Obama’s New Iran Policy: The Formula of Mutual Respect
Barack Obama is playing his favorite role as bearer of hope. However, what belies his video message to Iran is the understanding that all previous strategies have failed and only a diplomatic offensive could stand a chance of improving the relations between American and Iran.
Barack Obama is playing a role that he enjoys and in which he always shines – that of the hope bearer. “This is the season of new beginnings,” said Obama in his surprising video message to Iranian leadership. “We seek … engagement that is honest and grounded in mutual respect.”
It’s not what you say, but how you say it and, right now, Obama’s tone is fundamentally different from that of his predecessor George W. Bush. Although Bush eventually distanced himself from the rhetoric about the “Axis of Evil,” which included Iran, Iraq and North Korea, there never was any doubt that he would have preferred to topple the theocratic regime in Tehran in order to fix the differences between Iran and America.
With his message, Obama has signaled that things have changed. The code word “mutual respect” was meant for the Iranians. The world power does not want to topple the government in Tehran or dictate how the country should be governed. The U.S. wants to convince them that it would be in everyone’s best interest if Iran ceases its military nuclear program. That is indeed a change of tone.
Obama’s offer also reveals that the U.S. president has realized that all efforts to prevent Iran from acquiring the atomic bomb have led to dead ends. Thus far, diplomatic measures have been unsuccessful and military options are limited. However, this does not mean that Americans will not ultimately consider these options.
After everything that Iran and Middle East experts in Washington have said in past weeks, the new government truly is ready for a cold, hard look at the situation.
Two things may become apparent after this analysis. Firstly, diplomacy has failed. The Bush administration’s mistakes have only encouraged Iran to pursue its course. The U.S. also has been unable to persuade Russia or China to join the coalition against Iran. Further, the United States’ unholy march into Iraq has merely increased Iran’s prestige in the gulf region.
Secondly, there is no doubt that the Iranian government alone will decide whether the country will become a nuclear power, which would very likely initiate an arms race in the region. Even a military attack by the U.S. would only delay Iran’s nuclear program by two years.
After two long years, however, the U.S. is probably in no position to invade Iran. Even such a limited attack could have unintended consequences. Iraq became a “hell for us,” one renowned Middle East expert stated. “An attack would be equal to war.” In the past week, Iran experts at a conference at the prestigious Wilson Center in Washington warned against optimism.
In contrast, there is a serious risk that the government in Tehran will “miss this opportunity,” stated one of the experts, speaking on the condition of anonymity. “In Tehran they do not believe Obama will order a military attack.”
”That is disturbing”
That is why the Iranians will try to stall the discussions about its nuclear armament. This is disturbing because Obama has not ruled out military options. “It could still happen.” The time for diplomacy is limited. Nonetheless, it was generally accepted at the conference that the U.S. took a step in the right direction by inviting Iran to Amsterdam for discussions on the topic of Afghanistan. The Iranian government is still deciding on whether to send a delegation.
This hesitation may be due to what experts call America’s “ambivalent messages.” On one hand, the U.S. invites the new government in Iran to an international conference. On the other hand, America is pushing for sanctions against Iran. Iranian leadership therefore must first be convinced that the invitation to Amsterdam is not an isolated event and will be followed by a second step in the right direction.
That has just happened.
Barack Obama is playing a role that he enjoys and in which he always shines – that of the hope bearer. “This is the season of new beginnings,” said Obama in his surprising video message to Iranian leadership. “We seek … engagement that is honest and grounded in mutual respect.”
It’s not what you say, but how you say it and, right now, Obama’s tone is fundamentally different from that of his predecessor George W. Bush. Although Bush eventually distanced himself from the rhetoric about the “Axis of Evil,” which included Iran, Iraq and North Korea, there never was any doubt that he would have preferred to topple the theocratic regime in Tehran in order to fix the differences between Iran and America.
With his message, Obama has signaled that things have changed. The code word “mutual respect” was meant for the Iranians. The world power does not want to topple the government in Tehran or dictate how the country should be governed. The U.S. wants to convince them that it would be in everyone’s best interest if Iran ceases its military nuclear program. That is indeed a change of tone.
Obama’s offer also reveals that the U.S. president has realized that all efforts to prevent Iran from acquiring the atomic bomb have led to dead ends. Thus far, diplomatic measures have been unsuccessful and military options are limited. However, this does not mean that Americans will not ultimately consider these options.
After everything that Iran and Middle East experts in Washington have said in past weeks, the new government truly is ready for a cold, hard look at the situation.
Two things may become apparent after this analysis. Firstly, diplomacy has failed. The Bush administration’s mistakes have only encouraged Iran to pursue its course. The U.S. also has been unable to persuade Russia or China to join the coalition against Iran. Further, the United States’ unholy march into Iraq has merely increased Iran’s prestige in the gulf region.
Secondly, there is no doubt that the Iranian government alone will decide whether the country will become a nuclear power, which would very likely initiate an arms race in the region. Even a military attack by the U.S. would only delay Iran’s nuclear program by two years.
After two long years, however, the U.S. is probably in no position to invade Iran. Even such a limited attack could have unintended consequences. Iraq became a “hell for us,” one renowned Middle East expert stated. “An attack would be equal to war.” In the past week, Iran experts at a conference at the prestigious Wilson Center in Washington warned against optimism.
In contrast, there is a serious risk that the government in Tehran will “miss this opportunity,” stated one of the experts, speaking on the condition of anonymity. “In Tehran they do not believe Obama will order a military attack.”
”That is disturbing”
That is why the Iranians will try to stall the discussions about its nuclear armament. This is disturbing because Obama has not ruled out military options. “It could still happen.” The time for diplomacy is limited. Nonetheless, it was generally accepted at the conference that the U.S. took a step in the right direction by inviting Iran to Amsterdam for discussions on the topic of Afghanistan. The Iranian government is still deciding on whether to send a delegation.
This hesitation may be due to what experts call America’s “ambivalent messages.” On one hand, the U.S. invites the new government in Iran to an international conference. On the other hand, America is pushing for sanctions against Iran. Iranian leadership therefore must first be convinced that the invitation to Amsterdam is not an isolated event and will be followed by a second step in the right direction.
That has just happened.
Previous article![]( "After the Dust Has Settled")
