Global News : Passport : Ricks : Drezner : Walt : Rothkopf : Lynch
The Cable : The AfPak Blog : Net Effect : Shadow Govt. : Madam Secretary : The Call
Obama is missing his chance to pressure Iran
By Kristen Silverberg
President Obama's speech last night regrettably omitted any mention of Iran. Any major presidential address is the subject of careful analysis in foreign capitals, and many of our partners will conclude that Obama views the Iranian nuclear question with less urgency than his predecessor. That is precisely the wrong message to send on the heels of the latest IAEA report, especially in Europe, where we need partners willing to continue tightening pressure against Iran.
The day after he became the presumptive Democrat nominee, Obama delivered a speech to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee outlining his approach to the Iranian nuclear question. As he described it, his Iran policy would have two elements: 1) direct engagement with Iran combined with 2) tougher multilateral sanctions. Before a skeptical crowd, he defended his willingness to engage Iran directly by drawing a link between the two elements, noting that our willingness to engage directly could be used as leverage to convince international partners to support tougher sanctions. This would allow us to pursue, as he put it, "diplomacy backed by real leverage."
Following Obama's election, European officials assumed there would be a link between U.S. willingness to engage Iran directly and Europe's responsibility to tighten financial pressure against the Iranian regime. As EU officials understood it, Obama would, like President Bush, adopt a carrot-and-stick approach, but would offer bigger carrots and would want to wield bigger sticks. Late last year, the EU -- perhaps anticipating an Obama request -- took a decision in principle to strengthen its own sanctions against Iran and began the process of debating specific measures.
Today, however, the Obama administration seems poised to miss the opportunity to work with Europe to tighten financial pressure against Iran. Having heard repeated public reassurances that the United States is looking for opportunities to engage, without an equally strong public insistence that Europe first produce tougher sanctions, the EU seems less inclined to follow through on its earlier decision to consider new measures. For now, the EU has told Obama administration officials that further sanctions would be inappropriate before the administration completes its Iran policy review, but one worries that the EU has concluded that it is off the hook permanently.
If this moment is missed, it will be a terrible lost opportunity. EU sanctions, even more than unilateral U.S. sanctions, are capable of capturing the Iranian regime's attention, as we learned following the EU's decision last year to freeze the assets of Bank Melli, one of Iran's most important banks.
What's more, once a negotiating process with the United States has begun, it will be difficult to convince Europe to take punitive action that could risk disrupting ongoing discussions. A commitment from Europe, China, and Russia to adopt new sanctions only if discussions with Iran eventually fail would be meaningless. By the time talks fail, it will be too late. I'm not optimistic that direct engagement with Iran will produce an acceptable agreement, but if the Obama administration is committed to this course, it would be wise to give itself the strongest possible chance for success.
Obama has enormous capital to use in Europe, and Europeans will be reluctant to turn down a public U.S. request. If we are going to convince Europe to move ahead, it will happen only as a result of explicit insistence from the Obama administration that new European (and ideally Chinese and Russian) sanctions are a necessary prerequisite to any new diplomatic strategy.
Obama administration officials have been vocal in criticizing the Bush team's approach to Iran, but Bush's multilateral diplomacy produced overwhelming support in the UN Security Council for five Chapter VII Security Council resolutions, three of which impose binding multilateral sanctions. The Bush administration worked with numerous capitals, including Brussels, to adopt sanctions even beyond those mandated by the Security Council.
What's more, the Bush administration, led by Treasury Undersecretary Stuart Levey (who President Obama has wisely decided to retain) persuaded international financial institutions that Iran's deceptive use of front companies had so blurred the lines between licit and illicit conduct that legitimate financial institutions could no longer afford to do business with official Iranian entities. Some eighty financial institutions have since suspended business with Iran, and its difficulties in obtaining financing in turn dried up Western investment in the Iranian oil and gas sector.
The Obama administration has the opportunity to further increase Iran's incentives to take a different course. Let's hope they seize it.






I kept on hearing "John
I kept on hearing "John Bolton"'s voice reading this passage, is FP putting some sound effects on its blogs?
Obama Missing the Chance to Pressure Iran
Hopefully, President Obama approaches Iran without creating additional missteps in a country that the United States assisted in overthrowing a democratically elected government and supported a dictatorship that was pro-U.S. That's our legacy.
Unfortunately, our country has had a strong tendency to support dictatorships around the world for short term gain with long term negative consequences. How billions of dollars have been expended on dictators and what were the results? Marcos, Shah and many more. That's an essential part of foreign policy research that we need in order to correct past mistakes.
I guess George Washington's Farewell Address has been discarded for our modern world of geo-politics, which has been studded with one foreign policy failure after another.
Great comment. Have you by
Great comment.
Have you by chance read Overthrow: America's Century Of Regime Change From Hawaii to Iraq, by Stephen Kinzer?
If not I strongly recommend you pick it up.
Pressuring the wrong nation
Given that Israel possesses some 200 nuclear weapons and modern delivery systems, it should not surprise anyone that Iran would seek to develop a deterrent. As we recently learned, Syria has been making a similar quest.
These are not crazy actions, they're predictable responses to a well-known threat.
The pressure here should be for the US to call a regional conference with the aim of eliminating all nuclear weapons from the region. Israel gives up its nukes, the others never develop any. Verifiable on all sides.
If South Africa, Libya and Brazil can step back from the nuclear brink, so can the nations of the Mideast.
A New Role for Iran despite the Neo Cons?
The Neo Con worldview propagated by the Bush administration and Israel has been echoed by various Obama appointments as well regarding Iran, most notably Dennis Ross. Silverberg repeats Ross' 'carrot and stick' approach to Iran as if Iran is still in the Axis of Evil. But is it?
From the Neo Con worldview of Cheney who threatened attacks on Iran in late 2008, it is. According to Joe Lieberman who authored the congressional act to toppled the Iranian establishment and who backed McCain, it is. According to all Israel political leaders it is.
But is this Manichean paradigm for Iran in the best interest of America?
According to the NPT, Iran has a right to peaceful nuclear energy development. Despite the fact that Shah Pavlavi was the original signee to this treaty and America intended for the shah to benefit from it not the ayatullahs, for the sake of international diplomatic continuity, there is still the sentiment that Iran deserves to have a nuclear energy capability which is not dependent on some other country supplying vital components.
As well, beyond the Axis talk, Iran can serve American regional interests despite Neo Con and Israeli outcries. Iran can provide strategic access to transportation routes to Afghanistan to bolster American and NATO military plans. Iran has helped keep Shia connections in Iraq and the Gulf states in line, rather than at odds with America. For all its shadowy ways, Iran is a partner in numerous international treaties with America. It has yet to abandon them. And most controversial to Neo Con sentiments: Iran serves as a counterbalance to Israeli regional primacy.
Despite the 110 billion in total US aid to Israel and the 1 trillion dollar cost to the US, Israel continues to pursue its own regional interests even to the detriment to American regional interests. While the two often coencide, the fact that Israel is unwilling to comply with America's 2 state solution and continues to undermine regional stability with its treatment of Palestinians and Arabs suggests to the objective American foreign policy analyst that Israel is in need of a counterbalance in order to persuade more favorable compliance. Iran serves as that weight.
The verdict on Obama is still out. As well, his insight in the confict in Palestine is still questionable. Mere compliance with AIPAC will not bring stability nor will it serve America's ultimate interests- it WILL provide Israel with greater opportunities to control and dominate regional circumstances inspite of America.
So Silverberg's echoing Ross and Neo Con rhetoric merely implies the continuation of Bush era Neo Con vision, a vision which brought misery and despair. If Obama is seeking real change and hope, he will likely envision a new path for Iran despite the Neo Con objections.