So let's take a step back from a Republican breaking decorum and making a huge symbol of disrespect to remember that there are real policy issues at stake in the world.
In the intensity of the healthcare debate, we can't risk forgetting our hypocrisy abroad.
It is for this reason I am sad to note that nothing has changed in Iran. The US has just rejected talks with Iran.
So why on earth would the Obama administration back away from its promise of discussion and talks with Iran?
The stated reason:
A five-page Iranian proposal distributed to foreign diplomats Wednesday "was not really responsive to our greatest concern, which is obviously Iran's nuclear program," said P.J. Crowley, the senior State Department spokesman.
At the same time, Crowley said, "We remain willing to engage Iran."
I bolded what I did for the hypocrisy of that sentence being directly at odds with the first paragraph I quoted.
So, apparently we should ONLY talk to Iran about nuclear weapons. Which seems a strange policy to take, considering our current problems in Afghanistan.
Actually, the entire logic hearkens back to the Bush administration. At the time we first invaded Afghanistan, a breakthrough opened up on one policy front. Iran had long been an enemy of the Sunni Taliban, and in fact imprisoned hundreds of Al Queda operatives. It actually contacted the US to work with it in Afghanistan to solve the problems of that nation's government. In essence, an ally with experience fighting a common foe.
Of course, we ignored the request and left the Iranians out. In fact, we even added insult with Bush's "Axis of Evil" speech in 2001. Enraged, the Iranians released the warlord Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, one of the most powerful drug traffickers in Afghanistan with his own extremely powerful network. Of course, it was revived upon his return. And of course, it has fought against us ever since.
Now, Obama has been given a golden opportunity to change our policy and fix the past. There is a chance that discussion of Afghanistan could help lead to talks on other issues, particularly nuclear energy.
The same principle would apply to other issues. Consider if you are in a fight with your friend. Have you ever tried to 'break the ice?' You start talking about something off-topic, and it leads to eventually more normal communication. Diplomacy is similar, except that it is on a global level with myriad levels of players.
Yet for such a simple principle, President Obama seems to be caving in to baiting and hawkism. We are rejecting simple diplomacy in favor of... wait for it...
Pressure is increasing on the Obama administration from conservatives and pro-Israel groups to take a harder line on Iran. Lawmakers are moving ahead with legislation to penalize companies that help Iran refine or import gasoline.
Oh, and of course we must remember the constant threat of an Israeli first-strike on Iran's nuclear facilities with its 300 nukes. Can you say, "how to destabilize the Middle East in one easy step?"
I only hope that figures like Dennis Ross and Hillary Clinton don't get to President Obama. If he would just take a moment to turn away from healthcare, he might just get a much-needed victory.
There is nothing to be gained by throwing a tantrum about Iran's nuclear energy and being too scared to break the ice. In fact, one could say the fate of the Middle East hangs in the balance...