Is President Obama so obsessed with currying favor with the Iranian regime that its behavior never factors into his calculations?

When President Obama isn't busy driving the economy into ruin or exchanging jokes with Jay Leno he makes overtures of peace and love to Iran's Mullahs as well as President Ahmadinejad.

On March 20^th, to mark the occasion of Nowruz (the Iranian new year), President Obama sent a videotaped message to Iran's leaders to seek engagement.  The following day Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Khameinei mostly scoffed at Obama's overture, dismissing it as not "genuine" and adding that American foreign policy remains "hostile" to Iran. The Ayatollah did leave the door slightly ajar offering "should you change, our behavior will change, too."

Of course it begs the question exactly what kind of change would the Ayatollah Khameinei want from America?  Two things spring to mind immediately.  First, that the U.S. end any efforts for international sanctions against Iran and let their nuclear program proceed undeterred. Second, that the U.S. ends its ties with the State of Israel. After all, Iran wants to put an end to the State of Israel. That right there should end any further discussion on the merits of talking with Iran's present regime.

But President Obama will not give up so easily.  Our charming Commander-in-Chief will find a way to break the ice.  Figuring they've already read Mein Kempf perhaps he could instead send them a DVD of the Reverend Jeremiah Wright.  The President would even go to the trouble to ensure the DVD is Region 2 compatible. 

In his appeal to Iran's leaders, President Obama spoke of "the common humanity that binds us together."

But where is Iran's common humanity where it concerns imprisoning an American journalist?

Where is Iran's common humanity where it concerns the persecution of those who practice the Baha'i faith?

Where is Iran's common humanity where it concerns its involvement in the killing of U.S. soldiers in Iraq?

Is President Obama so obsessed with currying favor with the Iranian regime that its behavior in these matters never entered into the equation? 

Roxana Saberi is an American freelance journalist who was arrested in Iran on January 31, 2009.  As of this writing, she has been held in Iran's Evin prison for 53 days without charge.  That President Obama would extend an olive branch to a regime that is holding an American citizen in captivity for no apparent reason is unconscionable.

Let us also not forget that Robert Levinson, a former FBI agent, has been missing in Iran for two years.  The Iranian government has been completely uncooperative with efforts by the U.S. State Department to locate him. 

Does Obama care nothing about the fate of Roxana Saberi or Robert Levinson?  Or is he willing to sacrifice his fellow Americans on the altar of diplomacy and engagement?  If Obama is unwilling to look out for his fellow Americans how can he extol America's founding principles.

One of those principles is religious tolerance.  Yet Iran has mercilessly persecuted Baha'is. This religious minority — which comprises less than one-half percent of Iran's population — is prohibited from holding government jobs or obtaining an education, and subject to arbitrarily having its property seized.  Iran's regime has a long history of executing Baha'is and will likely execute more of them. 

At present seven of Iran's top Baha'i leaders are in Evin prison awaiting trial.  They are accused of spying for Israel as well as "insulting religious sanctities and propaganda against the Islamic Republic."  (http://iran.bahai.us/)  If they are convicted of these "crimes" they will surely face execution. 

President Obama bemoaned America's image around the world under President Bush.  Does President Obama honestly think Iran has such a great image to brag about to the world?  What makes President Obama think Iran's leaders are amenable to reason when they are prepared to execute those who faith is different than theirs? 

Perhaps most disturbing of all is President Obama's apparent indifference to Iran's role in the killing of U.S. soldiers in Iraq. Iran was accused by U.S. Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs Nicholas Burns in January 2007 of supplying weaponry to both Shiite and Sunni insurgent groups in Iraq used to kill American soldiers (and for that matter British and other coalition troops).

In July 2007, Brigadier General Kevin Bergner asserted that Iran was involved in planning a raid in Karbala that resulted in the deaths of five American soldiers that January. 

What would possess President Obama to engage Iran when it was involved in planning attacks against U.S. soldiers in Iraq?  Does the President simply not believe the evidence?  Obama might argue that even if he did believe the evidence against Iran he would point out that Burns favors Iran at the negotiating table. But given that President Obama has committed 17,000 additional U.S. troops to Afghanistan can he be so confident that Iran won't plan attacks against U.S. soldiers there as well? 

When he has a moment to spare could President Obama take the time to tell the American people about the common humanity of Iran's leaders?  Could President Obama take a moment to share with us the things Iran's leaders have done to warrant their rightful place in the community of nations let alone warrant his attention? Finally, could President Obama tell us why arbitrarily imprisoning an American journalist, putting religious minorities on trial and setting into motion a plan to murder American soldiers aren't acts of evil?

Iran might not be an empire like the former Soviet Union.  But it is evil just the same.  So long as the Mullahs reign supreme in Iran they are a threat to the United States and all the diplomacy and engagement in the world isn't going to change that fact.  By legitimizing Iran's evil regime President Obama has done a grave disservice to the people of the United States, Iran and those in the world who do share a common humanity.