And Now Whose Foreign Policy Is Naive?

stumble digg reddit del.ico.us news trust mixx.com

Posted June 10, 2008 | 02:16 PM (EST)



Show your support.
Buzz this article up.

Presumptive Republican presidential nominee John McCain has repeatedly accused Barack Obama of wanting to negotiate with Iran's infamous President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, hoping to paint a picture of the likely Democratic presidential nominee as naive because of his willingness to open dialogue with U.S. adversaries.

Obama's speech at AIPAC last week may have put McCain's claim to rest. Obama, in an effort to move himself from the left to the center of Democratic Party, told the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, "I will do everything in my power to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon -- everything." Yet he still maintained that he would like to see the United States "open up lines of communication, build an agenda, coordinate closely with our allies, and evaluate the potential for progress." He clarified his position on discussions with Iran by stating that "as president of the United States, I would be willing to lead tough and principled diplomacy with the appropriate Iranian leader at a time and place of my choosing," with emphasis on "the appropriate Iranian leader."

Yet, the actions of each nation's president do not necessarily reflect widely held views within those nations. The general perception is that negotiations with Iran mean talks with Ahmadinejad, whose series of controversial remarks about Israel and the Holocaust have angered many Americans.

In Iran's political system, the president is second in command to Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. The Ayatollah is the commander in chief and has the last say in foreign policy, law reform, nuclear programs, defense doctrine, and even cultural and social policies.

Ahmadinejad and his supporters may actually fancy a U.S. military strike and continuation of Bush's confrontational policies through a McCain administration, in hopes of strengthening their power within Iran by rallying all factions behind the flag.

Prior to the invasion of Afghanistan in 2002, it was Khamenei who allowed Iranian diplomats to sit side by side with Americans in Germany to talk about the future of Afghanistan. However, in return for this cooperation, Iran was inducted into the "axis of evil" club.

It was Khamenei, not Ahmadinejad, who authorized three rounds of direct talks between Iranian diplomats and Americans over the security issues in Baghdad last year.

Again, this January, it was Khamenei who expressed willingness to restore diplomatic relations with the United States as soon as hostilities between the two nations abated. "I would be the first one to support these relations," state radio quoted Ayatollah Ali Khamenei saying. "Of course we never said the severed relations were forever."

Negotiations are unlikely to occur before Iran's next presidential election in 2009 for fear that Ahmadinejad could use them to his advantage in a re-election campaign.

Khamenei does not seek these negotiations because he desires U.S.-Iran relations, but rather he seeks them more out of necessity. Iran's economy is fragile: It suffers from the highest rate of inflation in the Middle East and a lack of foreign investment. It is stymied by the threat of an American attack, and increasing pressure from Arab countries concerned about Iran's growing regional power. Iranians cannot count on their Arab playing cards (Hamas, Hezbollah and Iraqi militia groups) forever. Iran's Shiite allies in the Middle East identify themselves as Arabs (rivals of the Persian Iranians) first, and then as Shiites, indicating that their support of Iran will only be lukewarm. In order to overcome these domestic and regional obstacles, Iran must end the no-peace-no-war situation with the United States. Otherwise, the consequences could be disastrous.

Obama's willingness to open talks with Iran suggests that he, unlike McCain, recognizes this reality -- and that his foreign policy approach is far from naïve. By opening a dialogue with Khamenei, the next U.S. president could seriously undermine general international perceptions of Ahmadinejad's power, while bringing Iran and the United States closer to reconciliation.

First published in the San Francisco Chronicle today.

 
 

Comments
47
Pending Comments
0

Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to

View Comments:
- LilyMaskew See Profile I'm a Fan of LilyMaskew

When your statements include "No amount of negotiation will change that," defeat is only a step away! Do you mean to say that there will never, ever be a person on this earth who will be able to negotiate with Iran? That it is impossible for the people of Iran to slowly, slowly change their own country?

If negotiators have a negative attitude, don't believe their success is possible, then, of course, they will fail. I feel certain that someone, somewhere will be able to come up with concrete ideas. If both sides see that it is imperative to cooperate, then it is possible. Mutual annihilation might be a deterent for any thinking individuals from any country.

The U.S. should know by now that "Cooperation" is not a dirty word.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:08 PM on 06/11/2008
- OrionGal See Profile I'm a Fan of OrionGal

Good points !
Attitude and Respect are both words to be capitalized. The Middle East is a very proud country, with a certain code of conduct, just as China and Japan. We Americans need to learn to conduct ourselves with a bit more 'class' when doing business with these countries. Our previous communicative abruptness is just plain rude, in their opinion.

Have you ever read any of the work by Gertrude Bell in Iraq the early 1900's ? I began reading her work in college, as well as Freya Stark, both women exploring and writing about the Middle East.
Very interesting - very anthropological - which is what I studied for my Bachelor's and Master's.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:52 PM on 06/11/2008
- bobbym See Profile I'm a Fan of bobbym

Great article.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:07 AM on 06/11/2008
- unitron See Profile I'm a Fan of unitron



"The general perception is that negotiations with Iran mean talks with Ahmadinejad..."

...but the corporate media are doing their best to perform their journalistic duty to correct this misperception. Aren't they?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:20 AM on 06/11/2008
- BARRISTER See Profile I'm a Fan of BARRISTER

A minor note on a major misrepresentation in the article, and across the media generally:

"Many Americans are upset by Ahmadinejad's words...."

1. Assume that there are 3 million Jews in America.
2. Assume that there are 200 Press People in Washington who publicly blindly support their Israel stance.

3. Assume there are 1000 such newsies in New York.

4. Assume across the entire Nation another 1,000,000 persons sharing such views.

Total: Under 5 millionin a population of over 300,000,000 persons. Hardly "...many Americans..." as stated above, and hardly a plurality upon which to threaten War against a Sovereign Nation.

let Israel stand or fall on its own. Leave americans out of it.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:08 AM on 06/11/2008
- MagisterLudi See Profile I'm a Fan of MagisterLudi

Supreme Leader of Iran was upset by Ahmadinejads childish comments.
Khomeinei told Ahmadinejad to shut up. And Ahmad meekly obeyed. He's now keeping his comments strictly for internal Iranian consumption.

At the last international meeting two clowns of international politics: Mugabe and Ahmadinejad were excluded from most activities.
International diplomatic community doesn't suffer fools like Ahmad easily.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:09 PM on 06/11/2008
- earthwealth See Profile I'm a Fan of earthwealth

As long as we keep electing politicians like Joe Lobbyman or Lindsay Graham who put Israel"s interest before American interest, our problems will get worst rather than getting better. For example when it comes to Iran, Israel"s interest and American interest do not coincide. Since Iran has been isolated from American Businesses, the big gainers have been mainly China, India and Russia. At the time American businesses were prohibited to do business in Iran, Chinese and Russian businesses have been signing multi-billion Dollars contracts. If US-Iran relations is ever improved, Iran would make a strong and effective US ally in the Middle East and US may not have to rely on Israel so much. Consequntly there would be no longer any reason for billions of Dollars of annually financial and military US aides to Israel. For that exact reason, every time there is a chance that there could be some improvement in the US-Iran relation, the process is sabotaged directly by Israel or indirectly via Israel"s special interest groups such as AIPAC.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:53 AM on 06/11/2008
- mommamia526 See Profile I'm a Fan of mommamia526

I do not doubt for one second that some Iranians do not hold the same opinions their government does, or Ahmadinejad does. But if the US sends envoys to Iran, or vice versa, no one will be speaking to Iranians, Persians and others who make up the Iranian population. It will be an exchange of government envoys. If people representing such different cultural and religious backgrounds and religions as the U.S. and Iran are having negotiations, and on what, without setting conditions and guideposts for such discussions first, what is to be expected to come of it? Barack Obama had discussions with one group of American jews on one day, and declared that Jerusalem should be undivided, and the next day, the very next day, he flip-flopped, because Mahmood Abbas had an attack of apploplexy. We are mired in different cultures and realities, and the muslim is inflexible. I have no idea what Allah speaks to Muslims. Has Allah spoken of seeing a glass as half full, rather than half empty, is speaking of the same quantity viewed from a different perspective? If there is One G-d, and muslims call Him Allah, Jews call him Hashem, or G-d (not a name), and others call Him something else, there is still only ONE. Did Allah give a different message to each of us? Or, are we not getting the message? Would Israel be on the face of this earth if not by the will of Allah?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:39 PM on 06/10/2008
- mommamia526 See Profile I'm a Fan of mommamia526

Omid Memarian explain something to me, if you will. Is it not the case that there has been a Muslim Edict, I forgot what they call it Waqf?, probably the wrong word, but the essence is that a muslim delaration has been made that Palestine has been given to the Arabs by Allah, or something of that nature, and no amount of negotiation, concessions, talkie talkie, or whatever else is going to change one thing. The issue is NOT Iran, and it is not even Ahmadinejad. The issue is territory given by Allah. , or, am I wrong? Maybe I am wrong on everything, Who can tell. And what about the issue of *wiping whole nations off the map*? Judaism allows for killing first if you are certain that someone comes to murder you. How is that for muslims? But here we have it, territorial expansion, teritory given to Arabs by Allah, and G-d (Allah) had already given part of that same territory to the jews. Palestinians who already have two nations, Jordan (77% of the population Arab), Israel (20% of the population Arab), plus also Gaza (Hamas), and a shadow nation/government (Hezbullah) in Lebanon, and now want a third (PLO Mahmood Abbas). How many nations do the Palestinians need? Especially since they can not govern themselves in the teritory they already have? And why is Iran active in Lebanon (Hezbullah), Gaza (Hamas), in Syria, in the Iraqui insurgency, and in the Israeli issue? Boggles the mind!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:21 PM on 06/10/2008
- Annoula See Profile I'm a Fan of Annoula

Mommamia526:
The word you are looking for is FATWA (not waqf).
Regarding your pseudo-religious ramblings ...(and quoting your own words):
Maybe you are "wrong on everything", indeed.
The fact that there are Palestinians in Jordan and Israel DOES NOT MEAN, by any stretch of the imagination that the Palestinians have a NATION!
There are also many Jews all over the world. Lots of them in South America and all over Europe , Poland, Russia, and probably more in Long Island than in all of Israel so, using your same rationale, can you please tell me: HOW MANY NATIONS DO THE JEWS NEED? (And why did the have to displace the Palestinians that were already there and take their land when they could continue to live in the diaspora?)
Amazing what blind bias can do to obliterate certain people's judgement!!!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:25 PM on 06/11/2008
- SiberianRat See Profile I'm a Fan of SiberianRat

Wow, what a complete misrepresentation of nations Palestine "has." I've been to Jordan and Lebanon--the Palestinians in these countries are largely in awful refugee camps which I've visited--poor and crowded and unpleasant. These countries' having "Arab" populations does not mean in any way that they're (a) all Palestinian Arabs and (b) that they are all living prosperously in these areas. Many many of them are displaced. Also, saying that Palestine can't govern itself properly in the current situation is, again, disturbingly ignorant of the situation there. NO group can effectively govern under occupation of this nature. Finally, the argument of whether God/Allah gave the land to Jews or Muslims is obscene and arrogant--we all share the planet, and one group's interpretation and assertion of special rights over another's is a complete misunderstanding of our existence and does nothing but promote discord. That goes for Muslims, Jews, Christians, or anyone else who claims to have some sort of "higher" privilege and therefore the right to oppress others. Humans have been engaged in this sort of ridiculousness for far too long--it's enough. We don't all have to like each other, but we do have to learn to live together peacefully.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:09 AM on 06/11/2008
- messy See Profile I'm a Fan of messy

Not in Jordan, where Palestinins constitute 80% of the population, and most of these aren't doing all that bad. As to the so-called refugee camps, they're not really camps at all, but towns and cities where most of the people are living on a UN dole.

Calling Palestinians "refugees" after anywhere between 60 and 41 years is an insult to the millions of Pied Niors and their children, the Silesian Germans and Anatolian Greeks, not to mention Alexandrian Greeks and many others who are also refugees or decendents of refugees....and the Israeli JEWS, all of whom are refugees or decendants of refugees.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:35 AM on 06/11/2008
- peterg76 See Profile I'm a Fan of peterg76

You're thinking of the Israelis, whose sacred texts claim Allah gave them Palestine and ordered them to ethnically cleanse it. (And Ahmadinejad said regime change, not "wiping whole nations off the map".)

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:45 PM on 06/10/2008
- messy See Profile I'm a Fan of messy

Moslems believe that these sacred texts are authentically sacred.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:45 AM on 06/11/2008
- DrRJP See Profile I'm a Fan of DrRJP

"In Iran's political system, the president is second in command to Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. The Ayatollah is the commander in chief and has the last say in foreign policy, law reform, nuclear programs, defense doctrine, and even cultural and social policies."

YEAH RIGHT!

He may have the "last say" but Ahmadinejad will do whatever he wants to do, and that
is an indisputable fact.

Can you give one, single example of Khamenei reeling in the Armaggedon-minded Ahmadinejad?

No, you cannot because Ahmadinejad does and says whatever he pleases, and all that Khamenei does is make sure "Im-in-a-jihad" is Islamic enough.

Ahmadinejad truly beleives that the 12th Imam is coming soon, and if Ahmadinejad has to start a nuclear conflagration to bring it about, he sure the hell will...and you can take that to the bank.

Iran is to terrorism what Saudi Arabia is to oil. Iran is a terrorist state and has been since 1979. Iran backs more terrorist groups worldwide than all other countries combined. Iran is now where Nazi Germany was in 1933, and I do not believe for a moment that BHO would order a military strike against Iran if they develop and nukes.

BHO thinks he can use his silver-tongue to talk him out of it. All I can say is, "LOL!"

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:15 PM on 06/10/2008
- Mojane See Profile I'm a Fan of Mojane

DrRJP, I hope you read the reponses to your idiotic comments.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:51 AM on 06/11/2008
- woodchips See Profile I'm a Fan of woodchips

Ahmadinejad is undoubtedly a loud mouth who makes a lot of inflammatory statements, but he does not have the power to implement them. The US should be talking directly with Iran's supreme leader and, by doing so, marginalize Ahmadinejad.

Military force will not bring about any desirable result in Iran or anywhere else in the Middle East. Ever.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:15 AM on 06/11/2008
- SiberianRat See Profile I'm a Fan of SiberianRat

"Iran is now where Nazi Germany was in 1933"--in what respect?? I see very loose parallels that can be drawn at best. Also, Ahmadinejad might see the coming of the 12th Imam soon, but there are a lot of Christian extremists who are provoking the situation to bring about the End of Days. Extremists on all sides will bring about destruction if allowed, and no group's will more noble than another's.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:15 AM on 06/11/2008
- messy See Profile I'm a Fan of messy

Ask the Jews, Zoroastrians and Bahais.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:36 AM on 06/11/2008
- CyrusBeaucephus See Profile I'm a Fan of CyrusBeaucephus

What's your plan genius? Oh wait we already know--all I can say to self-sure discredited hacks like you is "LOL"!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:58 AM on 06/11/2008
- RS See Profile I'm a Fan of RS

Uh, excuse me DrRJP--do you know what nation back in 1953 overthrew the democratically elected Iranian government of Mohammed Mossadegh and reinstalled a brutal rightwing dictator (i.e. the Shah) that ruled with an iron fist for the next 25 years? That's right--it was none other than the UNITED STATES. Is it any wonder why today there are still some Iranians that ABSOLUTELY HATE OUR GUTS?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:06 AM on 06/11/2008
- jhamm1 See Profile I'm a Fan of jhamm1

I'd feel compelled to brand McCain's accusation of being "reckless" as insufferably hypocritical, if it weren't so friggin redundant to do so.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:09 PM on 06/10/2008
- THEhillbilly See Profile I'm a Fan of THEhillbilly

'Obama, in an effort to move himself from the left to the center of Democratic Party, told the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, "I will do everything in my power to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon -- everything."'

Damn. Everything! I wonder if he's aware of the fact that everything includes "total obliteration."

By the way, grandiloquent, done-nothing rookie senator Obama does not want to "move himself from the left..." He wants to perpetuate the lie that he's doing so. This guy would say anything to get elected.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:57 PM on 06/10/2008
- earthwealth See Profile I'm a Fan of earthwealth

Top ten reasons every year we give away billions of dollars of our tax money to Israel:

1. It is a true democratic country with well-defined borders and comprehensive constitution.
2. Does not have a military. Only a group of helpers who go to their neighboring territories to build shelters and save lives on daily bases.
3. Always promotes peace and has never developed any nuclear or other weapons.
4. Buys many hearts in the Middle Eastern countries. Consequently we end up with more friends than enemies and that leads us to have access to cheaper oil.
5. We dot need this money any way. We are very well off and have no budget deficit .All our citizens have access to comprehensive health care.
6. If there is a conflict, she will do the fighting on our behalf. Our young soldiers never have to go to war theaters.
7. She never interferes in our political affairs. Never maintain over 20 plus political groups with misleading names, promoting her interest in our country. Does not control our major media.
8. Never spies on us and there is no case of spying currently or in the past.
9. Never pushed us to Iraq War and has no relationship with Richard, Paul, Douglas and Ron.
10. And finally because it makes us feel good, like we are living in a fantasyland.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:51 AM on 06/11/2008
- messy See Profile I'm a Fan of messy

Ah yes "Israel isn't a democracy because the Jews aren't oppressed" always a good way to start an argument. I especially like #6, which is kind of true despite what the poster thinks.

As to #8: CANADA spies on us. So does Mexico and every other country that can afford it.

#9 is in fact true.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:50 AM on 06/11/2008
- woodchips See Profile I'm a Fan of woodchips

...speaking of fantasy...great post. Too bad there are still many who will think you are being serious.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:18 AM on 06/11/2008
- cheforacle See Profile I'm a Fan of cheforacle

There's no difference between that and " we leave all options on the table." Which every politician says. You are trying to accuse him of saying something remarkable and despicable when it is actually a good posturing statement diplomatically.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:07 PM on 06/10/2008
- OrionGal See Profile I'm a Fan of OrionGal

I've read that even within Iran, Ahmadinejad is not considered the 'leader'. He attracts attention because of his statements. But that doesn't mean he has the power.

The Iranian People want to meet with Americans. They want to establish trade relationships. Iran is a beautiful country with beautiful people. Their art, architecture, and poetry is well known and we as Americans need to recognize and focus on what is best in this country.

But then, maybe all of us Americans would like to be judged based on the news story of the Polygamous Prairie Prince and his Princesses in matching dresses.....

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:04 PM on 06/10/2008
- ConcernedAmerican See Profile I'm a Fan of ConcernedAmerican

My idea of "being naive": Not knowing the differences between sunnis, shiites, al-qaeda and Iran.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:59 PM on 06/10/2008
- walk0nwalls See Profile I'm a Fan of walk0nwalls

You know if the Iranian people get there way and like push radically for full democracy you could have two states in the middle east with great regional powers and democratic governments.

This is not to suggest in any way shape or form that Iran could ever get along with Israel, but simultaneously they seem to have a tenuous and shaky relationship with their Arab neighbors as well. So something to think about.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:48 PM on 06/10/2008
- zeesean See Profile I'm a Fan of zeesean

Great point! Some wise Israeli statesman might want to ponder over it!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:09 PM on 06/10/2008
- messy See Profile I'm a Fan of messy

Actually, Jordan is a relative democracy, and so is Lebanon, albiet a very messy one.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:51 AM on 06/11/2008