Charles Krauthammer doesn't hesitate to proclaim his real goal: "regime change" as the only way to solve future nuclear threats. "Our fundamental values demand that America stand with demonstrators opposing a regime that is the antithesis of all we believe." He then asks, "Where is our president? Afraid of meddling." And how does this brilliant pen of the right propose to meddle effectively? Like his neoconservative brethren, he offers nothing besides moral condemnation.
Charles Krauthammer is berated by Leslie H. Gelb of the Council on Foreign Relations and form NY Times columnist. Based on his previous employer we get a good idea of how relevant this schlep is. Based on the NY Times rapidly dwindling distribution I’m not the only one who agrees with that statement. Haha. Oh how sweet the truth is. Mr Gelb inaccurately represents Charles Krauthammer’s position on US-Iran interaction during the bloody Iran protests. Why would someone misrepresent another person? Either there is confusion or there is insecurity. In this situation I believe there are both. If we’re allowed to hear Charles Krauthammer’s thoughtful insight we can turn to a reliable channel. The following is extracted from: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,526967,00.html
CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER, SYNDICATED COLUMNIST: I find the president's reaction bordering on the bizarre. It's not just little and late, but he had a statement today in which he welcomed the Iranian leader's gesture about redoing some of the vote, as you indicated.
And the president has said "I have seen in Iran's initial reaction from the supreme leader." He is using an honorific to apply to a man whose minions out there are breaking heads, shooting demonstrators, arresting students, shutting the press down, and basically trying to suppress a popular democratic revolution.
So he uses that honorific, and then says that this supreme leader — it indicates that he understand that the Iranian people have deep concerns about the election. Deep concerns? There is a revolution in the street.
And it is not about elections anymore. It started out about elections. It's about the legitimacy of a regime, this theocratic dictatorship in Iran, which is now at stake. That's the point.
What we have here is a regime whose legitimacy is challenged, and this revolution is going to end in one of two ways — suppressed, as was the Tiananmen revolution in China, or it will be a second Iranian revolution that will liberate Iran and change the region and the world.
And the president is taking a hands-off attitude. Instead of standing, as Reagan did, in the Polish uprising of 1980, and say we stand with the people in the street who believe in democracy. It is a simple statement. He ought to make it. And it is a disgrace that the United States is not stating it as simply and honestly as that.
KRAUTHAMMER: If your objective is to denuclearize Iran, or at least blunt its program, the idea that somehow it's preferable, to, as Obama had done, to say we will remain engaged, implying he would accept negotiation with a discredited Iranian regime on the one hand, which will not succeed, and we all know that.
There is no way he is going to sweet talk Iran out of its nukes.
Whereas the only chance, short of a military attack, of stopping this program is with a revolution in the street, which would change the orientation of Iran and change it away from an existential enemy of America, Israel, and the Arab states. That's what's at stake.
And to say I'm going to sacrifice any support America could give in order that I'm going to retain the option of negotiation with hard- liners who are never going to yield on nukes, makes no sense at all.
Our only hope on the nuclear issue is a change of regime, and that all of a sudden has become possible almost in a miraculous way. It is still improbable, but it's possible, and we ought to throw our support and to show the demonstrators that they are not alone.
KRAUTHAMMER: It is not going to happen. The Chinese have said that, and the Russians as well, that no force is to be used in inspecting these vessels. So it's a non-starter. Nothing is going to happen.
What I think is remarkable is that even though over the last 16 years in the Clinton and the Bush administrations we did not succeed in stopping, although we slightly slowed the nuclear program, look what's happened in the six months of the quote, unquote, "smart diplomacy" of the Obama administration?
Long-range missile tests, the explosion of a nuclear weapon probably a third the size of Hiroshima, the declaration that the plutonium the Bush administration had frozen will be weaponized entirely, the entire stock, and the declaration that the uranium program which the Bush administration talked about, which Democrats had said was an invention of the Bush administration, the uranium enrichment is going to start up. All of that and the seizure of two Americans. If that is not a repudiation, a humiliating repudiation of the Obama policy on North Korea, then nothing is.
KRAUTHAMMER: The Bush administration had the plutonium rods frozen and had a slowdown in those departments. There is a big difference.
KRAUTHAMMER: It's a playing card we ought to play, and to play it now. It's a trump.
So there you have it. Well informed and thoughtful. There is no “hindsight is 20/20” in what Charles Krauthammer says. He has convictions and he stands by them. Some of the ultra left should take note; uh hum, Mr Gelb!
