Jonathan Guyer: Hillary & Iran


Politico‘s uber-cool cartoonist Matt Wuerker, a previous Pulitzer finalist, got the call last night that he’d won the prestigious Herblock Prize. Excellent.
I got the news from Matt’s wife, Center for Democracy in the Americas Executive Director Sarah Stephens, this morning at 6 am at National Airport departing for Venezuela while I was heading off to New Orleans.
When I get back to Washington, I’ll post a cool cartoon that Wuerker has done of this blogger in tribute to his award.
And one of Wuerker’s wannabe proteges, Jonathan Guyer, is TWN‘s cartoonist — at least for the time being until someone pays him.
Today, Guyer facetiously weighs in on Hillary Clinton’s upgrade to Iran’s status.
— Steve Clemons


16 comments on “Jonathan Guyer: Hillary & Iran

  1. Pahlavan says:

    Take our special operations personnel out of these regions, and the crazy allah loving sucide bombers will also vanish over night.


  2. PissedOffAmerican says:

    Well, heck, at least Israel is doing it the good old fashioned way, with spooks and assassins. The United states prefers the more straightforward way, of simply sending in a missile. Why get just your target when you can wipe out a family or two as an added bonus?


  3. Cee says:

    I’m waiting for Hillary to talk about the assassination that puts all of us at risk.


  4. PissedOffAmerican says:

    Why chuckles greeted Hillary’s Gulf tour
    By Rami G. Khouri
    Wednesday, February 17, 2010
    American secretaries of state have been coming to the Middle East to create all sorts of complex alliances against Iran for most of my recent happy life, but every time this show passes through our region I learn again the meaning of the phrase “lack of credibility.” Hillary Clinton is the latest to undertake this mission, and like her predecessors her comments are often difficult to take seriously.
    We are told that her trip to the region has two main aims: to strengthen Arab resolve to join the United States and others in imposing harsh new sanctions to stop Iran’s nuclear development program; and to harness Arab support for resumed Israeli-Palestinian negotiations. In both of these critical diplomatic initiatives the US has taken the lead and achieved zero results. Either the actors involved – Arabs, Israelis, Iranians – are all chronically, even chromosomally, dysfunctional (for which there is some evidence) or the US is particularly inept when assuming leadership.
    The weakness in both cases, I suspect, has to do with the US trying to define diplomatic outcomes that suit its own strategic objectives and political biases (especially pro-Israel domestic sentiments). So Washington pushes, pulls, cajoles and threatens all the players with various diplomatic instruments, except the one that will work most efficiently in both the Iranian and Arab-Israeli cases: serious negotiations with the principal parties, based on applying the letter of the law, and responding equally to the rights, concerns and demands of all sides.
    Two Clinton statements during her Gulf trip this week were particularly revealing of why Washington continues to fail in its missions in our region. The first was her expression of concern that Iran is turning into a military dictatorship: “We see that the government of Iran, the supreme leader, the president, the Parliament, is being supplanted, and that Iran is moving toward a military dictatorship,” Clinton said.
    Half a century of American foreign policy flatly contradicts this sentiment (which is why Clinton heard soft chuckles and a few muffled guffaws as she spoke). The US has adored military dictatorships in the Arab world, and has long supported states dominated by the shadowy world of intelligence services. This became even more obvious after the attacks of September 11, 2001, when Washington intensified cooperation with Arab intelligence services in the fight against Al-Qaeda and other terror groups.
    Washington’s closest allies in the Middle East are military and police states where men with guns rule, and where citizens are confined to shopping, buying cellular telephones, and watching soap operas on satellite television. Countries like Egypt, Jordan, Tunisia, Libya, as well as the entire Gulf region and other states are devoted first and foremost to maintaining domestic order and regime incumbency through efficient, multiple security agencies, for which they earn American friendship and cooperation. When citizens in these and other countries agitate for more democratic and human rights, the US is peculiarly inactive and quiet.
    If Iran is indeed becoming a military dictatorship, this probably qualifies it for American hugs and aid rather than sanctions and threats. Clinton badly needs some more credible talking points than opposing military dictatorships. (Extra credit question for hard-core foreign policy analysts: Why is it that when Turkey slipped out of military rule into civilian democratic governance, it became more critical of the US and Israel?)


  5. Jonathan Guyer says:

    thanks for the feedback… more cartoons @


  6. Carroll says:

    Posted by JohnH, Feb 17 2010, 12:57PM – Link
    I foresee a sequel to “The Audacity of Hope,” called “The Audacity of Hypocrisy
    Posted by PissedOffAmerican, Feb 17 2010, 9:53PM – Link
    Having Hillary Clinron handle our relationship with Iran is like having Elmer Fudd handle Bugs Bunny’s PR program
    Thanks, I needed that.


  7. PissedOffAmerican says:

    Having Hillary Clinron handle our relationship with Iran is like having Elmer Fudd handle Bugs Bunny’s PR program.


  8. nadine says:

    Well, Obama kept trying but he didn’t get anywhere. Remember the “outstretched hand” message of last March? He released a video with Farsi subtitles.
    “So in this season of new beginnings I would like to speak clearly to Iran’s leaders,” Obama said in the video. “We have serious differences that have grown over time. My administration is now committed to diplomacy that addresses the full range of issues before us, and to pursuing constructive ties among the United States, Iran and the international community.”


  9. easy e says:

    Posted by nadine, Feb 17 2010, 4:51PM
    At least the administration is starting to admit the obvious — that engagement with Ahmedinejad didn’t work.
    So, when did this “engagement with Ahmedinejad” actually occur???


  10. nadine says:

    Hillary is trying to make it sound like pinprick sanctions against the Revolutionary Guards. which is all the administrations proposes, is really getting tough (it isn’t). At least the administration is starting to admit the obvious — that engagement with Ahmedinejad didn’t work.


  11. Alan K says:

    What exactly does she mean? I was hoping some of the astute commentators here would explain.


  12. Don Bacon says:

    Imagine that, a military-industrial complex is taking over the government. This calls for crippling sanctions against the Pentagon . . .oops, I mean the Revolutionary Guards.


  13. Pahlavan says:

    If her objective was appealling to masses in Iran, her statement was a mistake. If it’s a reaction to take over the failure of the green movement and further rally the opinion of the masses in the west, then that’s also meaningless as the genie is already out of the bottle. Obama played his real hand (on his change rhetoric in particular) when he announced Hillary to lead the state department.


  14. JohnH says:

    I foresee a sequel to “The Audacity of Hope,” called “The Audacity of Hypocrisy.” Only question is whether Clinton will beat Obama to it.
    Or maybe a cartoonist will recognize an irresistible opportunity…


  15. ... says:

    surely one of these cartoonists can do a cartoon on what a hypocrite clinton is…perhaps they can point out how the usa is a military industrial complex intent on war 24/7, but i guess that would be hitting to close to the bone for a lot of americans and they wouldn’t be able to properly laugh at it…. i’m not a cartoonist, but dealing with bimbos like clinton must entail some work….


  16. JohnH says:

    Broadcasting from the land of tyrants (the Arab Persian Gulf), Hillary criticizes IRAN for its anti-democratic behavior! Also ignoring the human rights situation of her host countries, she had the audacity to say that IRAN needs to “respect its people more on a daily basis.”
    One would think that such talk would scare Arab tyrants out of their wits. But they have long experience with American hypocrisy and speeches targeting domestic audiences while ignoring the situation on the ground where they stand.
    Instead of being scared, the SOS’ trip was met with chuckles:
    Is this another example of “smart diplomacy” or just another attempt to restore American credibility?
    Truly pathetic.


Add your comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *