SNARKOTICS.com: where opinions come to overdose

So first Obama wants to talk to Iran without preconditions, then he won’t rule out the use of force, then he says he wants to engage the Iranians directly but also press them on their nuclear ambitions, “funding” of international terrorism, and the stalemate that is the Middle East peace process.

However, it should be noted that Ahmadinejad and the Islamic Republic do not want to talk to the U.S. nor do they want to negotiate with the U.S.; it’s only the pro-reform groups in Iran who want to do so.

If Obama wants to talk without preconditions he would be violating four MANDATORY resolutions passed by the United Nations’ Security Council that impose sanctions on Iran and demand the suspension of its uranium enrichment as a precondition for negotiations. Obama would clearly be sending the wrong message to our allies in the region and to our NATO allies whose support we need in dealing with nuclear threats.

I’m not trying to start a post about how ~dangerous~ Iran is because I don’t believe it is as dangerous as the media make it out to be. There is currently a struggle for power inside Iran within the Khomeinist regime and the anti-regime tension itself is rising, so this would be a stab in the back to the reform groups in Iran. These “talks” would not only legitimize Ahmadinejad, who faces re-election in June 2009, but they would acknowledge him and the Khomeinist regime as being equivalent to the U.S., all while those inside Iran are urging Ahmadinejad to comply with the U.N. resolutions.

It just seems counterproductive to me. I thought that Obama, supposedly being the less hawkish of the two candidates, would have come out on top in the debates regarding Iran and Pakistan but I heard more pro-Bush policies from Obama than McCain on Friday night.

For more articles and information on fellow snarkotic, christinaparrella, please visit her official site @ christinaparrella.com