Obama admin: Can we get any worse? Yes! We! CAN!

Just as I thought Barack Obama couldn't possibly get any more inept and tone-deaf over his handling of the Iranian situation, I saw this link float by on Twitter.

The United States said Monday its invitations were still standing for Iranian diplomats to attend July 4 celebrations at US embassies despite the crackdown on opposition supporters.

President Barack Obama's administration said earlier this month it would invite Iran to US embassy barbecues for the national holiday for the first time since the two nations severed relations following the 1979 Islamic revolution.

"There's no thought to rescinding the invitations to Iranian diplomats," State Department spokesman Ian Kelly told reporters.

Is he fucking serious? The whole idea was batshit crazy before the Iranian regime rigged an election and murdered citizens who dared protest. I've come to truly detest Obama.

The original link was from Weasel Zippers, who said "I can't take it anymore, he drives me fucking insane.....". Yeah, I'm with you on that, Zip.

Dude's not paying attention

Barack Obama's desire to not be used by Iran's regime as a "foil" against dissidents was somewhat understandable at first, but now that they've already done just that, what's the point in continued indifference? Is he not paying attention?

President Barack Obama says he does not want to become a scapegoat for Iran's leadership amid that country's postelection upheaval, but Republicans are nevertheless saying the new president is being too cautious.

"The last thing that I want to do is to have the United States be a foil for those forces inside Iran who would love nothing better than to make this an argument about the United States," Obama said in an interview broadcast Monday on CBS' "The Early Show."

Obama has missed one opportunity after another to stand on the principles of human rights. While 27-year-old Neda was being gunned down in the street on Saturday by her own government, he went out for ice cream. And on Sunday while Iran's security forces tightened their stranglehold on the country, he went golfing.

Where's the much-vaunted empathy? Where the hell is the leadership?

Supporting not the same as meddling

In a comment on my earlier Ron Paul post, my brother Chuck posted a timely quote from Daniel Webster which he said came from a column by Stephen Hayes. I found the column (actually by Stephen Hayes and William Kristol) at the Weekly Standard, and here's the money quote:

In 1823, first-term congressman Daniel Webster spoke up in support of the Greek revolution. Responding to critics who said that mere rhetorical support would do the revolutionaries no good, Webster said: "I hope it may. It may give them courage and spirit. It may assure them of public regard, teach them that they are not wholly forgotten by the civilized world, and inspire them with constancy in the pursuit of their great end."

Unfortunately, the Obama administration has little use for the incoherent ramblings of this nation's forebears, so they've probably never heard of Daniel Webster.

By the way, it was during my search for this article that I stumbled upon the quote that now appears on the header.

Ahmadinejad to Obama: You're not my friend any more!

I guess this means that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has not only de-friended Obama on Facebook, but has also unfollowed him on Twitter.

"Definitely by hasty remarks you will not be placed in the circle of friendship with the Iranian nation. Therefore I advise you to correct your interfering stances," Ahmadinejad was quoted as saying.

I can't help but wonder if the situation in Iran wasn't deliberately precipitated by the regime as a pretext to cut off what little dialog there was over their nuclear program and to start booting nosy western journalists out of the country and in general lock down the entire country.

If so, it appears there may be unintended consequences.

Why does this guy keep getting elected?

Last Friday, the House of Representatives passed a resolution which stated in its entirety the following:

Resolved, That the House of Representatives--

(1) expresses its support for all Iranian citizens who embrace the values of freedom, human rights, civil liberties, and rule of law;

(2) condemns the ongoing violence against demonstrators by the Government of Iran and pro-government militias, as well as the ongoing government suppression of independent electronic communication through interference with the Internet and cellphones; and

(3) affirms the universality of individual rights and the importance of democratic and fair elections.

The resolution passed on a vote of 405-1. The Senate version of the resolution passed unanimously. So, who cast the one "nay" vote on this no-brainer?

If you guessed Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX), take a bow.

Iranian revolt: Most likely outcome

I'm not usually one for making predictions, but I'll go out on a limb here and forecast what I believe the most likely outcome of the voter revolt in Iran.

There's no question a huge number of Iranians are seriously pissed off at the current regime. But I don't think it's safe to assume that all those people are necessarily opposed to the structure of the current regime. Yes, it's probably a pretty safe bet that many of the younger crowd hope for a less autocratic, more secular government. But take a look at the guy they really wanted to win. Mir Hussein Mousavi is hardly a true reformer wishing to take Iran down a more liberal, secular path. The differences between him and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad are more ones of style than substance. The fact that Ayatollah Hossein Ali Montazeri has cast his lot with the protesters should be ample evidence that this is more of a power struggle within the mullahcracy than a true secular revolution.

So, without further ado, my prediction: An agreement will be reached among the Guardian Council and the Assembly of Experts (the theocrats who actually run things in Iran) and Mousavi will be installed in place of Ahmadinejad. The unrest will quiet down as the majority will have had their say, and the status quo in Iran will be maintained.

Update 28 September 2009: It would appear my prediction was thoroughly wrong on one count (that Mousavi would be installed) and more correct than I'd like on the other count (that the status quo would remain).

Iran and Obama's silence

I don't get Barack Obama's silence on the situation in Iran. Yeah, I'm pretty critical of him and I don't expect much from him - certainly not greatness - but this is really a no-brainer. So why the silence? If not an outright message of support for the protesters, why not a rebuke to the regime for their brutal suppression of those protests?

I can understand not coming out with overtly supportive statements for Mousavi and his supporters. That's the kind of thing that can too easily be spun into Iranian government propaganda that Mousavi and the protesters are puppets of the hated Americans. But surely Obama can find within himself the words to denounce the rigging of an election and the violence perpetrated against those voicing their anger at having their votes discarded? I guess these women have more guts than Obama:

Obama not quite changey enough for Iran?

Not everyone is completely enthralled with Barack Obama ascending the throne this week...

Iran's parliament speaker said his country has doubts that US President Barack Obama's Middle East policy will be different from the Bush administration, state television reported Sunday.

Speaker Ali Larijani said Obama's stance on the crisis in Gaza and the United States' support for Israel have "created many doubts about the 'change' theory."

He also cautioned that Obama's actions on Iran's disputed nuclear program would be "another test for the change word" used by the new president during his campaign.

So I guess we got that going for us.

UK's Channel 4 to air alternative Christmas message...from Ahmadinejad

Britain's Channel 4 will air a Christmas "message of peace" from Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Channel 4 is positioning this as an "alternative" to the Queen's annual Christmas address.

President Ahmadinejad's address will focus on spiritual messages of seasonal goodwill, but also contains an attack on "bullying, ill-tempered and expansionist powers".

[ ... ]

Stephen Smith, director of the Holocaust Centre, said the president's message of peace was "deceptive", describing him as a "wolf in sheep's clothing".

He criticised "the fact that somebody who openly denies the Holocaust is given legitimacy on prime-time television, someone who uses Holocaust denial to be divisive.

"This message of so-called peace needs to be treated very carefully."

Philip Davies MP, a Tory member of the culture select committee, said that the address was "completely unacceptable on every level".

"His previous comments don't strike me as being in tune with what most people feel at Christmas time. He is an offensive man and the last person you would want to use for a Christmas message.

"Channel 4 have lost sight of what a Christmas message should be. They are trying to be controversial for the sake of being controversial, and are treating their viewers with contempt by pretending this is not a publicity stunt."

To be fair, this seems somewhat consistent with Channel 4's practice of airing opposing viewpoints. Early last year they broadcast The Great Global Warming Swindle, an excellent dismantling of the anthropogenic global warming argument.

But really...Ahmadinejad of all people?

Obama to Israel: If Iran nukes you, we'll nuke 'em right back

A news item at Haaretz suggests that Barack Obama has decided that a nuclear-armed Iran is a foregone conclusion, but not to worry...if Iran annihilates Israel, he'll annihilate Iran.

U.S. President-elect Barack Obama's administration will offer Israel a "nuclear umbrella" against the threat of a nuclear attack by Iran, a well-placed American source said earlier this week. The source, who is close to the new administration, said the U.S. will declare that an attack on Israel by Tehran would result in a devastating U.S. nuclear response against Iran.

Cold comfort, indeed.

Oil to drop to $30 a barrel?

It's unfortunate that things will get tougher for the average Iranian - a large number of whom despise the mullahs - but it's impossible to read something like this and not smile a bit.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is acknowledging publicly for the first time that tumbling oil prices are gouging the country's fragile economy.

[ ... ]

Wednesday's report quoted Ahmadinejad as saying the government budget would have to be readjusted to base it on an oil price of around $30 a barrel.

Damn those evil market speculators!