The Art of "Meddling": Freedom vs. Nuclear Disarmament

America’s feckless President seems to believe that speaking out for the universal concepts of human rights, liberty, religious tolerance, democracy, and freedom of expression would constitute “meddling” in Iran’s domestic affairs. Put another way, Obama is worried and concerned that such statements could be interpreted by the tyrannical clerics in the Iranian regime as <i>”meddling”</i>.

Aside from placing himself in a reactive posture with each new development in Tehran, the President has deferred and diminished the unique power of his office, in addition to shattering the pretense of his personal claims to being a transformational leader. This is to say nothing of him turning his back on the “Muslim World” (according to Obama’s Taxonomy) and his fellow “Citizens of the World” that he rhapsodizes about.

The point is this: How can Obama not speak out with clarity now on an issue of fundamental human rights for fear of being accused of “meddling”, but then expect to “negotiate” with this same fraudulent regime about possessing nuclear weapons?

The Iranian regime views their nuclear ambitions as a sovereign right and any interference as “meddling”.

It logically follows then, that Obama has absolutely no chance of negotiating with the Iranian regime on nukes, let alone engage in “tough, hard-headed diplomacy”, because the moment he starts to press for real concessions, the Iranians already know that all they have to do is raise the specter of American “meddling”. As the Iranian regime has seen for the past week, that accusation alone is enough to frighten Obama into his default political mode of timidity, rationalization, explanations, equivocation, and withdrawal.

Obama is right about one thing: The World is Watching…and the world is watching Obama and his limp-wristed response to the Iranian Tyrants.