...

Obama does not want to offend, so he kowtows.  I am sorry Mr. Rooz did not realize that earlier.

He didn't have a problem offending many Americans during his apology tour.

do we really need more proof that simple is as simple does?

in an article published by the la times on 3/9/2010 entitled "US Changing Focus of Iran Policy" (link) reporting on the administration's recent decision to more precisely target international sanctions against iran's revolutionary guard rather than the iranian population as a whole, correspondent Paul Richter underscored the risks involved by quoting secretary of state clinton, an independent expert on iran and several representatives of iran's reformist movement.

1. clinton, whom richter characterized as having repeatedly accused iran's current government as a 'military dictatorship stated "They (the iranian opposition) don't want to see sanctions. They don't want to see the end to their democracy. They don't want to see the rise of an unelected body or a non-clerical body, namely the Revolutionary Guard, assuming all of this power."

2. carnegie endowment for international peace's iranian specialist karim sadjadpour--referring to us efforts to put in place international rather than unilateral sanctions (an approach to which even russian seems supportive)--observed: "Sanctions are increasingly being looked at by the administration in the context of how these measures could be potentially helpful to the cause of political reform in Iran. Depriving the Revolutionary Guard of the ability to sign billion-dollar contracts and turning them into an international pariah would be welcomed by many democratic activists in Iran."

3. reformist and tehran university law professor, yyousef mollai (potential victim of our best intentions) seems to have a whole differnt take on the need--or desirability--of express us support for their movement: "It puts reformist and civic activists in danger, The Islamic Republic is waiting for any document showing covert or overt help of the U.S. to the Iranian opposition to claim, 'Hey, look, the reformists are the paid lackeys of the U.S. administration.' And then there will be more pretexts for arrests."

4. morad saghafi--social scientist, magazine editor and supporter of opposition leader mehdi karroubi is even more stark in stating there are "no common values shared between the Iranian opposition and the U.S. administration. Their foreign policy in the U.S. is prioritized according to their own set of values, which are not shared here."

in light of the above, rooz' condemnation seems more than a little bit imprudent, short-signted and self-serving.

btw in this same article richter reports the administration is encouraging private communications firms to "do what they can to enable opposition access to the Internet and other forms of communication."  why aren't palin and her teabaggers applauding?

Kingbee,

All your points taken from the LA Times are valid, but what do you expect Ms Rooz to say? Thank you for treating our dictator like a real head of government? Thank you for trying to find an agreement with the same regime we are currently trying to get rid of?

Ms Rooz is not saying that Obama should wage war instead of pressing for international sanctions and none of what the LA Times list in their article goes against what Ms Rooz said. Yes, the US should make sure that whatever sanctions there are should specifically hurt the "Revolutionary Guard".

But the reformists are seen by the regime as American agents already. Professor Mollai is right, supporting the reformists will put them at danger. But not supporting them will put them at danger too. All Obama has to do is ignore Ahmadinejad, NOT call him, NOT send him greetings, NOT speak with him, NOT acknowledge him in any way as representing Iran. The US can abandon the current Iranian regime just like the US abandoned the Shah when this mess started. And that won't hurt the reformists. It will merely keep the US out of the equation and perhaps find the regime in a situation where it tries to contact the US and can't, whereas the reformists won't have any connection to the US whatsoever.

When Obama became President he immediately started to open the door for the Iranian regime to become a good citizen of the world again. That was weeks before the Iranian people showed that the regime was not Iranian at all. That was Obama's mistake. He tried to befriend a regime just when it was on its way out. Maybe he has learned now, but he nearly gave in to the very regime the Iranians hate.

And that was a mistake.

Obama makes lots of foreign policy mistakes. He shows too much an attitude of distrust and arrogance towards his allies and seems to want to be friends with all his enemies.

wonderful in theory. not that successful for us when applied to cuba, north korea or, most notably, china (nixon built his political career targeting as traitors anyone fool enough to consider recognizing the proc in return for generous funding from exiled nationalists aka the china lobby and eventually found himself positioned--accidentally or not--as the only president who could have met the chinese without having his career ruined by...nixon). 

i've heard, seen nor reead anything suggesting reformists see their government as uniranian. illegitimate and repressive...perhaps less perfectly islamic as it once seemed...but not as iranian as it would be without those issues?

you can't be serious.

you gotta be kidding.

how many of our allies are on worse terms with us now than 2 years ago?  how many other relationships are improved?

No.

Have you really not noticed? (Or did you not want to notice?)

The UK, Israel, Poland, Czech Republic, Iraq.

None.

Ironically, just two minutes after posting the above comment I found this German article:

http://www.n-tv.de/politik/Pudel-will-nicht-mehr-Pudel-sein-article797813.html

It says that the British parliament is discussing whether the "special relationship" between the UK and US should be ended.

The article blames Bush, of course. I am sure it has nothing to do with Obama pretending that everything Bush did was wrong (although the Iraqis seem to disagree as they just elected a majority pro-American parliament), thereby leaving the US' allies stranded as being "wrong" as well (including Iraq).

Or maybe US support for Argentina trying to annex British territory has influenced this?

Or what about Obama's treatment of foreign diplomats from allied countries. It wasn't only Netanyahu he treated like a servant. The British prime minister was also not the guest of honour he used to be under Bush.

Even the Hunffington Post noties it:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/21/poland-furious-with-obama_n_293271.html

A Polish-American reader (who was against the missile shield) comments:

So today we have yet another betrayal with the US showing allegiance to Russia instead of it's real allies in Eastern Europe. Why? My guess it's for Iran's oil and for backup in case we do go to war with Iran. 

Obama made a symbolic gesture by doing this on the 70th anniversary of the Soviet invasion of Poland. How purely sad that yet another American politician betrays a true friend. 

So with whom exactly do the US have better relations now than under Bush? France?

Also note that Obama's changed attitude towards Israel also affects Egypt. Egypt has done a lot to keep the peace and now finds itself stranded as well supporting Israel agains terrorists with less US backing than two years ago.

Maybe some people are confusing Obama doing what they want with Obama improving relations with traditional allies. It's not the same thing.

Anytime you post, it is just more proof.

Since most of your post is not yours (but you actually cite the source - Good boy!), it meritts no response (after all, even richter has an ass hole).  However the last 2 sentences do.  I love how the holier than thou attitude extends to the impotence of the administration.  Obama's announcement is akin to Lincoln's Emancipation proclamation.  Safe, full of self righteous puffery and totally impotent.  So why should Palin and the tea partiers (you must be the teabagger you refer to) send viagra to Obama?

An interesting side bar.  During the Bush years when the price of oil went up, it was to enrich Bush's oil buddies.  Under obama the price of oil goes up, so what is the reason?  To Enrich Bush's oil buddies?  Why does he want to enrich Bush's oil buddies?  Such a great guy Obama!  Doing that for friends of Bush!

presidential pretence is clearly what's driving those members of parliament pushing this issue, but obama ain't the president who abused, exploited and manipulated that "special relationship" as well as tony blair's sadly misplaced personal friendship and support

i'm not aware of any tangible (as opposed to semantics) difference in our relationship with the uk. ultimately the us has to do what's best for the us--not poland or czech republic or any other nation, each of which has its own selfish agenda.  in the long run we may well be doing what's best for poland and czech republic by keeping our missles outside their borders. your extravagently charitable characterization of iraq as an american ally is admirable, i guess.

israel clearly feels things are worse.

you forgot spain where there've been rallies like this all over during the past week.

dunno what obama did to them, but as you can see they're really pissed off.

The British had the same policy as the US towards Saddam.

And Tony Blair pushed for the invasion just as hard as George W. Bush and Eyad Allawi did.

You don't think Iraq is an American ally?

Iraqis beg to differ. A majority just voted for very clearly and openly pro-American parties.