Idiot Liberals are unhappy reality exposed by WikiLeaks hurts liberal foreign policy
View another article
Liberals are not very happy with Wikileaks. They claim that these were secrets that shouldn't have been released (largely because a Democrat is in charge), that now diplomats "can't do their business". As we said here, that's a lot of bunk.
But really what unnerves liberals, the really ironic part of the release of these documents from liberals like Julian Assange: they confirm that the conservative world view on foreign policy is correct.
Check these quotes out from a liberal, one Heather Hurlburt:
"And back here within the U.S., you can count upon the opponents of progressive policies to use the Wikileaks dumps to advance their agenda. They'll take items out of context and use them to justify ideas like bombing Iran, rejecting the START treaty, and god-knows-what to North Korea."
"The Wikileakers claim to promote the politics of peace and moderation. But this latest dump could very easily have the opposite effect, by giving the absolutists a chance to spread their stereotypes and illusions of a black and white world."
Stereotypes and illusions? Like these?
King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, in urging the United States to destroy Iran's nuclear facilities, said it must "cut off the head of the snake."
The King of Bahrain, Hamad ibn Isa Al Khalifa, said the Iranian nuclear program "must be stopped."
Egyptian leader Hosni Mubarak called the Iranians "big, fat liars" in a cable in which he warned of Iran's growing influence in Iraq and the region since the overthrow of Saddam Hussein.
The United Arab Emirates defense chief compared Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to Adolf Hitler in urging against appeasing Iran.
The Abu Dhabi crown prince said in 2005 that EU talks with Iran will fail (they did) and Iran will resume nukes (they did).
Do you know what else he said?
"A nuclear-armed Iran would destabilize the Gulf region and possibly allow terrorist access to WMD."
That's an illusion? That's taken out of context?
In Abu Dhabi, Hazza said:
"Hazza assessed that Iran is also a threat due to its ties to international terrorist organizations, including al-Qaida, as well as their financial support to Hamas. He added that the relationship between Iran and Syria, and their links to Hizballah, was also of concern, as was Iran's attempts to expand its influence in Iraq and elsewhere in the world. "
And here in this cable, it sums it up:
"7. (S) Upper House President Zeid Rifai has predicted that dialogue with Iran will lead nowhere, arguing that if the U.S., the EU, and the Arab states agree that under no circumstances should Iran be allowed to obtain a nuclear weapon, military force becomes the only option. "Bomb Iran, or live with an Iranian bomb. Sanctions, carrots, incentives won't matter," was how he put it to visiting NEA DAS David Hale in November. While Rifai judged a military strike would have "catastrophic impact on the region," he nonetheless thought preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons would pay enough dividends to make it worth the risks (Ref D)
"Bomb Iran, or live with an Iranian bomb. Sanctions, carrots, incentives won't matter..."
That's just reality. That's just reality!
To liberals, reality like this makes them cringe. They are unhappy this reality will make people question their idiotic liberal foreign policy
Many other leaders in the Middle East said that Iran would just use talks to "stall for time" without accomplishing anything. Exactly what's happened.
The problem with liberals is that they rely exclusively on using "diplomacy" and can never resort to the use of force. Because they are unilaterally use fo force, if they can't use diplomacy to convince Iran not to have nukes...they will just concede and let Iran have nukes.
The problem is that sometimes force is the only option. Invoke Godwin's Law, but didn't Chamberlain try (and fail) to negotiate with Hitler against Hitler attacking? Clearly negotiation doesn't work all the time (does it even work some of the time?)
Did Chamberlain fail because he didn't try hard enough? He wasn't liberal enough? No.
He failed because nothing Britain could offer would stop Hitler from his aggression.
Coming back to Iran, it's clear from regional leaders as well as Iranian defectors that Iran absolutely does want to possess a nuclear weapon. They want to be the regional hegemon in the Middle East, eclipsing all other countries. They firmly believe this is their right as Persians.
We have been in talks with Iran to give up/slow down their nuclear programs for years. The EU has been in talks with Iran for years. The UN Security Council passed resolutions to slow down/stop nuclear development. All of these have been ignored by Iran.
Why? Well, if one would just read the Wikileaks cables, it's clear to anyone rational that Iran does intend to get a nuclear weapon. No one believes talks will work, or sanctions.
The reason why is absolutely obvious: it will give them more power. They consider it a deterrent to an attack (from the US), as well as a threat to their neighbors and Israel. Like in Pakistan, it will be a source of great national pride that no everyone in the country will rally around.
So the fact that this pragmatic sentiment that Iran will stop at nothing to possess nukes is echoed across the Middle East via these WikiLeaks cables; and the sudden realization that their "progressive" foreign policy is just completely full of it.
Iran did want to have some talks after we started the Iraq War; and why did they want to talk then? They feared we would attack them. They didn't fear we would have a super negotiator on board.
As for "bombing Iran", no one is talking about bombing the entire country. Like Israel did with Iraq in the 1980s and Syria just recently, we need only target their nuclear facilities and go home.
Even if this only delays Iranian nukes by 1-3 years...then just bomb them every 1-3 years.
Targeted assassinations of nuclear scientists (which happened last week) and computer viruses against the centrifuges are creative, but are a very short-term dodge. If other means can be used to stop uranium enrichment, be my guest. But right now, those centrifuges are spinning, getting them that much closer to enough material for a weapon.
As everyone rational has said, Iran must not possess nukes. Even the most pacifist liberal can clearly see this will destabilize the region and lead to a nuclear arms race: Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, etc. will all want their own nukes. Tensions will rise, not fall.
So if Iran must not possess nukes, and we can clearly see that negotiations will not work, and sanctions will not work...what alternative do we have besides bombing their nuclear facilities? As the cables show, there will be retaliation, but it will be worth it to delay the Iranian nuclear program.
So when the reality of these cables came out (browse them in their entirety to make sure you have "context"), rather than liberals changing their view to match reality, which is what most people do...they refuse to admit reality (or maybe don't even care), and they lash out that reality will make their unrealistic liberal foreign policy seem stupid. Ya think?
And as to how difficult this problem is for America to get Iran bombed: the liberal quoted above, Heather Hurlburt, had another quote as well from the article. This quote will show how ingrained this idiotic policy is toward Iran. This idiotic policy that clearly isn't working and clearly never will. Her quote?
"I spent almost a decade working at the State Department and overseas."