weak and feckless policies.

But Jimmy does not get all of the blame. No sir. He had a foreign policy guru–Zbigniew Breszinski. Funny thing. Guess who also is advising Barack Obama? Yep, Zbig is back. And Barack reportedly is taking some cues from him.

There is nothing wrong negotiating with rogue states and actors. But there is something very wrong and very foolish about agreeing to negotiate without preconditions. On this particular issue Barack is clearly not ready for prime time.

UPDATED–Some of you are skimming rather than reading. I do not blame Jimmy for the Soviet invasion. However, it happened on his watch and is part of his legacy. Moreover, Carter was wringing his hands and expressing surprise that the nasty old Commies would do such a thing. For those of us who were following events at the time, this simply reinforced the image of Carter as weak and feckless. That’s the point.