“Negotiating” From a Position of Blackmail

by | Feb 11, 2012 | Foreign Policy

According to Fox News, Iranian President Ahmadinejad would not elaborate on the announcement, but said within the next few days Iran will unveil “big new” nuclear achievements and that his country is ready to revive talks with the West but not “enemies” who act arrogant. Arrogant? Does Ahmadinejad mean to imply that Iran is NOT […]

According to Fox News, Iranian President Ahmadinejad would not elaborate on the announcement, but said within the next few days Iran will unveil “big new” nuclear achievements and that his country is ready to revive talks with the West but not “enemies” who act arrogant.

Arrogant?

Does Ahmadinejad mean to imply that Iran is NOT arrogant? And that the United States is?

I looked up arrogant in an online dictionary and found this definition:

1. Having or displaying a sense of overbearing self-worth or self-importance.  2. Marked by or arising from a feeling or assumption of one’s superiority toward others.

Let’s see. In the years since the Iranian regime came to power, it has done the following: Taken Americans hostage in an embassy and held them for over a year; sponsored most of the world’s terrorism, based on the findings of both Republican and Democratic administrations; and threatened its neighbor, Israel, with annihilation, in the process denying that the Nazi Holocaust ever even happened.

Now, do these things sound arrogant to you? Do these things sound like having or displaying a sense of overbearing, pseudo-self-worth? Do they sound like a presumption of superiority towards others?

I’d love to ask these questions of Obama. However, Obama is probably peeing in his pants with excitement over the prospect that the United States will finally get to have “talks” with Iran.

Who knows what the truth is about Iranian nuclear weapons. What we do know is that the Iranians intend to “negotiate” with Obama from a position of blackmail. Whether the blackmail is based on credible threats or not, we may never know. We’ll only know for sure once Iran has nuclear weapons, because once they have them, they will almost certainly use them to prove it.

Iran keeps talking about being “ready” to revive talks with the United States. When have Iran and the United States ever talked? And what constitutes “ready”? The implication seems clear. Once Iran has achieved a level of nuclear power which enables them to start to follow through on their always promised blackmail, they’re ready to talk. If even the perception exists that they now have nuclear weapons, they know Obama will bow to their desires. Of course, Obama has been begging them to talk for the last four years. He was ready to bow to their desires without the threat of anything such as a nuclear weapon. Imagine how he’ll be now.

This must be a really difficult time to live in Israel. The United States has, for the last four years now, abandoned even the pretense of any willingness to take a stand against the potential nuclear blackmail that Iran poses, most acutely to Israel. Israel is a civilized and Westernized nation, not unlike those of Western Europe and the United States. The people there live very much like we do in the United States and Europe. How must they feel knowing that they no longer have a major ally, such as the United States, watching their back?

I would never imply that the United States owes Israel, or anyone else, anything as a selfless duty. That’s the kind of nonsense we’re taught, although most of us don’t believe it. But protecting Israel — or more precisely, helping Israel protect itself — is in the rational self-interest of the United States. It’s an opportunity to stand for freedom in a part of the world where virtually no freedom exists, and where Israel stands out as a beacon of individual rights compared to anyone else. It’s also an obvious strategic advantage to have a powerful ally there, given the fact that — especially under Obama’s environmentalist policies — we’re completely dependent on oil from the Middle East to keep the lights of civilization turned on.

What is wrong with Obama? What could possess someone who managed to rise to the Presidency to take such a weak, even sympathetic stand, towards arguably the most evil dictatorship in the world today? What is wrong with the American people for not even noticing?

The Roman Empire began declining with the invasion of barbarians. The United States republic could go the same way, only at the hands of Iranian terrorists who play us for the fools that our leaders apparently are.

Share
Dr. Michael Hurd is a psychotherapist, columnist and author of "Bad Therapy, Good Therapy (And How to Tell the Difference)" and "Grow Up America!" Visit his website at: www.DrHurd.com.

Voice of Capitalism

Our weekly email newsletter.