Israel Matzav: Which part of "no" does the West not understand?

Which part of "no" does the West not understand?

Barry Rubin takes the Obama administration to task for refusing to hear "no" as an answer from Iran on its nuclear program.

Now what is the president of the United States's response to all this? Hold onto your syntax:

"Iran has taken weeks now and has not shown its willingness to say yes to this proposal...and so as a consequence we have begun discussions with our international partners about the importance of having consequences."

Can you imagine what would have been said if President George W. Bush, that fumblemouthed clown so unlike the brilliant articulate Obama had said "the importance of having consequences"? What does that phrase mean? Translation: I refuse to threaten Iran. I am reluctant to put on sanctions. I don't want to admit that engagement has failed. Where's the teleprompter?"

Now a new voice has been added asking for Obama to take tough action. that of Mohsen Makhmalbaf, international spokesman for Iran's main opposition movement. He urged Obama to increase public support for Iranian dissidents and stop the regime from getting nuclear weapons.

Recall that Obama's claim that a tougher stance would hurt the opposition was a major reason for him refusing to condemn the election theft, speak out forcibly against the repression, and hit the regime harder. Well, obviously that's untrue.

But even Makhmalbaf, former campaign spokesman for presidential candidate Mir Hossein Mousavi, thinks the regime won't make a deal because, in his words, "If they agree not to pursue a nuclear bomb and start negotiations, they will lose their supporters. Definitely dialogue is better than war. ... But can you continue your dialogue without any results?"

Answer: Apparently yes.

But it's not just the Obama administration that hasn't got the... well, you know what... to take Iran to task. If you thought that French President Sarkozy or British Prime Minister Gordon Brown found their tongues back in September, they've apparently lost them again.

The West is "disappointed" over Iran's failure to respond positively to a UN-brokered nuclear deal, diplomats said in a statement Friday following a meeting of the UN Security Council's five permanent members plus Germany. However, no new sanctions were discussed during the meeting, according to an EU source.

"We urge Iran to reconsider the opportunity offered by this agreement ... and to engage seriously with us in dialogue and negotiations," the statement said, noting that Teheran had not responded positively to the proposal of the International Atomic Energy Agency.

An EU official said there was no mention of imposing further sanctions against Iran at the meeting. "These things are a matter of timing, and this was not the right time for it," said the official who asked not to be named because of the sensitivity of the matter.

The Western officials said they would hold a follow-up meeting around Christmas.

'Around Christmas.' Figure that might happen the first week in January, because it sure isn't going to happen before Christmas or between Christmas and New Year's. So we're talking nearly two months from now. And in the meantime, the centrifuges continue to produce more enriched uranium.

Jonathan Tobin sums up:

Right now, Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad must be laughing themselves silly at this toothless response from the West. While President Obama circles the globe in a fruitless effort to find support for the sort of sanctions that might force the Iranians to reconsider their position, the Islamist regime continues to delay even the hope of negotiations to buy more time for their program. Obama’s feckless campaign of “engagement” has rightly earned their scorn. After this performance, who could blame the Iranians for believing that the West isn’t serious about stopping them?

The West is not serious about stopping Iran. After all, it's only Israel that's in immediate jeopardy. There is always time to try to reach an accommodation with Iran after Israel is destroyed (God forbid). Israel is going to have to go it alone to take out whatever it can take out of Iran's nuclear capability. Iran knows it. Over the weekend, they threatened to hit the center of Tel Aviv if they are hit by Israel or the United States. But Iran will be hit. There is no choice left for Israel. It's just a question of timing.

What could go wrong?

Israel Matzav: Which part of "no" does the West not understand?