Tuesday, January 3, 2012 - 11:57 AM

The Persian new year falls on the vernal equinox, but the government of Iran set off some fireworks to start the Julian year: announcing it had manufactured a nuclear fuel rod, test-firing three new missiles, threatening to close the Straits of Hormuz, and warning the U.S. not to return the Fifth Fleet's aircraft carrier to the Gulf.
The Obama Administration has got the response -- a very difficult balancing act -- almost exactly right: not giving Iran the lift of a high-level political statement, instead quietly proceeding on sanctions, letting the economic arguments speak for themselves, reassuring allies in the region, and having our military refute Iran's claims with our obvious superiority and the unambiguous statement that "interference with the transit or passage of vessels through the Strait of Hormuz will not be tolerated."
Preserving freedom of navigation through the Straits would play to our military's strengths and showcase the increased political resolve and military capabilities of Gulf allies in recent years. The Obama administration has advanced cooperation with friendly governments in the region, Iran's own truculence producing closer involvement with the U.S.
I agree with Michael Singh that assertive military operations are a valuable deterrent and should be pursued, although it looks to me as though we've been doing that pretty well for the past few years: while our military leadership has mostly played down the likelihood of strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities, they have pushed back on Iranian maritime harassment, conducted operations near Iran's shoreline, arming and exercising with regional allies, and (as the recent drone capture by Iran demonstrates), extending surveillance and intelligence operations into Iranian territory.
One of the few missteps so far is the White House attempting to forestall Congressional furthering of the very means the administration has advocated for in limiting Iran's choices. Sanctions have been biting since the United Arab Emirates began compliance last year, and are set to tighten further with Congress' action to extend prohibitions to Iran's central bank. President Obama signing the legislation over the weekend may well have precipitated this round of bellicose posturing: Iran's currency promptly lost 12% of its value (continuing a plunge of 50 percent from a year ago).
Another potential wrinkle in the strategy is Israel's isolation. An Israeli strike on Iran's nuclear facilities is more likely due to the friction between the Obama and Netanyhu governments; in making settlements the centerpiece of its peace proposals, Obama made cooperation between Israel and others more difficult and promises from us less reassuring. Secretary Panetta's comments don't help, either.
But still, President Obama has come a long way since the stolen elections of 2009, when he put potential relations with Ahmadinejad's government ahead of condemning the government's repression. The domestic legitimacy of the Iranian regime faces a new challenge because reformists are refusing to participate in the upcoming Parliamentary elections, stripping away even the pretense of representative government.
Ayatollah Khameni and his wayward protege President Ahmadinejad claim that Iran is the inspiration of the Arab Spring. And they're right -- just not in the way they mean. The uprising of Iranians against their government rigging 2009's election was the first flowering of Spring, the first middle eastern populace brave enough to stand up to tyranny. Their demands for political rights were crushed by a government that has more in common with despots overthrown in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Yemen than with the people overthrowing them.
As the new year dawns, we should continue to tighten the screws on this Iranian government and wish the Iranian people well in ending the tyranny that has repressed and impoverished them. We will have less to fear from a democratic Iran, even if it continues its nuclear programs, than we will Khameni's repressive Iran.
Obama did not "mak[e] settlements the centerpiece of [his] peace proposals"; settlements inevitably have a central role in any peace agreement. All Obama attempted to do, quite correctly, was to push Israel to stop its ongoing effort to establish facts on the ground, in contravention of relevant international law, that will ultimately make a peace deal less likely.
Obama did in fact repeatedly condemn Iranian post-election repression in strong terns. It is not clear that this fact can be reconciled with Dr. Schake's implication to the contrary.
lack of imagination on Obama's part
The administration has played the sanctions game with Iran for almost two years now, to no avail. Iran still progresses with its missile program as well as nuclear enrichment (there is no hard evidence of connection between these programs) unharmed.
Closing the Straits of Hormuz would not be more of an act of war than launching spy-planes to another nation's airspace. Nonetheless, the Iranian regime understands that once the Straits are locked, a US attack would follow, so that is a hollow threat. Just as hollow as the ever-repeated "all options are on the table" boasts of Obama.
Bottom line is, one can hardly qualify these toothless and meaningless responses to be "almost exactly right". Obama seems to have a way of resorting to talismanic policies time and time again, regardless of the fact that they are not working (surge after surge in Afghanistan, challenging China on human rights, imposing half-hearted sanctions on Iran, etc.).
Even the over-hyped "green movement" of last year's summer died off within a few weeks, it didn't even last as long as the "occupy XY" movements in the US. So much for popular resistance, eh?
Their demands for political rights were crushed by a government that has more in common with despots overthrown in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Yemen than with the people overthrowing them. 3 quart saucepan
This survey indicates that a domestic civilian nuclear program is very popular, and that a large majority of Iranians see US iappliancesblog nfluence as mainly negative. These views are perfectly compatible - there is no contradiction as you suggest in your first sentence.
Shadow Government is a blog about U.S. foreign policy under the Obama administration, written by experienced policy makers from the loyal opposition and curated by Peter D. Feaver and William Inboden.
Read More
(4)
HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE