Tuesday, December 10, 2013

"Ethical Foreign Policy" Means Siding With Dictators Over Democracies

The topsy-turvy world of the Huffington Post is back again with an article by Ian Williams. Williams is here to tell us that an "ethical" foreign policy actually means a left-wing one. And by a left-wing one we mean one in which America sells out its democratic allies in favor of theocratic Islamist dictatorships who hate us. This is pretty much what we have come to expect in the little world that is the Huffington Post.

Williams begins with the Iranian nuclear agreement, taking shots at Netanyahu and his "his ideological supporters in the United States Congress" who want "Armageddon in the Middle East." Nothing like a good poisoning of the well to get one going in the morning, I suppose. Then we get the one and only critique of Iran in the entire article:
"One does not have to love the ayatollahs and their theocracy to sympathize with Iran, whose pariah status in its own right could be considered hard-earned, not least over its immoral and expedient support for the regime in Damascus."
Indeed, it is earned. And it's amazing that Israel, a country threatened with destruction and routinely raked over the coals by just about everyone (including the Huffington Post blogger stable) gets so little sympathy in comparison. Williams does the classic "Israel's enemies kind of suck BUT" that we see so many times on the Huffington Post and other left-wing blogs. He proceeds to engage in all the classic anti-Israel/pro-Iran talking points which we have busted so many times before:
There were some new ones though, like how the West backed Iraq when it attacked Iran. That might make the West hypocritical, but that doesn't make them wrong. Just because the West was mean to Iran a few decades ago doesn't give them the right to support terrorism and become a rogue nuclear state. Sorry. Having finished with the talking points, he goes back to backhanded praising of the Iranian regime:
"Incidentally, while there is undoubted repression of journalists and dissidents in Iran, I actually told Iranian television, live, that even if the Iranians had the legal right to, they should not have a civil nuclear program because it was environmentally damaging and economically devastating. They have had me back on their screens often since."
OMG, you mean a guy that clearly loves Iran wasn't censored when he said something pretty harmless. That clearly means that everything there is totally fine! Hey Williams, next time you are on Iranian television say something like "Down with Khameini" or "Islam is a pack of lies" and see what happens next. You know, since they are clearly so open minded about things there.

He finishes with a two-fer, going after the Arab states and the "Israel lobby" at the same time:
"The Gulf states, whose treatment of religious minorities, women and dissenters makes the ayatollahs seem positively liberated, have been supporting Israeli and the U.S. bellicosity -- behind the scenes, of course, since it ill befits the custodian of the two shrines to incite a unbeliever's attack on a Muslim nation. Would Obama have dared thwart them and the Israeli lobby at the same time if natural gas had not relieved the U.S. from its long-time energy dependence?"
You know, Williams still hasn't explained what exactly he thinks should happen with Iran and the nuclear issue that would be fitting with a foreign policy based on ethics. At least he is straightforward with Iran's problems, that is until he dismisses them as irrelevant. Just as long as there isn't a war everything seems to be fine. And as I said before, that's not a policy, it's a slogan.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Hey guys we've started to employ a slight comment policy. We used to have completely open comments but then people abused it. So our comment policy is such: No obvious trolling or spamming. And be warned: unlike the Huffington Post we actually enforce our comment policy.