Crude pressure and deft diplomacy
While Republicans continue to beat drums of war, Obama is right to caution against advocating this as the only option.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s visit to Washington last week — ostensibly to address the annual American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) Conference, but in reality — to galvanise Israel’s legion of supporters to mount pressure on the Obama Administration on Iran, must have been an excruciating experience for the US President.
But at the end of this drama, Obama had reason to feel satisfied with his performance. With rare firmness wrapped in skillful balancing of clashing interests, Obama succeeded in accomplishing seemingly contradictory objectives — giving enough to Netanyahu for him to claim success, while keeping the diplomatic track alive and thereby adding to his administration’s credibility and his own leadership credentials.
Sensing Netanyahu’s game plan, Obama decided to seize the initiative by giving an interview to The Atlantic magazine’s Jeffrey Goldberg, reputedly close to the Jewish lobby. In it, Obama reiterated his pledge to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, with force if necessary, adding for good measure that “as President of the United States, I don’t bluff”. But he also warned Israel of the consequences of a military strike, pointing out that it would delay, but not prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. At the same time, Obama left a vague hint of continued commitment to negotiations, when he pointed out that a military strike against Iran would be a needless “distraction” as Iran “is not yet in a position to acquire a nuclear weapon”. He, therefore, advocated the need for a “permanent” solution to the issue, “as opposed to temporary”, adding that if Iran was presented with options, a deal could be possible, particularly as its leaders were rational.
This was followed by Obama’s address at the AIPAC, in which he reassured Israel and its vociferous supporters –– who were falling over each other in declaring their fealty to the Jewish state –– that, “when the chips are down, I have Israel’s back”. But more importantly, he counseled patience, pointing to the fact that “already there is too much loose talk of war”, which was raising oil prices and helping Iran. He also refused to specify any “red-lines”.
Obama’s meeting with Netanyahu was not as cold and acrimonious as in the past, when Netanyahu had rebuffed Obama’s request for a temporary freeze on illegal settlements on seized Palestinian territory. Neither was it as warm and reassuring as the Israelis would have wished. Understandably, however, Obama chose not to bring up the Palestinian issue, (electoral considerations remain important), while on Iran reiterating that “there is still a window that allows for a diplomatic resolution to this issue”.
While the Republicans continue to beat the drums of war, Obama is right to caution against advocating this as the only option. The world, and no less the US, has suffered enormously from the Bush Administration’s reckless adventures. Moreover, an attack on Iran would not be a ‘surgical’ strike like the Israeli 1981 attack on Iraq’s Osirak reactor, or the 2007 strike on an unfinished Syrian reactor.
Iran’s announcement of its readiness for fresh round of talks has encouraged major powers, for the first time in more than a year, to agree to the resumption of face-to-face negotiations between the two sides. This has been followed by a rare word of appreciation from Ayatollah Khamenei for Obama’s attitude towards Iran. These developments have renewed hopes of sustained diplomatic effort that could avert hostilities and set the stage for negotiations, leading to what Obama called a “permanent” solution to this problem.
Obama has done well, but coming months will put to test not only his commitment to peace, but also America’s credibility and claim to global leadership. Will the dogs of war be permitted to wreak havoc that could be even more disastrous than the invasion of Iraq, or will Obama be able to rise above narrow considerations of electoral victory and demonstrate statesmanship by proposing a nuclear free zone, which alone can ensure peace and stability in a volatile region?
Published in The Express Tribune, March 14th, 2012.
But at the end of this drama, Obama had reason to feel satisfied with his performance. With rare firmness wrapped in skillful balancing of clashing interests, Obama succeeded in accomplishing seemingly contradictory objectives — giving enough to Netanyahu for him to claim success, while keeping the diplomatic track alive and thereby adding to his administration’s credibility and his own leadership credentials.
Sensing Netanyahu’s game plan, Obama decided to seize the initiative by giving an interview to The Atlantic magazine’s Jeffrey Goldberg, reputedly close to the Jewish lobby. In it, Obama reiterated his pledge to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, with force if necessary, adding for good measure that “as President of the United States, I don’t bluff”. But he also warned Israel of the consequences of a military strike, pointing out that it would delay, but not prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. At the same time, Obama left a vague hint of continued commitment to negotiations, when he pointed out that a military strike against Iran would be a needless “distraction” as Iran “is not yet in a position to acquire a nuclear weapon”. He, therefore, advocated the need for a “permanent” solution to the issue, “as opposed to temporary”, adding that if Iran was presented with options, a deal could be possible, particularly as its leaders were rational.
This was followed by Obama’s address at the AIPAC, in which he reassured Israel and its vociferous supporters –– who were falling over each other in declaring their fealty to the Jewish state –– that, “when the chips are down, I have Israel’s back”. But more importantly, he counseled patience, pointing to the fact that “already there is too much loose talk of war”, which was raising oil prices and helping Iran. He also refused to specify any “red-lines”.
Obama’s meeting with Netanyahu was not as cold and acrimonious as in the past, when Netanyahu had rebuffed Obama’s request for a temporary freeze on illegal settlements on seized Palestinian territory. Neither was it as warm and reassuring as the Israelis would have wished. Understandably, however, Obama chose not to bring up the Palestinian issue, (electoral considerations remain important), while on Iran reiterating that “there is still a window that allows for a diplomatic resolution to this issue”.
While the Republicans continue to beat the drums of war, Obama is right to caution against advocating this as the only option. The world, and no less the US, has suffered enormously from the Bush Administration’s reckless adventures. Moreover, an attack on Iran would not be a ‘surgical’ strike like the Israeli 1981 attack on Iraq’s Osirak reactor, or the 2007 strike on an unfinished Syrian reactor.
Iran’s announcement of its readiness for fresh round of talks has encouraged major powers, for the first time in more than a year, to agree to the resumption of face-to-face negotiations between the two sides. This has been followed by a rare word of appreciation from Ayatollah Khamenei for Obama’s attitude towards Iran. These developments have renewed hopes of sustained diplomatic effort that could avert hostilities and set the stage for negotiations, leading to what Obama called a “permanent” solution to this problem.
Obama has done well, but coming months will put to test not only his commitment to peace, but also America’s credibility and claim to global leadership. Will the dogs of war be permitted to wreak havoc that could be even more disastrous than the invasion of Iraq, or will Obama be able to rise above narrow considerations of electoral victory and demonstrate statesmanship by proposing a nuclear free zone, which alone can ensure peace and stability in a volatile region?
Published in The Express Tribune, March 14th, 2012.