Conservatives and President Obama

Long time no post, but I've been musing on something lately. Writing helps me order my thoughts, and as long as I'm writing on this topic, it might as well go on the ol' blog. This is much in the same vein as my post on conservative opposition to John McCain four years ago.

I've noticed something about the Obama administration since 2009. Republicans in general tend to hate the man (see my point on party loyalty being the ultimate factor in the post on McCain), of course, but at least the neoconservative wing of the party, marginalized as it is presently, really shouldn't.

Why? They (we, I would have said a few years ago, though I've changed ever so slightly since) are basically getting what they want out of him. Osama bin Laden is dead at the hands of the American military, the Iraq war is being honorably ended according to the schedule President Bush agreed to with the Iraqis without a precipitous withdrawal, the Afghanistan campaign has been robustly supported (more so than it was under Bush, I might add) with substantial measurable progress, the United States is standing up to Iranian threats regarding the Strait of Hormuz and its nuclear program, democracy is indeed sweeping across the Middle East, and American and NATO assistance has helped to overthrow one of the most noxious dictators of Northern Africa in the person of Muammar Gaddafi without having to put a single boot on the ground. In short, the neoconservative position, that American power should be used in furtherance of liberty throughout the world, is being more or less obliged by this President, and good on him for that. (As I said, slightly.) Since neoconservative philosophy properly referred to is a foreign policy philosophy, without regard to domestic issues, this should be making that part of the Republican establishment essentially headed by Dick Cheney and the (now largely defunct) Project for the New American Century extremely happy; I daresay that Obama has been more effective at implementing their policies than Bush, who it must be said did a deeply flawed if enthusiastic job of it.

It won't, though, because Obama is a Democrat. Party loyalty, you see. This is why I've been a lifelong independent; I don't have to feel obligated to anybody's tribe over the issues. But that's another rant.

My, but the Iranians love Photoshop.

First, Iranian stringers Hezbollah had a hand in the Reuters fake photo scandal.

Then, Iranian state-run news agency PressTV presented a photoshopped protest sign as the genuine article.

And now, Iran is photoshopping images of their missile tests of the past few days.

I think this is hilarious. It's grim that the Iranians are threatening Israel and American interests with missile tests, of course, but that they feel the need to alter images of their tests for whatever reason is just funny. Do they think that Photoshopping a double of the missile will make a missile defense system miss or something? Because I can't find a practical purpose for altering the pictures in such a way, especially for such a bad job of it. (The editor could have at least sourced the duplicate smoke cloud from a different frame so it didn't look exactly the same.)

And that's about all there is to say. The more aggressively Iran behaves, the more likely they make it that Israel or the Unites States might attack. I suppose they're having difficulty figuring that out.

Iran inaugurates heavy water reactor

Oh joy. Just days from the deadline for Iran to stop enriching uranium, they fire up a reactor that produces plutonium as a reaction byproduct instead. Great. Now they can stop enriching uranium all they want; they can just churn out plutonium devices instead. Like that's so much better.

This has got to stop. Nobody, least of all Iran's regional neighbors, can afford a nuclear-armed Iran. The current regime compounds the problem, but there are too many factors that make a powerful Iran dangerous no matter what.

First, Iraq. The United States inadvertently did Iran a huge favor when it eliminated Saddam Hussein; we removed their biggest local military rival. Now the Iranians have a vested interest in making sure that Iraq remains unstable or, worse, falls under Iranian influence so that it can never again pose a serious military threat. A democratic, Westernized, and militarily powerful Iraq with the backing of the United States is the Iranian government's worst nightmare. Nuclear arms are a sure way to make sure Iraq remains cowed no matter what happens.

Second, Israel. Even without Ahmadinejad's standing threat to wipe Israel from the map, Iran has never been a friend to the only remotely Westernized state in the region, and never will be. A nuclear standoff there would be frightening, especially as it would be less likely to remain a standoff with the ayatollahs and their puppets in charge.

Third, Afghanistan. Much like Iraq, the Taliban was no friend to the Shi'ite Iranian government. The Iranians similarly have a vested interest in ensuring that Afghanistan never again presents a threat, which means that they exert destabilizing influence directly counter to Coalition and NATO objectives.

And we can't forget the direct enmity that the Iranians have for the United States. There's a reason the Swiss embassy handles all of our diplomatic business in Tehran, and it isn't because our own embassy staff is too busy enjoying the pleasures of the city's night life, if you know what I mean.

I just hope they realize that the more they do this, the more crosshairs military strategists paint on their facilities.

Iran to continue uranium enrichment

Well this is just great. Not that it's a surprise. Iran has refused the UN's incentive package in favor of enriching uranium suitable for nuclear weapons.

With negotiations still pending, there is some hope that Iran's statement that a halt to enrichment is "not on the agenda" is a bluff in an attempt to gain a stronger bargaining position, but given that Iran's government is crazy, I wouldn't bet on it. The only question now is what does the world do about that?