Barack Obama Blazes New Foreign Policy Trails
In dealing with Iran and Cuba, President Barack Obama is going down new paths that — from a foreign policy point of view — are extremely interesting. Obama is developing a strategy for the last 18 months of his term that could go into the history books as “The Obama Doctrine.” Hopefully with a positive connotation.
Obama's 45-minute interview with New York Times top columnist Thomas Friedman is one of the most exciting political documents available to the public these days. The dialogue alone is notable because today's most powerful world leader openly reveals his thoughts about the recent agreement between the United States and Iran.
There are no ready-made phrases Obama is trying to sell us. No, his words are thoughtful, reflective, deliberate and simultaneously determined. Obama's speech is not propaganda, nor is it a collection of meaningless platitudes and canned comments as we have become accustomed to hearing from our own political class. That in itself is a treat for politically engaged Europhile intellectuals.
In brief, Obama's political creed is that the United States must be willing to negotiate with even its worst enemies and reach agreements with them but should never lose sight of its own strategic best interests. And he has steadfastly practiced this approach in his previous negotiations with Burma, Cuba and most recently with Iran. Such open policies are of greater use to the United States than endless sanctions and boycotts. The United States, with its unparalleled might, has to have enough self-confidence to take the calculated risks necessary to open up new possibilities.
As previously mentioned, that all sounds good to our Western ears. But it's much more difficult to assess how Obama's words will be perceived and understood in Iran and the Middle East in general.
In the matter of Iran's nuclear program, Obama's severest critic is the newly reelected Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Netanyahu compares Obama to British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain with his failed appeasement policies toward Nazi Germany.
On the other hand, Netanyahu's policies are those of a professional, well-equipped and constantly ready fire department. Whenever and wherever fire breaks out, Netanyahu hurries to the conflagration and extinguishes the flames with the department's total involvement. In contrast, fire prevention and the development of new strategies to fight fires are as foreign to Netanyahu's mindset as sophisticated thinking is.
Former CIA director Leon Panetta once said Obama relies too heavily on his logic as a law professor instead of on his passion as a leader.
That attitude may have stood in the way of his presidency so far, but it appears he has now found a way to turn that attitude to his advantage: He sees things from a “helicopter view” — that is to say, he sees things from a certain distance, without emotional entanglements and oversimplifications. In that way, perhaps, he is better able to judge the complex Iranian political situation. In any case, Obama seems to have decided on this approach. In so doing, he is possibly following in the footsteps of his much-maligned predecessor, George W. Bush who — once he reached a decision — also embarked on actions that ran counter to the advice of politicians, military advisors and journalists. All of us wish President Obama success in this undertaking!
Obama's 45-minute interview with New York Times top columnist Thomas Friedman is one of the most exciting political documents available to the public these days. The dialogue alone is notable because today's most powerful world leader openly reveals his thoughts about the recent agreement between the United States and Iran.
There are no ready-made phrases Obama is trying to sell us. No, his words are thoughtful, reflective, deliberate and simultaneously determined. Obama's speech is not propaganda, nor is it a collection of meaningless platitudes and canned comments as we have become accustomed to hearing from our own political class. That in itself is a treat for politically engaged Europhile intellectuals.
In brief, Obama's political creed is that the United States must be willing to negotiate with even its worst enemies and reach agreements with them but should never lose sight of its own strategic best interests. And he has steadfastly practiced this approach in his previous negotiations with Burma, Cuba and most recently with Iran. Such open policies are of greater use to the United States than endless sanctions and boycotts. The United States, with its unparalleled might, has to have enough self-confidence to take the calculated risks necessary to open up new possibilities.
As previously mentioned, that all sounds good to our Western ears. But it's much more difficult to assess how Obama's words will be perceived and understood in Iran and the Middle East in general.
In the matter of Iran's nuclear program, Obama's severest critic is the newly reelected Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Netanyahu compares Obama to British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain with his failed appeasement policies toward Nazi Germany.
On the other hand, Netanyahu's policies are those of a professional, well-equipped and constantly ready fire department. Whenever and wherever fire breaks out, Netanyahu hurries to the conflagration and extinguishes the flames with the department's total involvement. In contrast, fire prevention and the development of new strategies to fight fires are as foreign to Netanyahu's mindset as sophisticated thinking is.
Former CIA director Leon Panetta once said Obama relies too heavily on his logic as a law professor instead of on his passion as a leader.
That attitude may have stood in the way of his presidency so far, but it appears he has now found a way to turn that attitude to his advantage: He sees things from a “helicopter view” — that is to say, he sees things from a certain distance, without emotional entanglements and oversimplifications. In that way, perhaps, he is better able to judge the complex Iranian political situation. In any case, Obama seems to have decided on this approach. In so doing, he is possibly following in the footsteps of his much-maligned predecessor, George W. Bush who — once he reached a decision — also embarked on actions that ran counter to the advice of politicians, military advisors and journalists. All of us wish President Obama success in this undertaking!
Previous article![]( "Asian Investment Bank Loses Grip: US Effort Fails")
