Obama Strikes a Tough Tone on Iran

by: C.M. Sennott  |  GlobalPost

Obama Strikes Tough Tone on Iran, but Experts Wary of Sanctions
Although President Obama may sound firm and self-assured in his tone toward Iran, the hard work of diplomacy still lies ahead. (Photo: http://www.flickr.com/photos/lloyd-davis/3409816201/)

Analysis: Obama strikes a tough tone on Iran. But the diplomacy needed to get Iran to halt its nuclear program will require more than tone.

    Boston - At the Group of 20 summit in Pittsburgh, President Barack Obama locked arms with the leaders of France and the United Kingdom to warn Iran that it must immediately halt its nuclear program.

    Obama accused Iran of building a secret nuclear fuel plant in violation of the U.N.-mandated oversight and said that Tehran had posed a "direct challenge" to the international community.

    In the city of bridges, Obama essentially threatened Iran that it has just burned one too many with the international community.

    But in choosing to do so on the public stage of Pittsburgh's G20 summit with all the world's media watching and looking for any story more interesting than a long-winded communique on the economy, Obama was essentially doing what he does best.

    That is, public diplomacy. And, as always, his tone is pretty close to perfect. He sounded firm, convincing and respectfully multilateral, and that tone goes a long way to swooning the world. It gets people around the globe to believe that the real America is rational and a natural leader in a dangerous world. This is a decidedly different image from the unilateral and seemingly belligerent America put forward by President George W. Bush.

    But former diplomats and Middle East analysts believe Obama will need more than perfect pitch in the public diplomacy of Iran, which interlocks directly with the profound policy challenges on Afghanistan, Iraq and the wider goal of global nuclear proliferation.

    This is chess on many levels, not pop music.

    To succeed in bringing Iran to halt its nuclear program and conform with the U.N. watchdog on nuclear proliferation, he will have to do the much harder diplomatic work of bringing China and Russia fully on board.

    That won't be easy as China and Russia do not believe sanctions will work, and as closer neighbors to Iran they have practical economic interests in Iran.

    If Obama does not accomplish that real diplomacy, the confrontation of words with Iran will turn into a stand-off. And, if history is a judge, Iran will ultimately wait that out.

    In neighboring Iraq, Saddam Hussein did just that for many years at the turn of this decade.

    In the mid- to late-1990s, Saddam played the cat-and-mouse game with the U.N. inspectors.

    And it is sobering to remember that that game along with the events of Sept. 11 served as a triggering mechanism for Bush's flawed and ill-fated invasion of Iraq in 2003.

    The U.S.-led offensive toppled Saddam's brutal regime and ended all questions - real or fabricated - of weapons of mass destruction there, yes, but it also dragged the U.S. into a conflict where it has paid heavily in "blood and treasure," as they say in the military.

    Obama accused Iran of "breaking the rules that all nations must follow" and demanded that U.N. inspectors must immediately be permitted to inspect the nuclear facility.

    "It is time for Iran to act immediately to restore confidence of the international community by fulfilling its international obligations," Obama said.

    Tehran apparently tried to preempt this steely determination on the part of Washington, London and Paris by communicating with the U.N. nuclear watchdog agency that it had a second uranium enrichment plan under construction.

    But few were buying it.

    French President Nicolas Sarkozy said Iran was going down a "dangerous" path and threatened stepped-up sanctions on Iran if it did not comply.

    British Prime Minister Gordon Brown said that Iran's violation of the International Atomic Energy Agency's regulations should stiffen the resolve of the international community to draw "a line in the sand" against Tehran.

    But there are many who questions whether even sanctions will work with Iran.

    William Luers, a 30-year career diplomat for the U.S. State Department who served in several postings as ambassador and recently stepped down as president of the United Nations Association, has joined with other top former ambassadors to urge dialogue with Iran.

    Luers is the author of a recent memo on Iran for the White House and Thursday night he attended a dinner along with several dozen former diplomats and analysts with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

    "He is a dreadful person, but he was unusually agreeable last night," said Luers, hastening to add, "What we know this morning casts new light on his gentility."

    But even if Ahmadenijad seems to go out of his way to make it difficult for Obama to stick to his previously stated willingness to open dialogue with Iran, Luers and other diplomats believe the Obama administration, in the long run, is wise to go with that initial instinct.

    "No matter what problems we have with an enemy, you have got to talk with them," said Luers, who is now a visiting lecturer at Tufts University for the Project on Justice in Times of Transition.

    Not so much for altruistic reasons, he says, but because it is the only practical path forward.

    The most difficult foreign policy challenges this administration faces are Afghanistan, Iraq and nuclear proliferation. And all three have one thing in common: Iran. It neighbors both Iraq and Afghanistan and it clearly needs to come into the fold of the international community on its nuclear program.

    "We think sanctions will not achieve the ends of getting Iran to change its behavior. And the idea of using military force, the ultimate sanction, is a very dangerous path. We simply do not have the ability to open a new front in the Middle East."

    "To open dialogue with Iran is a big leap for Americans," said Luers, and after the events of this morning it's understandable if it seems to Americans like a jump off a bridge.

    But, he added, Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will need to step up the administration's diplomatic game. They will have to do the long math on engagement with Iran and the hard work of solving an intricate equation in which Iran is a variable for the most serious foreign policy issues the U.S. faces.

All republished content that appears on Truthout has been obtained by permission or license.





     

»




Comments

This forum is moderated by software. Please allow up to 15 minutes for your comments to go live and avoid posting the same comment multiple times.



Bad time to have an empty

Bad time to have an empty suit in charge. We need someone who can lead.


It is bitterly ironic that

It is bitterly ironic that the country with more nuclear weapons than the rest of the world combined, and the only nation to employ them to deliberately kill civilians should be taking the lead on the non-proliferation issue. The U.S needs to take dramatic unilateral action to reduce its own nuclear arsenal and formally apologize to the Japanese people. Then perhaps it will not be seen as a hypocritical bully with exceptionalist delusions seeking to enforce nuclear apartheid. Iran sees that Israel is given a wink and a nod as it amasses a nuclear arsenal, This double standard undermines U.S. credibility, and encourages clandestine nuclear weapons programs. In the 21st century, do as I say and not as I do, is a dangerously outmoded and ultimately self-defeating policy.


First off, Obama should fire

First off, Obama should fire his two back-up vocalists - Sarkozy and Brown. This will allow him to change the name of the Group from The Three Stooges to Obama Karaoke. Then he should quit singing altogether. He is badly off key and out of tune on Iran. Pete Edler, Stockholm


Or maybe Obama should rename

Or maybe Obama should rename his group The Three Amigos, that way at least some movie buffs will get a chuckle or two out of their horribly comic stage presence and singing skills. Pete Edler, Stockholm.


Diplomacy will not work with

Diplomacy will not work with Iran. The U.N. will do to Obama on Iran what they did to Bush on Iraq.


To address the comment made

To address the comment made at 9/26 at 20:24. Do not pontificate on " the only nation to employ them [nuclear weapons] to deliberately kill civilians....." if you were not around during that period of time in 1945. That act brought about the end of the war in the Pacific and it was the correct thing to do at that time because this country was exhausted after 4-5 years of warfare. We had many persons in uniform and had suffered many losses from war on two fronts. ( Use your imagination.) The invasion of Japan would have been extremely costly in every regard and it was recognized that Japan would have fought to the better end. (Remember Iwo Jima and Okinawa.) To continue the war would have been a tragedy of another kind. Troops coming home from the European theater of war had 2 weeks at home before facing shipment out to the Pacific. On the ships they cheered at the news of the Japanese surrender. As did we all. So get off your stupid soapbox and consider the fact that it had to be done. That's the tragic and sad circumstances of warfare.


At last a recognition by

At last a recognition by some readers that making nice and turning the other cheek with most despots will get you nowhere. Some say we haven't learned from our past history that military force won't work, only negotiations are effective. They probably weren't around in 1938 when British P.M. Charberlain thought the same thing. It would seem they are the ones who have yet to read or learn their history. I'm not campaigning for war with Iran-let's try firm, gradual but stiffening sanctions first, but if Mr. William Luers of the article knows anything about negotiations as he claims then he knows you don't enter them telling the other side that if they can't accept what we propose then we will do whatever it takes since we are weak and don't really have the stomach to resort to the alternative. It sounds like he is proposing we talk with Iran for the purpose of receiving their demands so we can capitulate to them. If that is our real position, then lets cut to the chase and let them know they can dominate the middle eastern region for the next 25-30 years, and do with Israel as they will. There seem to be many that be OK with that with little hesitation right now.


It is interesting that

It is interesting that war-defenders read truthout.org. I assume 04:39 meant P.M. Chamberlain, the appeaser of Hitler--not the same situation since Hitler was known to be preparing to conquer Europe while Ahmadinejad is preparing for the threats that have been made against his country. Truthout printed his letter which Bush ignored while continuing to describe his nation as "evil." Then the Iranians could watch what happened to Saddam Hussein and his land to see what could happen to them. Instead of being the largest arm dealer in the world, why aren't we the purveyor of food, medicine and constructive exports? We might then be able to forgo sanctions altogether.