Obama, On Three Fronts

Published in El País
(Spain) on 7 April 2015
by M. A. Bastenier (link to originallink to original)
Translated from by Cydney Seigerman. Edited by Nathan Moseley.

 

 

Like a juggler, President Obama has three balls tossed in the air to catch without letting the others fall to the ground. They are Cuba, Iran and the triptych formed by Syria, Iraq and Yemen and their united calling. There are more, although not as urgent, like Ukraine, Afghanistan and Venezuela — which Obama has already let fall, though they are more like a game of ping-pong — and others that will come from the success or failure of that geopolitical holy trinity. The fate of his second term of office will depend on Obama’s craftiness with regard to these fronts: great deception, saving the day, or launching a new cycle of American international policy.

The two emergencies that are apparently resolved are Cuba and Iran. However, it will be some time until diplomatic relations are established with the former, and for the agreement to limit Tehran's nuclear development to be signed with the latter. The Cuban and Iranian cases — of which the relationship with Havana will be subject to a test at the Summit of the Americas this coming weekend — resemble each other more every day. The two have played their part in cat-and-mouse negotiations, each supporting itself in order not to lose the substantial diplomatic investment each has made; neither accepting the role of mouse. The theory that Obama shares with his Iranian counterpart, Hassan Rouhani, is that it does not have to be a zero-sum game in which what one wins and the other one loses, but rather that everyone can end up winning. On the other hand, the Republican right in Washington, those who do not want to give an atom to Tehran, and the crude nationalism in Israel believe that it is indeed a zero-sum game, and that Iran is the one that will win everything.

In English, it is said, "The devil is in the details." This has never been more applicable, as both agreements depend on the details: How much pragmatic thawing before the re-establishment of relations between Cuba and the U.S.? To what degree do decay and affront matter to Venezuela?

For how many years will the nuclear agreement be enforced? At what rate will the sanctions against Iran be lifted? Each calendar shapes different agreements, which give more or less opportunities to the enemies of that new beginning. It is certain that the previous listed ideas are points that, in negotiation theory, need to have already been resolved. However, the problem rests in how to present the negotiations in front of a decent number of congressmen, the majority of whom are Democrats that are not viscerally against the agreements but need to be able to convince themselves that they are not betraying Israel. At the same time, the agreements must be presented in front of a crowd of Republicans who have already decided that there is no agreement with Tehran that can be good.

Furthermore, opposing Obama's plan to leave the Middle East free of American soldiers is the third ball dancing in the air: the war against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, parallel to that situation in which Yemen is being liberated from the Houthis who want to free themselves from Western control. The upcoming months are to be spent creating some agreements that offend the fewest people possible. Only then will Washington be able to decide how far it can move on this third front, on which it is opposed by both its usual allies, Saudi Arabia, and its old enemy, the Iranian regime.


Como un malabarista, el presidente Obama tiene tres pelotas en el aire que ha de recoger impidiendo que ninguna caiga al suelo. Son Cuba, Irán y el tríptico con vocación unitaria que forman Siria-Irak-Yemen. Hay más, aunque no de tan urgente atención, como Ucrania, Afganistán, Venezuela —que ya se le ha caído, pero es de ping-pong— y otras que se derivarán del éxito o fracaso de esa Santísima Trinidad de la geopolítica. Y de ese maniobreo dependerá la suerte de su doble mandato: la gran decepción; salvar los muebles; o inaugurar un nuevo ciclo de la política exterior norteamericana.

Las dos urgencias aparentemente amortizadas son Cuba e Irán. Pero pasará algún tiempo hasta que en el primer caso se establezcan relaciones diplomáticas y en el segundo se firme el acuerdo de estrecheces nucleares para Teherán. Los casos cubano e iraní —de los que la relación con La Habana se verá sometida a un test en la cumbre de las Américas del próximo fin de semana—, se parecen cada día más. Las partes han jugado en las negociaciones al gato y al ratón, apoyándose ambas en la necesidad de no dar por perdida la cuantiosa inversión diplomática realizada, y en las que ninguno aceptaba ir de ratón. La teoría que comparten Obama y su homólogo iraní, Hasan Rohaní, es la de que no se trata de un juego de suma cero —en el que lo que uno gana, lo pierde el otro— sino que todos pueden salir ganando, mientras que la derecha republicanota en Washington; los partidarios de no ceder un átomo en Teherán; y el nacionalismo montaraz en Israel, sostienen que sí es de suma cero, e Irán quien se lo lleva todo.

En inglés se dice que “el diablo está en los detalles” y nunca mejor aplicado porque ambos acuerdos son los detalles: ¿cuánto de deshielo práctico significa el restablecimiento de relaciones Cuba-EE UU?; ¿qué grado de ofensa y decaimiento representa para Venezuela?; ¿cuántos años tendrá de vigencia el acuerdo nuclear?; ¿a qué ritmo se producirá el levantamiento de las sanciones contra Irán? Uno u otro calendario configuran acuerdos diferentes, que dan mayor o menor juego a los enemigos de ese nuevo comienzo. Cierto que los anteriores son puntos que en la teoría negociadora tienen que estar ya resueltos, pero el problema reside en cómo anunciarlos ante un buen número de congresistas, la mayoría demócratas, que no son visceralmente contrarios, pero que necesitan poderse vender a ellos mismos la convicción de que no están traicionando a Israel, así como ante otra multitud republicana, que ya ha decidido que ningún acuerdo con Teherán puede ser bueno.

Y, contrariando el designio de Obama de dejar sin soldados norteamericanos Oriente Medio, baila la tercera pelota: la guerra contra el EI en Irak y Siria, paralela a la que se libra en Yemen a los Huthi, que quieren zafarse de la tutela de Occidente. Y estos meses son para redactar unos acuerdos que ofendan lo menos posible, y solo entonces podrá Washington decidir hasta dónde puede llegar en ese tercer frente en el que se oponen su aliado de siempre, Arabia Saudí, y su antiguo enemigo, el régimen de Irán.
This post appeared on the front page as a direct link to the original article with the above link .

Hot this week

Australia: Donald Trump Is Not the Only Moving Part When It Comes to Global Trade

Germany: Bad Prospects

India: Peace Nobel for Trump: It’s Too Long a Stretch

Topics

Canada: How To Avoid ICE? Follow the Rules

Canada: Trump Doesn’t Hold All the Cards on International Trade

Ireland: The Irish Times View on Trump and Ukraine: a Step in the Right Direction

Australia: As Trump Turns His Back on Renewables, China Is Building the Future

Germany: Bad Prospects

Germany: Musk Helps the Democrats

India: Peace Nobel for Trump: It’s Too Long a Stretch

Ecuador: Monsters in Florida

Related Articles

Germany: Musk Helps the Democrats

India: Peace Nobel for Trump: It’s Too Long a Stretch

Egypt: The B-2 Gamble: How Israel Is Rewriting Middle East Power Politics

Canada: Can We Still Trust American Intelligence?

Ireland: As Genocide Proceeds, Netanyahu Is Yet Again Being Feted in Washington