ViRedd
New Member
Obamas Iran Policy Is a Bomb
After whats happened in Iran in recent days, Obamas plan is simply impossible.
By Jonah Goldberg
Here is the one immutable fact of Barack Obamas foreign-policy agenda as it relates to Iran: Its over. The rule book he came in with is as irrelevant as a tourist guide to the Austro-Hungarian Empire.
If the forces of reform and democracy win, Obamas plan to negotiate with the regime is moot, for the regime will be gone. And if the forces of reform are crushed into submission by the regime, Obamas plan is moot, because the regime will still be there.
Politics and decency will simply demand that the world condemn or shun the regime of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Ayatollah Ali Khamenei if they come out on top. Even the most soulless realists will be repulsed by the blood on the regimes collective hands.
Before June 12, Obamas eagerness to negotiate with Ahmadinejad ridiculed by his conservative critics was hailed by the establishment and the Left as proof of his high-minded faith in diplomacy, a healthy antidote to George W. Bushs allegedly close-minded approach.
But now, if the clerical junta prevails, anyone who shakes Ahmadinejads hands will have a hard time washing the blood off his own.
For some reason, Obama cannot fully accept this. In his press conference Tuesday, the president finally condemned the outrages in Iran in terms he should have used a week ago. But he also kept alive the idea that the current Iranian regime could be a fruitful negotiation partner, despite what has already happened in that country. Its not too late, Obama explained, for the regime to negotiate with the international community. He wouldnt even cancel plans to invite Iranian officials to Fourth of July barbecues at American embassies.
That amounts to tacit approval of the bloodshed and fraud that weve already seen and acceptance of the ultimate triumph of the regime. And it wont work.
According to many analysts, Obamas still clinging to his hope of talking Iran out of its nuclear program. Thats why he initially said there was little difference between Mir-Hossein Mousavi and Ahmadinejad, and why his recent denunciations only followed similar rhetoric from the Europeans and our own Congress. He just doesnt want to let go of the diplomacy option.
No doubt this is part of his rationale. But Obama has also made it clear that he sees the elimination of Irans nuclear problem not as a stand-alone priority but as one part of his Middle East two-step. His inseparable goal is to also push Israel into a peace settlement with the Palestinians. As an unnamed Iran expert in contact with White House officials told Foreign Policys Laura Rozen, Obama is dedicated to diplomacy in a manner that is almost ideological. . . . He wants to do some stuff in the Middle East over the next eight years. He may not be able to achieve half of them unless he gets this huge piece of the puzzle (Iran) right.
That stuff seems to be some grand Middle East transformation, whereby Obama promises to negotiate away Irans nuclear program in return for Israeli movement on an Israeli-Palestinian settlement. In effect, Obama would be using the threat of a nuclear-armed Ahmadinejad as a Medusas head to petrify Israelis into concessions.
Whether such a strategy would have worked is open to huge quantities of skepticism. Now, after whats happened in Iran in recent days, such a plan is simply impossible.
For years, conservatives or, if you prefer, neoconservatives, have said that the Iranian regime cant be negotiated with. Some emphasized that anti-Americanism is at the core of the regimes identity. Some noted that Obama-style open-handed overtures to Iran were rebuffed. (Obama may have acknowledged U.S. support for the 1953 overthrow of the Mohammed Mossadegh regime in the hope that such frankness would win him goodwill from the regime. But no such goodwill followed Madeleine Albrights apology in 2000.)
Others pointed to the messianic and conspiratorial zeal that animates Irans clerical junta. Many invoked Irans steadfast animus toward our ally Israel as well as its sponsorship of scholarly Holocaust denial and the more tangible support for Hezbollah and others bent on murdering Jews. Irans efforts to derail democracy and stability in Iraq by, among other things, supporting attacks on American troops is also part of the talk-is-folly brief.
None of that was sufficient evidence for Obama, in part because anything associated with Bushs freedom agenda was deemed absurd and ideologically rigid.
Well, Bush is gone. Obama has extended his hand. And the regime is supplying fresh evidence of the absurdity of his approach. All thats left for Obama now is to abandon his own ideological rigidity and start over.
Jonah Goldberg is editor-at-large of National Review Online and the author of Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left from Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning.
After whats happened in Iran in recent days, Obamas plan is simply impossible.
By Jonah Goldberg
Here is the one immutable fact of Barack Obamas foreign-policy agenda as it relates to Iran: Its over. The rule book he came in with is as irrelevant as a tourist guide to the Austro-Hungarian Empire.
If the forces of reform and democracy win, Obamas plan to negotiate with the regime is moot, for the regime will be gone. And if the forces of reform are crushed into submission by the regime, Obamas plan is moot, because the regime will still be there.
Politics and decency will simply demand that the world condemn or shun the regime of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Ayatollah Ali Khamenei if they come out on top. Even the most soulless realists will be repulsed by the blood on the regimes collective hands.
Before June 12, Obamas eagerness to negotiate with Ahmadinejad ridiculed by his conservative critics was hailed by the establishment and the Left as proof of his high-minded faith in diplomacy, a healthy antidote to George W. Bushs allegedly close-minded approach.
But now, if the clerical junta prevails, anyone who shakes Ahmadinejads hands will have a hard time washing the blood off his own.
For some reason, Obama cannot fully accept this. In his press conference Tuesday, the president finally condemned the outrages in Iran in terms he should have used a week ago. But he also kept alive the idea that the current Iranian regime could be a fruitful negotiation partner, despite what has already happened in that country. Its not too late, Obama explained, for the regime to negotiate with the international community. He wouldnt even cancel plans to invite Iranian officials to Fourth of July barbecues at American embassies.
That amounts to tacit approval of the bloodshed and fraud that weve already seen and acceptance of the ultimate triumph of the regime. And it wont work.
According to many analysts, Obamas still clinging to his hope of talking Iran out of its nuclear program. Thats why he initially said there was little difference between Mir-Hossein Mousavi and Ahmadinejad, and why his recent denunciations only followed similar rhetoric from the Europeans and our own Congress. He just doesnt want to let go of the diplomacy option.
No doubt this is part of his rationale. But Obama has also made it clear that he sees the elimination of Irans nuclear problem not as a stand-alone priority but as one part of his Middle East two-step. His inseparable goal is to also push Israel into a peace settlement with the Palestinians. As an unnamed Iran expert in contact with White House officials told Foreign Policys Laura Rozen, Obama is dedicated to diplomacy in a manner that is almost ideological. . . . He wants to do some stuff in the Middle East over the next eight years. He may not be able to achieve half of them unless he gets this huge piece of the puzzle (Iran) right.
That stuff seems to be some grand Middle East transformation, whereby Obama promises to negotiate away Irans nuclear program in return for Israeli movement on an Israeli-Palestinian settlement. In effect, Obama would be using the threat of a nuclear-armed Ahmadinejad as a Medusas head to petrify Israelis into concessions.
Whether such a strategy would have worked is open to huge quantities of skepticism. Now, after whats happened in Iran in recent days, such a plan is simply impossible.
For years, conservatives or, if you prefer, neoconservatives, have said that the Iranian regime cant be negotiated with. Some emphasized that anti-Americanism is at the core of the regimes identity. Some noted that Obama-style open-handed overtures to Iran were rebuffed. (Obama may have acknowledged U.S. support for the 1953 overthrow of the Mohammed Mossadegh regime in the hope that such frankness would win him goodwill from the regime. But no such goodwill followed Madeleine Albrights apology in 2000.)
Others pointed to the messianic and conspiratorial zeal that animates Irans clerical junta. Many invoked Irans steadfast animus toward our ally Israel as well as its sponsorship of scholarly Holocaust denial and the more tangible support for Hezbollah and others bent on murdering Jews. Irans efforts to derail democracy and stability in Iraq by, among other things, supporting attacks on American troops is also part of the talk-is-folly brief.
None of that was sufficient evidence for Obama, in part because anything associated with Bushs freedom agenda was deemed absurd and ideologically rigid.
Well, Bush is gone. Obama has extended his hand. And the regime is supplying fresh evidence of the absurdity of his approach. All thats left for Obama now is to abandon his own ideological rigidity and start over.
Jonah Goldberg is editor-at-large of National Review Online and the author of Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left from Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning.
