The announcement by the director of the International Atomic Energy Agency that he had reached what the New York Times characterized as “something of a breakthrough” with the Iranian regime is igniting all sorts of speculation in respect of the talks that began earlier today at Baghdad. The IAEA announcement came on the eve of the Baghdad parley between the Iranians and representatives of the permanent members of the Security Council of the United Nations plus Germany. Our own estimate is that this is going to be a classic case of how the appeasement will prove to be not in the agreement — if one is finally struck — but in the entering into talks in the first place. The talking is the appeasement. ...
It would be one thing if the Iranian regime had defeated us on the field of battle and we were suing for peace. Absent such a catastrophe, what in the world are we doing in talks with the mullahs and their camarilla? It is not as if, say, the Iranians have elevated to office via a free and democratic election a government that speaks for the Iranian people. We are treating with a regime lacking in legitimacy about an issue that, by its nature, cannot be settled peacefully, save by a democratic revolution in Iran itself. The Atlantic is dialing back its estimate of war to 37% from the 48% as recently as March. That’s according to the Atlantic’s dial. On the Sundial of Middle East War Prospects, the very existence of talks with Iran is nudging the dial in the opposite direction.
Perhaps the best way to understand China’s trade policy is to consult professional China watchers who always accuse mere economists of ignoring “context.”
The Obama administration’s recent focus on finding a compromise to allow the Iranian regime to maintain some enrichment capabilities “for peaceful purposes” distracts from the underlying nuclear threat at hand.
Bashar al-Assad’s security forces have brazenly slaughtered more than 10,000 Syrian civilians, and injured or detained tens of thousands more, since the anti-regime protests began in March 2011.
Arizona senator John McCain just released the following statement on the Obama campaign's Osama bin Laden campaign ad:
"Shame on Barack Obama for diminishing the memory of September 11th and the killing of Osama bin Laden by turning it into a cheap political attack ad. This is the same President who once criticized Hillary Clinton for invoking bin Laden 'to score political points.'
The Chinese Communist party’s preoccupation with its leadership transition, expected to be made final next fall when Xi Jinping becomes general secretary, should not dissuade the U.S. from making a “strong intervention at the highest level” regarding Tibet, according to Lodi Gyari, who spoke yesterday at the Council on Foreign Relations.
Connoisseurs of tea leaves will note that President Obama, in his statement today on Armenian Remembrance Day, was very careful to avoid use of the word "genocide" in describing the massacre of 1.5 million Armenians by the Ottoman Turks during the First World War.
Yesterday, the White House’s Atrocities Prevention Board held its first meeting. Chaired by NSC staffer Samantha Power, author of A Problem from Hell: America in the Age of Genocide, the board will “coordinate action across the entire government on stopping genocide and liaise with the NGO community.”
