Jennifer Rubin’s Gunboat Diplomacy

by | Dec 20, 2013

We can all be thankful that Obama doesn’t use neocon commissar Jennifer Rubin as one of his negotiators.

Rubin, who almost daily mentions that Israel should “act” (i.e., drop bombs on Iran) is fed up with US negotiations. This is how she sees it:

What Obama is doing is taking away the Hobson’s choice the West wants to present Iran: Give up your nuclear weapons or watch your economy and regime crumble.

First of all, Iran does not have any nuclear weapons to “give up.” Rubin does understand that, right? Also, does threatening Iran’s destruction portray the US as a country that wants peace?

Who gave the US authority to destroy Iran’s economy and regime anyway?

Think of it this way: If the Obama administration had left Bashar al-Assad in possession with all his weapons and merely sent in inspectors to make sure the promise not to use or make more chemical weapons was enforced, there is no way that could have been passed off as a serious move. Allowing Iran to remain in a comparable position AND get sanctions relief has flabbergasted allies and members of both parties in Congress.

Again, where did “the Obama administration” get the authority to decide whether or not Syria may possess chemical weapons? When I read the US Constitution, I see no mention of such things.

And why stop with Syria? Should every nation on Earth disclose to “the Obama administration” the make, model, and type for each weapon that they possess? Perhaps then the US can hand out licenses for all approved weapons after everyone submits their inventory lists. This whole thing is ridiculous. Yet that’s how the neocons see the world. The US is the hegemonic power that acts as the decider.

Rubin also has her facts wrong (again). Iran is not in a “comparable position” to Syria. Chemical weapons are not nuclear weapons, and Iran does not possess either.

Rubin wants more US sanctions to be passed as well; and they should take effect in 6 months. If Obama does not go down this path:

It is a measure of how weak is his bargaining position that [he] would reject measures to strengthen his hand for fear his negotiating partner will leave. This isn’t negotiation; it is now blackmail.

Rubin has it backwards, the sanctions would be the blackmail, were they to be imposed.

In this Congress, the administration and our allies should work in concert to regain leverage. It is only then that a peaceful resolution can be obtained.

Did Rubin say “peaceful resolution”? Her ideas are nothing but threats! Iran must give up nuclear weapons that it does not have, or they will “watch their economy and regime crumble”. And the other bright idea is to blackmail Iran with further sanctions.

Neocons really are something else. They have this vicious lust for war, without any understanding of human nature, or any knowledge of how to negotiate peace. They have no tact, and not an inkling of statesmanship or diplomacy. We’re dealing with real human lives here. A war with Iran would be devastating. Has the world not suffered enough with the neocon-led devastations in Iraq and Afghanistan?

We non-interventionists believe that the U.S. government should not be concerning itself with Iran, or the rest of the Middle East for the matter. But sadly, over the last 100 years, the U.S. has gone far astray from any type of sensible foreign policy.

However Obama has been the first President in 30 years to actually speak with the Iranians, and peaceful negotiations are taking place. Kudos must be extended to Obama for that. And double-kudos for keeping Jennifer Rubin as far away from those negotiations as possible.