Obama’s containment paradigm

Remember the gaffe by then Secretary Hagel when he slipped:

“I misspoke and said I supported the president’s position on containment. If I said that, I meant to say we don’t have a position on containment,” Hagel said. – Politico

Guess what? Obama’s policy on Iran is containment. But at least he was against it before he was doing it. But it left Hagel confused, who must have saw at the onset that the Obama policy was containment. So Obamafiles had to come out to formerly deny it, saying they were against containment. Oh, we do know how Obama’s administration works. Aka “Listen to and report what we say but pay no attention to what we are really doing.” (don’t bother yourself about that)

Wa Po December 9, 2011

“As recent events underscore the growing Iranian nuclear threat, the Obama administration appears to be pivoting toward a policy of containment. The emphasis of its rhetoric has shifted from preventing an “unacceptable” nuclear Iran to “isolating” it. …/

The administration’s alternative to prevention — isolation — implies containment. But a nuclear Iran could not be contained as the Soviet Union was. Containment requires credibility, a resource United States will have drained if, after numerous warnings to the contrary, we permit Tehran to cross the nuclear threshold. And no matter how isolated, a nuclear Iran is likely to spark a destabilizing cascade of proliferation. Despite its own isolation, North Korea shares its nuclear technology. Iran might, too.”

It is one thing to have and support its containment policy but another to just lie about them. Leaving Iran steps, maybe only months, from its objective is a containment policy.

In fact, this administration went to lengths to put Iran in that on-the-verge position. It first stitched enrichment into the policy — something they didn’t have before. They strive to set arbitrary enrichment levels. Who does that help? Then they have the difficulty with inspections which there seems to be no answer for. But no, they tell us, it is not a policy of containment.

To AIPAC in 21012, Obama said:

Iran’s leaders should understand that I do not have a policy of containment; I have a policy to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. (Applause.)

March 5, 2012 Obama said: (while calling the US and Israel bond unbreakable)

“And as I emphasized, even as we will continue on the diplomatic front, we will continue to tighten pressure when it comes to sanctions, I reserve all options, and my policy here is not going to be one of containment. My policy is prevention of Iran obtaining nuclear weapons.

And as I indicated yesterday in my speech, when I say all options are at the table, I mean it.”

All options are on the table until they aren’t.

To the Atlantic, he told Jeffrey Goldberg:

Dismissing a strategy of “containment,” the president tells me it’s “unacceptable” for the Islamic Republic to have a nuclear weapon. …/

…”he seemed most frustrated when talking about what he sees as a deliberate campaign by Republicans to convince American Jews that he is anti-Israel. “Every single commitment I have made to the state of Israel and its security, I have kept,” he told me. “Why is it that despite me never failing to support Israel on every single problem that they’ve had over the last three years, that there are still questions about that?

Though he struck a consistently pro-Israel posture during the interview, Obama went to great lengths to caution Israel that a premature strike might inadvertently help Iran: “At a time when there is not a lot of sympathy for Iran and its only real ally, [Syria,] is on the ropes, do we want a distraction in which suddenly Iran can portray itself as a victim?”

He always manages to turn the Iran problem into a problem of Israel’s desires or potential actions. Why does that appear more of a threat to him than the possibility of a nuclear Iran? Now some two years later, it seems to be a replay of all that he said before…except that the elephant in the room is containment, as the policy of choice.

Obama seems the only one unwilling to call the duck what it is. But then he also cannot call ISIS what it is either.The river of denial runs straight through the White House. The guy who’s only major doctrine is “don’t do stupid stuff” apparently doesn’t see containment, or waffling on Iran policy, stupid stuff.

This is his “if you like your plan you can keep your plan, period.” It is his there is “not a smidgen of corruption” in the IRS. This is his “transparent administration.” This is his version of not wanting even the appearance of meddling in Israel’s election. But this is just the Mid East version of it.