Obama's Shrewd Iran Policy

The good news is that President Obama has a brilliant strategy for dealing with Iran. The bad news is that brilliance may not be enough. In a few months he could face the most severe foreign policy crisis a young president has faced since John F. Kennedy stumbled into the Bay of Pigs.

Obama has taken several steps in the past few weeks that show he is thinking strategically about how to defang Iran's nuclear threat. For one thing, Obama is trying to bring Russia on board. By announcing that he has no intention of stationing a nuclear defense system in Eastern Europe, Obama removed a significant impediment to smoother relations with Moscow. In return, he needs Moscow's cooperation in confronting Iran. He already has the support of Britain and Germany. Constructing an alliance capable of implementing tough sanctions against Tehran is the kind of multilateral diplomacy that the Bush administration scorned. Obama doesn't.

Obama's call for a nuclear-free world is also a big plus, one that, among other things, further helps refurbish America's battered image in Europe. At an election rally in Germany, the head of the liberal party, Guido Westerwelle, announced Obama's call for a nuclear-free world almost as soon as he had made it. Obama's focus on the dangers posed by nuclear weapons further exposes Tehran as an anomalous, retrograde power. The regime is on the wrong side of history. It isn't a progressive power, but a backward one that is pursuing a dangerous course that will further isolate it. Obama, after all, wants to strip the mullahs of their moolah by pushing for punitive sanctions.

But if the hardline clerics are intent on obtaining the bomb -- as opposed to the knowledge of how to construct one -- then sanctions won't be enough. Then Obama will be confronted with an Israeli government determined to attack Iranian nuclear sites. And he'll be urged to do it himself by both liberal hawks and neocons back home.

Will Obama be able to carve out some face-saving deal with Iran? Or is he heading into a major crisis? Iraq and Afghanistan may turn out to be sideshows as Obama focuses on the threat from Tehran. But so far, Obama has handled Iran perfectly with a mixture of threats and promises of cooperation.

 

 

Comments

[RedDogBear]

I'm a strong supporter of Obama. However, in this case I'm sorry to say he is still adhering to the lies spread by the previous administration and their lackeys in the MSM. Mr. Heilbrun you say Iran is a backwards retrograde power in regard to nuclear weapons, can you please back that up with some facts? The truth is that unlike Pakistan, India, and Israel, Iran has been abiding by the IAEA process. The latest "news" about this supposed weapons facility is just hype. There is no evidence it is a weapons facility and as former UN weapons inspector Scott Ritter points out Iran has not at all violated the IAEA process by building it (which is all they are doing, the facility won't be operational for at least a year)

http://www.democracynow.org/2009/9/29/fmr_un_weapons_inspector_scott_ritter

I'm no fan at all of the illegitimate theocracy in Iran and I support the Iranian people as they struggle to overturn that regime. However, on the nuclear issue it is the US and Israel who have been constantly threatening to escalate and attack Iran, a sovereign power that is excercising its right to develop peaceful nuclear power.

[cabanas]

This article is a delusional assessment of the President's "brilliant strategy" for Iran.

--Russia is going to ally with us against Iran because we are not stationing a nuclear defense system in Eastern Europe. They only thing that was achieved is the fact that we just gave Russia the green light to do whatever they want in Eastern Europe and weakened the security of the nations formerly known as the USSR.

--Obama's call for a nuclear free world is a big plus because it further refurbish America's battered image in Europe. In the meantime his image at home is taking a beaten. We sing cumbaya and Iran embrace us. I hope you bring a nice cushion for the waiting.

--Yes, Iran is not a progressive power but a backward one. No need to enlighten us there, we all already knew.

--Will Obama be able to carve out some face-saving deal? Iran is not interested in saving face. Their intention is clear: destroy Israel and the evil Americans. He can care less about Obama. What is next for the President? Maybe he can play mullah, roll over, and let Iran step all over him.

[UKOH]

Its funny how much more you can achieve when you look for cooperation rather than confrontation over everything!

[MacQ]

It'll be GREAT when America is the only country without nukes.
We'll all be so proud of the example we've set.

[Sportster2005]

If you can't deal effectively with North Korea, Pakistan, India, Israel and other nuclear nonproliferators and wanna-be's, you won't be able to deal with Iran. You don't get to pick and choose who you confront and subject to international inspections.

[Ikkru]

Why should America attack Iran? Let the Israelis carry their OWN damn water for a change!

[RedDogBear]

I agree about not attacking Iran but I object to the idea that Israel is somehow manipulating the US. In fact there is an oligarchy in both countries made up of politicians, defense contractors, and associated friends who get wealth and power by keeping the US and israeli citizens living in fear. The average Israeli gets nothing out of the constant saber rattling and wars threatened and waged against Iran, Palistinians, Lebanon, etc. in fact they are the ones who pay the highest price since this insane beliigerant policy puts their lives at risk.

[DS1Roger]

As I figured long ago the possibility of any effective land based missile defense in Europe just got traded away for a promise. The promise can be removed at any time but the missile defense opportunity takes years to work right.

[RedDogBear]

The Bush policy that got traded away was technology that didn't work. Even the majority of generals at the pentagon were against it. It was also designed to shoot down missiles that Iran doesn't even possess. I forget who said it but the great summary of this Bush system was "Technology that doesn't work against a threat that doesn't exist" In fact Obama hasn't traded away anything of value and has actually instigated a real missile defense system that actually may work. I think that is also a mistake, Iran would never attack Europe anyway, and why in the world does the US have to be in the role of trying to police the whole world when our own infrastructure and economy are collapsing?

[lonbwoy]

Russia is now Helping Venezuela Build Nuclear plants for power right??, oh that nuclear free world.

[LudwigVonGolf]

Shrewd Strategy? The only shrewd strategy when dealing with a maniacal tyrant who lies to the world with a crooked face is STRENGTH. Our President must know the tragic history of trying to "negotiate" with such malfeasors; viz, Munich and Yalta. Economic sanctions? OK; but get the other money-first, principle-­as-an-afte­rthought big powers in line first, and impose those sanctions BEFORE sitting down with Iran. Then if they refuse to allow full and ongoing inspection of ALL nuclear facilities of any kind at any and all times without notice, be prepared to implement forthwith the only remedy that will safeguard the US and the rest of the world from these villians: DESTROY THE NUCLEAR PRODUCTION SITES.

[mnyegele]

Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. That best describes Alumtrix' analysis. Saddam Hussein never, I repeat, NEVER had WMD's. We have crippled our country with an endless and costly war, with Iran emerging as the big winner. After all, Hussein hated Iran's government. We can't say the same for the current regime.

I applaud Obama's wise and sensible policies. Bear in mind that Iran's economy is already in shambles. They cannot even produce their own gasoline. I am reading reports that there is continued unrest in Iran, unrest we need to encourage. A military action now would only strengthen Ahmadinejad's hand. Obama succeeded where Bush failed - and kudos for that.

[Car84]

Saying Saddam Hussein NEVER had WMDs is like saying ... . Well, I can't think of anything as absurd and demonstratively false as that. I just can't.

[zmjz01]

Where's the proof that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction? I never read about it.

[josepardinas]

What are the specifics of Obama's nuclear-free world?

When do we and Israel get rid of ours?

There's no stopping Iran - no matter how many times disingenuous liars like Mr. Hilbrunn wish it were otherwise.

Iran will go nuclear and there's nothing Israel or the US can do about it - MAD is the only nuclear weapons doctrine that has been shown to actually work.

[Wake-up]

We never get rid of ours... look at the charts, Russia still has way more than we do. If you were in Israel, you'd want to keep yours too.

Obama suggesting this is just naive at best and stupid at worst.

[alumtrix]

As I read this article, all I could say was wrong, wrong, and wrong. History will tell you how people will behave and respond to various threats. I think it was 17 UN sanctions and the world had no clue as to whether Saddam Hussein had WMD's. Thank God W came along and told the world he would handle it. Hussein has no possibilty of getting WMD's now. Case closed.
Now we're up to 2 or 3 or 4 UN sanctions against Iran and once again, we're depending on Russia and our allies to enforce these. The very same characters involved in the food for oil scandal that undermined the sanctions. Bush played it brilliantly. He didn't waste his time. He told Europe to handle it knowing full well that they would accomplish the same thing as anyone else. Just a waste of time. Obama is being played like a fiddle. Iran is buying all the time they need or want by getting the allies involved and acting like they are negotiating.

[Car84]

To clarify: Saddam Hussein DID have WMDs, and in fact used them against his own people. He DID have chemical and biological programs in place, as well as a latent nuclear program that had progressed at a stunning pace. The only real question out there (perhaps even in Saddam Hussein's mind) was when and whether the WMDs were disposed of.

But, yes ... where we are now? We are gearing up for a medley of UN sanctions and tut-tuts, assuming Russia - a country that has not seen the need to concede anything - will do any heavy lifting.

A few short months ago there was a perfect opportunity to support a fair election that would have installed a more agreeable government. Instead, Obama really liked the sparkle and shine of a partial recount (imagine that).

[DeWayne]

Iran is being played (exactly) like Iraq, Western-Empires had sold (all) of Saddam's WMD to him, today as then Western-Empires follow Pres-Obama and the Pentagon-Cabal (ie...Office of Special Plans) manufactured Intelligence to the letter.

How do you know when liars lie, it is when they open their mouth...

"We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat"....Donald Rumsfeld...ABC Interview...March 30, 2003

"If he declares he has none, then we will know that Saddam Hussein is once again misleading the world."...Ari Fleischer...Press Briefing...December 2, 2002

This (is) almost same steer excrement they used in Iraq, and now use on Iran.

[Booblius]

Right Schmight, history schmistry when it comes to the bomb all that goes out the window. Even if we have to be big blue meanies they're not getting the bomb. Anyone making some kind of argument that their enemy should have a weapon capable of destroying whole cities is a damn fool; but a bigger fool is anybody who takes them seriously.

[CHARLESTHETENTH]

Sounds so familiar. Build a case for WMD's like Iraq or Nuclear holocaust from Iran and again we have the US Administration now with prodding from Israel bringing us to the brink of another War. This type of confrontation with Iran will be childs play compared to Iraq and Afghanistan and will plunge the US into a War that will have severe consequences throughout the Middle East and and at home. This Administration cannot have Israel dictate the course of action concerning Iran and the US needs to put a halt to Israel's aggression. This Administration like previous others have been swayed by Israel putting the US in situations that see no compromise and at a heavy cost? There are no facts but hearsay and supposition about Iran building a Nuclear bomb but Israel will force the issue and lead the US into a conflict that has defeat written all over it.

[zmjz01]

Thank you very much. I'm forwarding your post to an Irish Catholic friend in Chicago who is still in love with George W.Bush. She feels President Obama is a liar and will destroy our country. I think the destruction started before Obama and now he has to clean up the mess, however awful the process.

[Ginger5]

For China and perhaps Russia this is all about making money. Iran is not a threat to anyone. We will spend an incredible amount of resources to thwart this phony trheat. All the while the Russians and Chinese will be laughing all the way to the bank.

[lilian101]

Hey bud, Iran and Iraq had a small war where they both lost in the excess of 1/2 million troops. Also, Iraq used to supply oil until we destroyed their oil facilities. So, Iranian chances of invading and assuming control over Iraqi oil fields, after we've softened Iraqi military capabilities up for the last 15 or 20 years, are significantly improved. An Iranian threat to US interests, if nothing else, would be military occupation and control of Iraqi oil reserves, and the resultant consequences.