A common perception is that under President Barack Obama, America's image has improved, and perhaps its friends have increased. But such claims are unfounded, as the opposite proves to be true.
One would expect the charismatic Obama, with his hand extended to America's friends and foes, to fare better than the confrontational George Bush, with his simplistic views on "either with us, or against us" and his lumping of nations -- wholesale -- in this or that axis of evil.
International relations, however, are about interests, not sweet talk. As Bush went out recruiting allies, and making enemies, Obama lost America's friends while failing to win over enemies.
Apparently, the benevolent Obama failed to impress America's number one enemy, Al-Qaeda.
Between September and December, the group sent a suicide bombers into New York and Michigan. The first was foiled, the second luckily failed.
In Iraq, after losing more than 4,300 troops in battle and spending $700 trillion since 2003, America today cannot find a single politician or group that would express gratitude to Americans for ridding Iraq of its ruthless tyrant Saddam Hussein, and allowing these politicians to speak out freely.
On the contrary, shy of making their excellent backdoor ties with Washington known since they fear Obama will depart Iraq and never look back, Iraqi politicians started expressing dissatisfaction with the United States in public.
In Lebanon, more than one third of its population of four million took to the streets in March 2005, demanding the disarmament of Iran's proxy militia, Hezbollah, and an end to Syrian occupation of their country. The majority of these people were Muslims under the leadership of moderate politician Saad Hariri.
Also in Lebanon, Walid Jumblatt, a tribal chieftain of an esoteric Islamic sect who had been an ally of Iran and Syria for a long time, turned coat, and went live on Al-Jazeera satellite station to say that he was proud to be part of America's plan to spread democracy in the Middle East.
By the time Obama had made it to the White House, support of America's allies in Lebanon waned since Obama was determined to appease their foes in Syria and Iran. Hariri and Jumblatt were forced to abandon their fight for Lebanon's democracy and freedom as Hariri rushed to Damascus to ask his former enemies for forgiveness, while Jumblatt is still begging for audience with Syria's dictator Bashar Assad.
In Iran, for the first time since 1979, the people revolted against their autocratic regime and took to the streets shouting death to the nation's Supreme Leader Ali Khaminei in what came to be known as the Green Revolution.
But Obama's Washington was busy sending one letter of appeasement after another to Iran's tyrants, and accordingly failed to take the side of the Green Revolution for democracy and freedom. When Obama did show support for the Green Movement, it was too little and too late.
Now compare America's friends around the Middle East to Iran's cronies, and you can immediately understand why Washington is in trouble, both diplomatically and on a popular level, while Iran is confident as it marches toward producing a nuclear weapon and expanding its influence across the Middle East.
Since 1981, Iran has been funding its Lebanese ally Hezbollah, never defaulting on any of its pledged payments. Hezbollah went from an embryonic group into a state within a state, boasting a membership of several thousands and maintaining a private army, schools, hospitals, orphanages, satellite TV and a number of other facilities that have won it the hearts of Lebanon's Shiites, and have given Hezbollah an absolute command over them.
Iran has maintained a flow of cash and political support toward Syria for a similar amount of time. Obama has been begging Syria to switch sides and abandon Iran. Judging by the mishaps that always seem to befall America's friends with time, Syria does not seem likely to change, but is rather playing an Obama administration desperate for whatever it can claim as success in its foreign policy.
In Iraq, Iran does not only fund and trains militias and violent groups, but they also fund electoral campaigns of Iraqi politicians, loyal media groups and political parties, thus expanding their influence over Iraq exponentially. Spending thousands more than Iran in Iraq, America has seen its money spent to no or little effect.
The comparison between Iran and Obama's America is simple.
While Tehran never let down an ally, offering them consistent financial and political support, Washington's support of its allies around the world has always been intermittent, due to changes with administrations and an ever swinging mood among American voters, pundits and analysts.
So while Iran has created a mini-Islamic republic in Lebanon, and is on its way to doing the same in Iraq, America has failed in keeping friends or maintaining influence both in Lebanon and in Iraq.
And while Tehran brutally suppressed a growing peaceful revolution for change inside Iran, Washington's pacifism did not win any favors with the Iranian regime, or with its opponents in the Green Revolution.
While Iran knows how to make friends, Obama's America has become an expert in losing them.
Obama's negotiating strategy is working about as well as his health care negotiating strategy worked with the Republicans; coming to the table bearing concessions doesn't cause the Iranians (or the Republicans) to offer concessions of their own. They just ask for more concessions. He demanded that the Israelis make upfront concessions to the Palestinians, and naively thought that this would cause the Saudis to make an upfront offer of normalization. Of course that wasn't going to happen.
Just as with healthcare, it is not too late to man-up, tell the Republicans/Arab & Persian dictators where to get off. When they see steel in your spine, then, and only then will they come to the table.
From the point of view of a non-Obama supporter, we have common ground here, from a slightly different perspective.
It has often amazed my how the Democrats demonize and villify the American right, but then somehow think they can work out amicable relationships with our real enemies.
The simple truth is that compared to 90% of foreign leaders out there, Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh and Dick Cheney are your busom buddies. If you feel some blood rush reading those names that somehow doesn't appear when you read "Achmedinijad" "Chavez", "Nasrallah" and "Kim Jong Il" then we have identified part of the problem.
Republicans, though, do not suffer from the same delusion. Yes, they often do unfairly demonize Liberals. But then think that the head of Hezbollah will negotiate honorably. They think, "you're bad, and those foreigners are bad too" while Democrats think "you're bad, but I'm sure I can work out my differences with Chavez." See the difference?
"America's interagency toolkit is a hodgepodge of jerry-rigged arrangements constrained by a dated and complex patchwork of authorities, persistent shortfalls in resources, and unwieldy processes," Gates said at a Nixon Center event. "All the while, other countries that do not suffer from our encumbrances are taking full advantage to more quickly fund projects, sell weapons, and build relationships."
Read my comment further down this thread for explanation.
There is nothing called wrong analysis or right analysis. It is all a matter of perspective. I read the link you provided, and the author sounded to me like an Iran apologist. I hope he is not one of those who received "research funds" from the Alevi Foundation.
What I wrote had nothing to do with what is happening inside Iran. The article is a mere comparison between Iranian consistency in maintaining allies, and America's inconsistency.
Gates and the article come to similar conclusions, that other world powers are doing better than the US on the international stage. What goes on inside Iran is not the point.
All the best --
"In Iran, for the first time since 1979, the people revolted against their autocratic regime and took to the streets shouting death to the nation's Supreme Leader Ali Khaminei in what came to be known as the Green Revolution."
For the first time you say. Wrong.
And, in any case, more Iranian-Americans than not think Obama has handled the GM (note: NOT revolution - at least not literally) reasonably: www.paaia.org/galleries/default-file/2009_survey.pdf
If the US is losing out, that remains an if, that is we are on the wrong side of history. Contrary to the article, US's allies are not limited to some fringe groups who may or may not switch sides. US's allies include Saudi Arabia, Egypt and even the late Saddam. The difference is that we have no credibility there. While Iran has credibility. We underestimate the kind effect we have on popular psyche in the ME, by the kind of friends we keep.
As I have said before, we are on the wrong side of history. An no matter what we do, or how much money we spend we cannot stop the innevitable. America is bound to lose influence as long as we have colonialist foreign policy guided by corporate special interests, rather than America's interests. Our policy is short sighted and we are incapable of building freinds as long as our policies are clearly guided by corporate interests.
We need to change those policies, we need to look out for America and build long term relationships. We won't be able to do that as long as Washington is chocked by special interests. We must solve the fundamentals of american political crisis, in order to deal with our foreign policy desasters.
No mention that Iran took in vast numbers of Iraqi and Afghan refugees, and treated them well, while the US first attacked one group of Iraqis, then reversed themselves and became their allies, all while letting Blackwater get away with murder, spending the Iraqi treasury like the proverbial drunken sailors, and want the Iraqis to be grateful for that, because the Americans eliminated the man and system of suppression that they'd put in place.
Nope, none of that got mentioned, because that would make it seem reasonable that the people of the ME (and much of the rest of the world) want to see more than a change of tone, they want to see actions.
And by the way, no matter what, Obama has been considerably more effective president than Bush on every front.
Why debase the definition of democracy to the point of absurdity? The thugs in control of IRI know it's not a democracy, please try to be at least as smart as they are.
Good article. Thank you. Your portrayal of Iran's endeavors on the international scene as triumphing is several grades rosier than the usual fare -- charitably depicted as barely surviving (for now)[pointlessly as all options shall be deployed].
You suggest that Iranian government is successful only because it has greased palms, and/or shed blood. If that were the blueprint, How to explain others' less than stellar standing in the ME despite their cash and penchant for violence?
The persistence with which western media misdiagnoses Iran is rooted in the shallow assessment that Iran's long monarchical history, Islam, and republicanism are all mutually exclusive. Ever since 1979, folks have given a poor prognosis [1] to the Islamic revolution. The uniquely Persian experiment of an Islamic Republic which has combined the ancient concept of far (fair government), and Islam's emphasis on justice/charity, and the consequent vast welfare state is alone in the region in giving voice to and being accountable to the underclass majority. Western commentators continue to imagine the system is not viable except through brutal repression. However, the Islamic Republic has survived 30 years marked by invasion, sanctions, constant threats and vilification. Though, throwing the plague at Iran has not been tried yet, President Obama is not altogether naive to base his Iran policy on the Islamic Republic's resilience, rather than it's fragility.
[1] http://www.merip.org/mer/mer250/abrahamian.html
I would have gone with spelling 'farr' to avoid confusion, but I knew what was meant. Good job on Dr. Abrahamian. His last paragraph segues nicely into this interview: www.weekingreen.org/view_video?id=78
Noop, not as simple as that. Also what I have to write is oversimplified but this box is small to write in.
Khatami was the president before Ahmadinejad and is a moderate. He opened the possibility of dialog with the US but this was rejected because Bolton is a hardliner.
Then Ahmadinejad comes to power and he is a hardliner. Obama opens the possibility of a dialog with Iran via him and now the roles are reversed and Ahmadinejad is not interested.
If Obama had been in power at the same time as Khatami then Obama's hand would have been shaken.
And, like the average Iranian Ahmadinejad is open to a dialog of EQUALS with the US, but not to a negotiated surrender to US demands.
And, thanks to domestic politics, Obama cannot have the first, and is under pressure to make Iran give a total surrender.
But the single biggest factor that has limited Obama's success is something else where Obama cannot do what it would take to convince the world that he is more than a smoother version of Bush. Cast Lead.
Just an example. For more, pick up Hooman Majd and the difficulties he had translating Ahmadinejad. In Persian one can appear to be saying one thing, while actually saying another for the home audience. There's nothing diabolical about it, everyone (except those outside Iran or acquainted with the culture) know the game. Ahmadinejad is likely posturing or hedging at the very least. In the tragicomedy of US-IRI relations, both sides share the feature of speaking from both sides of their mouths - both have their own domestic politics to gauge. He most certainly is a hardliner, though a mavericky one - almost a neo-hardliner. A moderate would be Ali Larijani, for example. Rafsanjani's presidency was a moderate one, though Raffie is a chameleon faction all unto himself.
One inconsistency in your comments:
Ahmadinejad has not rejected Obama's hand. In October, they made an offer to Iran, Ahmadinejad accepted it but wanted the Uranium to be simultaneously exchanged on Iran's territory. It was the west that walked away. Iran has made a counter offer since January, and again, it has been the Obama administration that has not even responded to it, letting it sit without a response.
Total nonsense. Iran changed with the revolution but then gave up any sense of civility in the hostage taking. With some of the largest oil reserves in the world, Iran has to import gas. It maintains its civil order by giving the people enemies to focus upon. High unemployment, poor economy and low international standing is the what Iran is, the Iranian people have suffered.
The Emir of Qatar speaks out against the US attempts to drive a wedge between Iran and the nations in the region.
Kuwait declares that Iran's program is civilian, along with Brazil.
Turkey signs a deal to set up free trade zones.
Iraq buys electricity, cars, appliances, and many other things from Iran, and then there's all those refugees that Iran takes in, houses, clothes, feeds, and helps rebuild their lives.
Yes, public opinion about Iran rates it where you say, in the US, but the picture elsewhere looks quite different.