Has Obama Deliberately Doomed His Iran Diplomacy?

New York Times:

PRESIDENT OBAMA'S Iran policy has, in all likelihood, already failed. On its present course, the White House's approach will not stop Tehran's development of a nuclear fuel program -- or, as Iran's successful test of a medium-range, solid-fuel missile last week underscored, military capacities of other sorts. It will also not provide an alternative to continued antagonism between the United States and Iran -- a posture that for 30 years has proved increasingly damaging to the interests of the United States and its allies in the Middle East.

Read the whole story: New York Times

Comments

[arvay]

It's still too early to tell what Obama is thinking and planning.

Practically each day, Netenhatyhu goes out of his way to issue Obama another diktat cum bleep-you speech -- the latest a statement that he'll continue the Israeli settlement policy.

So he's setting up a situation where if Obama doesn't check israel forcefully, all the good will he's managed to arouse in the Islamic world with words will evaporate into heightened hostility and a sense of betrayal.

One ray of hope -- an administration official recently proposed that Israel be "encouraged" to sign the non-proliferation treaty that Iran has already signed, breaking a big taboo against mentioning the fact that Israel has deployed 200 destabilizing nuclear weapons -- not Iran. Unless she's fired soon, that seems like an opening gambit to checkmate the right-wing Israeli government.

Obama seems to prefer conciliation but there's no way ultimately to come to terms with Iran without changes that are sure to upset Israel and its Congressional acolytes.

But his presidency is at stake -- the economic fallout from an Israeli attack on Iran would collapse much of the global economy and enrage China, which won't be happy with stratospheric oil prices. In the final analysis, China may cast the deciding vote : fend off the Israelis or we'll move our money to other currencies and the US will be bankrupt overnight.

[LeeCalif]

Obama imposes a US/Israeli deadline on Iran. That seems to be towing the Israeli line.

[Macready]

agree with you Lee Calif . . . Obama is still perpetuating the failed US policy in the Middle East which is falsely predicated on giving too much power to israel . . . there has been no change towards israel . . . they are still funded by the US taxpayer . . . nothing has happened to help or alleviate the sufferings of the Palestinians . . . clinton and ross certainly are poor choices for the roles they have . . .

Iran is not the enemy

[NetProphet]

Don't believe Obama's following the Israeli line - at least the Bibi line - everything he's doing (or rather not doing) is CORRECT! We need to keep out of Iranian INTERNAL politics and watch it play out. It will be damned if we (USA) lend our support ... which only means...ge­t our military intelligence to work as in the past ...OR damned if we don't & hope for the best political outcome under the circumstances.

We've gone down that road of MEDDLING before - at least TWICE BEFORE! Let's not make that mistake again!

BTW Macready - I agree Iran IS NOT the enemy.

There are bigger fish to fry - right now it's North Korea: If we show toughness we'll be able to 1) gain support among those big-tough-talk GOPs and at least curb their gun-toten talk of timidity on the part of our President; 2) show Iran & 3) Israel that NUKES are not the answer and will have that "leverage" with both the last two POTENTIAL & SUSPECTED (?) nations.

[Seldon]

In other news jumping the gun....

Dems lose 2020 election!!!
Find out why...

[vinny]

Obama talked the talk, but won't walk the walk.

[SF13]

Well Hillary is running HER foreign policy. No surprise.

[S1m0n]

What US stories about Iran never note is that Iran posesses the right--guarranteed by the Nuclear Non-proliferation treaty--to enrich nuclear fuel for peaceful purposes. As a signatory of that treaty, the US campaign to deny Iran this right is a breach of the US's obligations under it.

Iran, then, is the only one of the three main players whose actions are fully compliant with its treaty obligations. Israel (the third player) has of course never signed the treaty at all.

This in turn is what has makes the US's attempts to get other nations to agree to sanctions dificult. Other nations can't help noting that the US is in the wrong, while Iran is in the right.

[Doris]

When they say "the West", they mean more than just the US.

[ladyskeptik]

We already know that Obama is no Roosevelt and no Lincoln, now he's not even a Nixon...lo­l what a shame.

I guess we should expect Obama to change nothing while saying everything is so "hard" all the time.

Taking on the banking industry while they're begging you for money on the one hand, but killing foreclosure bills on the other...oh that's so "hard". Taking on defeated Republicans and their ridiculous demands on the stimulus package...­oh that's so "hard". Actually signing a credit card "reform" bill that has you know "reform" in it like capping interest rate hikes...oh that's so "hard". Demanding accountability for those who repeatedly broke US and International law...oh that's so "hard". Repealing Don't Ask, Don't Tell or at least through executive order, which he can do, stop the implementation of this discriminatory law...oh that's so "hard". Stopping the use of "state secrets priviledge" to deny torture and spying victims a day in court...oh that's so "hard". Keeping people idefinitely without trial, you know the Orwellian preventive detention program...­oh that's so "EASY". Embracing the Bush era Military Commisions system...o­h that's so "EASY". I'm already used to his "bold" words and "timid" actions, so bring on more of the change we can believe in.

[ladyskeptik]

Four months in and President Obama is so quick to adopt Bush/Cheney policies on many fronts, but has yet to deliver on any major policy that's substantially different from Republicans. Save me the talk of health care with a public option...I­'ll believe it when I see it. As for the the stimulus package, everybody and their momma knew it better had been passed considering the trillions going to Wall Street. You know the old saying give the people crumbs and the bankers the empire.

I guess I should be thankful that at least we're not waging a war on Iran, but then according to this article even that is in question at this point.

This country has two parties, the Right and the Far-Right, both owned by corporations, the military industry and foreign lobbies.

[dadw5boys]

Obama has made it clear that the USA is not going to support any war when Israel will not stop stealing land.

They are creating their own problems Israel has to solve this one alone.

The USA is not the World Policeman and neither is it your welfare agency.

Do not try and EXTORT money from the USA anymore with threats of starting a war.

You start a war your on your own Israel !!!!!!

.

[SF13]

I agree with you but don't count on it. Israel WILL start a war with Iran. That is a given. And we will support them for political reasons in the US.

I hope I am wrong.

[getcaption]

i don't think israel starting a way with iran is such a bad thing. it will take care of the world's top two troublemakers and we can finally save some money

[getcaption]

starting a 'war', not way

[Doris]

Israel is always having to do the dirty work. So, they will probably bomb out the facilities.

Don't you think the extreme force in Gaza was on the behalf of Abbas and Egypt?

[skialethia]

Three important quotes from this piece:

“Since becoming secretary of state, Clinton has told a number of allies in Europe and the Persian Gulf that she is skeptical that diplomacy with Iran will prove fruitful and testified to Congress that negotiations are primarily useful to garner support for “crippling” multilateral sanctions against Iran.”

-Hillary will see to it that Obama fails abjectly in his foreign policy.

“Beyond the nuclear issue, the administration’s approach to Iran degenerates into an only slightly prettified version of George W. Bush’s approach — that is, an effort to contain a perceived Iranian threat without actually trying to resolve underlying political conflicts.­”

-I’ve been saying all along that Obama needs to move beyond the “pretty” word and support them with convincing action.

Continued.­..

[skialethia]

Part 2.

Correction-I"ve been saying all along that Obama needs to move beyond the "pretty" word"S" and support them with convincing action.

“What is really hard is that getting America’s Iran policy “right” would require a president to take positions that some allies and domestic constituencies won’t like.”

-Obama is finally starting to show his cards: he has neither the will nor the courage to take a political risk and do what he knows is right and get tough with Israel now. If he’s going to be a coward about this and take the easy way out that will end up having catastrophic results –THEN HE DESERVES TO FAIL, because the consequences of war with Iran will be A CAREER ENDER FOR HIM.

He has done absolutely NOTHING to challenge Netanyahu on the Palestinian issue and present him with an ultimatum – either he freezes settlements and start dismantling them OR no more funding! Meanwhile Gazans are living in tents with a b0mbed out sewer system and not a penny of the 5 billion promised at Sharm El Sheikh is reaching these people!!!

Obama is a huge disappointment!

[JuergenHartl]

What is to be gained by alienating a democratically elected head of state (Netanyahu)?

A solution in the middle east, specially the Israel/Palestine problems can ONLY be solved by the countries involved. The US and the EU can only act as moderators, and use their influence to push the politicians in charge into the right direction.

[SF13]

I don't think Israel really wants peace to be honest. Like most regimes they want land and power at any cost.

[leonel]

RESOLUTION OF IRAN-ISRAEL CONFLICT WILL LIKELY TAKE A LONG TIME.

Your initial conclusion, that Iran policy may be doomed, does not follow from where your story leads, to the good insight that success will probably require that supporters be left behind in order to be more effective in negotiating with Iran. Both Obama and Clinton come from political backgrounds where support for Israel is blindly assumed. As Israel has not made any progress in settling with Palestinians, they will have to be persuaded that their strategy needs updating. It is not as hard as it seems.

Neither Israel nor Iran need to start by giving in on their basic positions, progress will probably take longer than seems reasonable. Using time and fear of uncertainty are very good negotiation levers. Present leaders of Iran and Israel may not be amenable to long term solutions, as long as Palestinians are helped, there is no hurry for final solutions. To appear to be in a hurry is a weak position to start from.

To deal with undesirable settlements in West Bank requires specific bargaining stances (financial, economic or diplomatic). Pleading is also show of weak bargaining--It may be taken by Arabs to mean that US is either not serious or is inept in dealing with Israel.

[leonel]

SECRETS OF NEGOTIATING ARE AVAILABLE ONLY TO THE WISEST OF PERSONS.

These include non-linear thinking, Delphi method of giving opinions of some experts to others to analyze and opine on them, not trusting anyone with final decisions (here it should be said that Israeli intelligence and CIA are not necessarily trustworthy and there is no way to verify (so they need to be out of loop), having time and uncertainty definitely on one's side, trading for information as the ultimate method to gauge progress, not trusting friends or family with crucial decisions as they cannot possibly want or be able to contribute.

Crucial decisions have to add up or make sense from different ways to value, such as long term-short term, mini-max, multicultural, intuitive-logical. It is believed that certain groups, ancient tribes, would make decisions, party and get completely drunk, if decisions still made sense the next day, they were probably right.

As an example of non-linear, "out of the box" thinking, US or Russia may scramble thinking by guarantees to Arabs and Iranians that they will protect them against Israeli bombing of nuclear sites. This gets to anticipate future planning that all countries will be protected from each other. Another unusual tactic is to give Israel, and publish, estimated cost to US economy and military, cost of Israeli strikes on Iran.

[monelis]

President Obama is a very smart and well-read Commander-In-Chief; he knows what it will take to resolve most of the world’s problems. Unfortunately President Obama has surrounded himself with many of the AIPAC supported personnel.

Most of the USA Media, Banks, Hollywood Studio’s are controlled by AIPAC supporters which means they have the interests of Israel above all else even the country that supports them (USA).

The US media can keep writing and talking about Iran however the rest of the world knows that you can not sugar coat the Apartheid system and avoid writing and reporting the poor living conditions of million of Arabs caused by the Israel.

The history has thought us that the curtly cannot continue forever and subsequently the truth will prevail.

I only hope that this group will read the history and possibly change their behavior because next time there won’t be any welcoming mats anywhere in the world for them.

[jhamm1]

Just as I feared.

His id.iotic appointment of Hillary Clinton merely represents the tip of the iceberg in a series of ongoing faults which may indeed, as the authors have pointed out, have debilitated any prospects for reconcilliation with Iran.

As of now, his well-publicized more cordial language toward the Iranians present the popular impression that Iran is becoming unreasonably belligerent even in the face of an ostensibly more receptive administrations, whereas covert activities within Iran and and Hillary Clinton's pressure for even more severe sanctions have gone completely unreported, and most disturbingly, it almost seems as if the entire picture has been explicitly orchestrated to seem this way, perhaps justifying any prospective hardline stance against the Iranians as having been undertaken as a result of ourselves having been "boxed into a corner" by a nation for whom no extentions of appeasement would suffice.

[LeftCoastLarry]

Iran hasn't invaded another country in 2000 years. Iran isn't the threat to peace and stability to the area. Israel is. USA under Bush was a threat but isn't any longer. The Neocons are no longer calling the shots. Thank God.

[skialethia]

Everything you say is true, except for this: "USA under Bush was a threat but isn't any longer. The Neocons are no longer calling the shots."

The Neocons are still calling the shots -- or is it Israel?

[Gib]

So it appears.

[Doris]

Iran has been an issue for as long as I can remember. Don't you remember the hostages? And that wasn't even the beginning of it.

[nana4g]

I read the article in The New York Times about the youth's and the people's affection for the wife of the opponent of Achmadinajad. My impression was not that the NYT was putting out "soft" journalism; perhaps I read into it too much. The message I got was that Iran may be ready for their own Change They Can Believe In. She is an older lady, a writer and a professor, mother of 3 grown children, outspoken, opinionated, and sometimes fills in for her husband on his "campaign trail".

Before I doom President Obama's policy on Iran, I would wait to see if there is a new regime in place over there with more moderates than the current one. The Iranians may be wanting a different kind of management, if you will. Obama's policies would have more potential with a more reasonable, logical, sane Administration in Iran, although not entirely impossible with the current one, but one in which to expect a long time coming with lots of "special handling". People expect Obama to effect Change with the mere utterance of his words. Problems with Iran have been there for years and years and years and with the "hands off" policy and calling them "axis of evil", it just compounded.

[TFlint]

Once again a couple of unpaid "Op-ed contributors" decide that they know more about everything in the world than the people in the government - those thousands of federal employees that the NYT calls "Obama." Irresponsible, uninformed blabber.

[idiocr4cy]

LOL!!! Do you have any idea who the author of this piece is?!?! She is the one who actually MET with the Iranians right after the Afghanistan invasion.

[gbrooks]

I didn't know that, thanks for the info.