Obama, On Three Fronts

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.