One of the things that I find anywhere from amusing to annoying about the current situation with Iran is that so many commentators¹ are convinced that what Obama needs to do is to be tougher.

Now, the problem is:  we have already tried this route and it didn’t work, so I am not sure why it is supposed to work now.

Understand, please, I am not trying to argue that Obama’s approach will lead to success (if success is defined as a nuclear-free Iran over the long term).   But, the notion that what we need strong rhetoric (especially about force and such) as a means of stopping Iran is nonsense.  We did that under the Bush administration and it didn’t work and it isn’t going to work now (or in the future).  Indeed, threats of military action coming from the Bush administration had serious credibility, given that it had already ordered invasions of the countries to Iran’s east and west and still, the threats didn’t work.

I will say this, to follow on from a point made below (here and here):  the best we can hope for is a slowing of the process, a goal that is more likely to be achieved at this point via diplomacy than belligerent rhetoric.

1. For example,  see my post from yesterday, Stephen Hayes, and/or Michael Goldfarb, both of the Weekly Standard. [↩]

2 Responses to “The Emptiness of Tough Talk”

1. Mark Says:
   September 26th, 2024 at 8:16 pm

   Talking is Obama’s problem.

2. MM Says:
   September 27th, 2024 at 1:30 am

   Mark, you make zero sense. Should he not talk? Should he talk differently? Should he invade with a non-existent force as detailed by Dr. Taylor in previous posts? I await your response.