Shock: Obama's Position on Iran Evolves, Coincidentally While Speaking Before Pro-Israel Group

Suddenly he's John F'n' Bolton.

[Obama's New Position:] "Contrary to the claims to some, I have no interest in sitting down with our adversaries just for the sake of talking. But as president of the United States, I would be willing to lead tough and principled diplomacy with the appropriate Iranian leaders at a time and place of my choosing if and only if it can advance the interest of the United States. That is my position. I want to be absolutely clear."

Compare that with what Obama said during the CNN/Youtube debate:

QUESTION: Would you be willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea?

OBAMA: "I would. And the reason is this: the notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them--which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this administration -- is ridiculous. Ronald Reagan constantly spoke to Soviet Union at a time when he called them an evil empire. He understood that we may not trust them and they may pose an extraordinary danger to this country, but we had the obligation to find areas where we can potentially move forward. And I think that it is a disgrace that we have not spoken to them."

But now Obama has put a major condition on his willingness to meet with Iran: he will meet only if such a meeting advances the interests of the U.S.

That is not much different from the Bush Administration's position on negotiations with Iran.

"Change you can believe in" has a highly nuanced "don't fix what ain't broken" component, apparently. Who knew?

More: Bob Owens and The Weekly Standard want to know why True Friend of Israel Obama opposed a simple, truthful declaration that Iran's Revolutionary Guards were a terrorist organization.

posted by Ace at 12:14 PM

| Access Comments