Obama Has Been Neutralized

A recent proposal by the Iranian president regarding a face-to-face conversation with Barack Obama over current international issues has created quite a stir in the White House. The world clearly sees the proposal for a debate, and the media cannot hide it for the sake of the White House. The Iranian president is displaying his openness and desire for a dialog with the U.S. president by inviting him to sit down and have a conversation in front of the world media. The Iranian president has gone so far as to offer a certain time and place, proving his self-confidence in this regard. He has said, “Toward the end of summer we will hopefully be there for the (U.N.) General Assembly and I will be ready for one-on-one talks with Mr. Obama, in front of the media of course. … We will offer our solutions for world issues to see whose solutions are better.”

If such a debate takes place, what will Obama want to say to the Iranian president? Will Obama give false promises regarding the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan? Would the Democratic U.S. president discuss whether he and the White House are bound to continue the defense of other regions in the world? It’s obvious that in the event that any kind of debate and direct dialog between Ahmadinejad and Obama does take place, Obama will not easily dispose of his propaganda tools used for permanent decoration or his distortion of speech for this duel of words. American authorities are concerned that losing a debate with Iran would be a critical loss and have therefore cautiously responded to Ahmadinejad’s recent proposal. On the one hand, they have not been able to hide their fear of holding the debate, and on the other hand, they cannot oppose an open debate due to the focus of the world’s public opinion. Analysts of international political issues track the domination of events and developments related to Iran and America and believe that the American president will not be open to debate his Iranian counterpart because the Iranian president knows just how to challenge him on sensitive issues. At present, Obama does not have a good response to the most obvious criticisms against himself, and this disability and weakness would be easily noticed on the debate stage.

The president of America knows that in a debate with President Ahmadinejad, he would be challenged with questions regarding sensitive issues, such as the reason Israel enjoys absolute support from the U.S., and is therefore not willing to hold such a debate. Obama’s delay of a positive response to this debate invitation exposed this. Obama does not have a proper response to questions such as these. Marina Portanya, an expert and analyst of political issues and network reporter, believes it is very unlikely that Obama will be willing to debate face-to-face with Ahmadinejad in front of the camera and worldwide media. Of course, it’s completely clear Obama refuses to debate. American officials don’t have to justify their interfering actions in the international community; they prefer the challenge of a dialogue with others but use avoidance on topics that are not of their choice.

In fact, both of America’s political parties, Democratic and Republican, never take a realistic look at the developments of the Middle East and the international community. Although it was repeatedly announced during President Obama’s candidacy that there would be a commitment from Washington to negotiate with Tehran, Tehran has seen no such commitment. The reality is that the contradiction between the speech and the behavior of U.S. officials is clear enough that no one can deny this paradox.

Democrats in the White House continue to wander in circles of analytic riddles and are helpless against Tehran, and with every moment their inability intensifies. The United States cannot deny their role in the unrest after Iran’s tenth presidential election.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton admitted frankly that Washington was involved in the turmoil following the presidential elections in Iran and supported the chaos of reformists, doing a lot of work behind the scenes, and will continue their activities.

Hillary Clinton said, “[W]e were doing a lot to really empower the protestors without getting in the way. And we’re continuing to speak out and support the opposition.”

In other words, the United States Secretary of State has admitted candidly that the White House had a direct hand in Tehran’s disturbance. Without any doubt holding the debate would be a hard hit and sideswipe the propaganda in the public media of the image of U.S President Barack Obama, and show the Iranian president in a different light than how Obama and Hillary Clinton take him into account.