Obama's Big Learning Curve
July 15, 2008

Tiny Iran
Obama's big learning curve.

By Anne Bayefsky

'It's terrorism, stupid." Nothing short of blunt talk will do in
light of Sen. Barack Obama's comments this past week on Iran,
Hamas, and Hezbollah. They are the most significant indication to
date of the looming catastrophe for American national security
posed by an Obama presidency.

Here is Obama in his own words, speaking in Pendleton, Oregon on
Sunday night: "Iran, Cuba, Venezuela, these countries are tiny
compared to the Soviet Union. In Iran they spend 1/100th of what
we spend on the military. If Iran ever tried to pose a serious
threat to us, they wouldn't stand a chance."

How does one begin a course for a presidential candidate in
Terrorism 101? Where has Obama been for the past three decades
during which the greatest threats to peace and security have
moved beyond the sphere of state actors operating alone? After
9/11, why doesn't Obama recognize the capacity of relatively
small entities to wreak havoc, at comparatively little cost, on a
nation as large and strong as America?

Despite Obama's claim to be a foreign-policy realist, his fancy
foreign-policy footwork contains as much realpolitik as a dancing
sugar-plum fairy. Obama is keen to explain his hankering for an
early heart-to-heart with Iranian President Ahmadinejad - with
whom he would "be willing to meet separately, without
precondition during the first year of [his] administration" or
his desire to engage in "direct presidential diplomacy with Iran
without preconditions." His strategy so far has been to deny the
undeniable transaction costs of an unconditioned presidential
get-together: the undeserved legitimacy conferred on a would-be
mass murderer, the time lost while a nuclear-weapons program
continues in full swing, and the betrayal of brave local
dissenters.

"Tiny" and not "serious" move us another step closer to the edge.
The unfortunate reality is that Iran not only poses a serious
threat already, but it does stand a chance of carrying out its
dire program. Ahmadinejad, in addition to his professed affinity
for genocide, is funding terrorist proxies in Lebanon and Gaza
who believe they have started the job and are committed to
finishing it. The message Obama sends in denying that Iran has
"tried to pose a serious threat to us" is that a grave threat to
the peace and security of Israel is not a threat to the peace and
security of the United States. Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer,
of "Israel Lobby" fame, would be proud. But even the
anti-nuclear-anything activists in the Democratic party should
begin to worry about a president who thinks the consequences of
an Iranian nuclear strike on Israel can be confined to the
locals.

Official U.S. policy holds Iran to be a state sponsor of
terrorism, along with Cuba, North Korea, Sudan, and Syria. Not
only has Iran tried, and is trying, to pose a serious threat to
us, in some ways it is a greater threat than that posed by the
Soviet Union. The terrorist organizations or non-state actors
whom these rogue states sponsor are not subject to the same
economic and political pressures that could be brought to bear on
the Soviet Union. Madmen and religious fanatics driven by a
belief in the imminent reappearance of the 12th Imam following
worldwide chaos, or visions of virgins in post-suicidal heaven,
or who just hate us more than they love their children, are not
susceptible to the rational calculus of Mikhail Gorbachev.

But according to his recently reported conversation with New York
Times columnist David Brooks, Obama believes the problem with
Hamas and Hezbollah is that the poor things don't "understand
that they're going down a blind alley with violence that weakens
their legitimate claims." We need to hear more about where in the
governing Hamas Charter (with its overt anti-Semitism and
manifest dedication to the destruction of Israel), and
Hezbollah's takeover plans for Lebanon, Obama finds legitimate
claims. And the solution according to Obama? "The U.S. needs a
foreign policy that looks at root causes of problems and
dangers."

Hezbollah Leader Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah couldn't have said it
better himself. Oh, wait: He has said it himself. Remember
Iranian proxy Nasrallah in Beirut on September 30, 2006, just
after he sent 4,000 rockets into Israel: "This experience of the
resistance, which must be transferred to the world, relies on
faith, conviction, trust, and the moral and spiritual willingness
to give sacrifices. Also, it depends on the thinking, planning,
organizing, training and armament, and as is said: dealing with
the root causes." Surely, Obama ought to know that invoking the
language of "root causes" to illuminate the behavior of Hamas and
Hezbollah plays into the nefarious strategy of these terrorist
organizations and their sympathizers.

How about the tiny factor? On the one hand, we could all hum
tip-toeing through the tulips along with Obama and Tiny Tim. On
the other hand, we might cast our minds back to "tiny" anthrax
envelopes or think about "tiny" suitcase bombs or "tiny"
nanotechnology innovations in chemical and biological weapons. I
also wonder how all those developing countries, allegedly ready
to embrace us once again with a President Obama, will enjoy the
big boy's view of their tiny status.

Coming from a man who aspires to bear the single greatest
responsibility for the peace and security of the free world, the
resemblance to "peace for our time" is the least of Obama's
problems. The real problem is a book with a name like "Terrorism
for Dummies" would have to become bedside reading at the White
House.

- Anne Bayefsky is senior fellow at the Hudson Institute
. She also serves as the director of the
Touro Institute for Human Rights and the Holocaust
and as
the editor of EYEontheUN.org .