A Bright Spot In Obama's Foreign Policy: Iran. Yes, Iran

 

U.S. State Department Photo

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry disembarks from his plane after traveling from Kabul, Afghanistan, to Vienna, Austria, on July 13, 2014 for allied talks with Iran about its nuclear program.

Who would’ve ever thought that the Iranian nuclear program—that’s the Iranian nuclear program—would be the bright spot in President Barack Obama’s foreign policy, the place where things were looking up? But that’s the situation we find ourselves in, with talks between Iran and the U.S. and it partners in the p5+1 (the permanent five members of the U.N. Security Council—U.S., U.K., France, Russia, and China, plus Germany) having achieved serious progress.

This past Sunday was the end of the six-month interim period laid out in the agreement last November in Geneva. The parties agreed to a four-month extension of the talks in order to try and reach a comprehensive agreement. The State Department released a fact sheet on the extension’s terms, noting that Iran had complied with its commitments under the interim deal, known as the Joint Plan of Action (JPOA).

While the talks have made serious progress, some key disagreements—particularly regarding the number of centrifuges and the pace of sanctions relief—remain to be bridged. But make no mistake: An agreement that prevents Iran’s acquisition of a nuclear weapon would be a hugely consequential one for the security of the U.S. and its partners in the region.

It would also represent the fulfillment of a key Obama campaign promise. Back in 2008, Obama started and won an important debate about the necessity of talking to our adversaries. Criticized as naïve by both his own primary opponent, Senator Hillary Clinton, and the Republican nominee, Sen. John McCain, Obama stood strong and won an extremely important argument about the appropriate uses of American power and the effectiveness of advancing diplomacy to advance American security.  

“I don't want to just end the war,” Obama said of Iraq in 2008, “but I want to end the mindset that got us into war in the first place.” Obviously, this has proven far easier said than done. Changing the mindset that America can magically create great outcomes through the application of military force is a long-term project—and let’s be honest, Obama hasn’t always put his back into it as progressives hoped he would—but it’s worth recognizing that Iran policy is an area in which the president has followed through on it, and shown results.

Which is one of the reasons that those most committed to the old mindset immediately bashed the deal as a sellout.

U.S. State Department Photo

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry shakes hands with Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif as he arrives at a hotel in Vienna, Austria, on July 14, 2014, for a second day of meetings about the future of his country's nuclear program. 

“By accepting the Iranians’ right to enrich, it's a failure, but they're desperately seeking some type of 'win' that they can trumpet,” carped John McCain, apparently unaware of reports that it was the very indication from the U.S. that it would recognize Iran’s right to enrich that opened a secret U.S.-Iran bilateral track—and one of the reasons we’re so close to an agreement.

Writing in National Review, Sen, Marco Rubio—the Florida Republican who clearly aspires to inherit McCain’s mantle of head Senate neocon—claims that Obama’s approach “is the opposite of that of past American presidents, most notably President Ronald Reagan.”

It’s worth noting here how closely Rubio’s critique echoes past neoconservative criticisms—of Ronald Reagan.

In a 1982 issue of the New York Times Magazine, Norman Podhoretz so held forth, discouraged by Reagan’s engagement with Mikhail Gorbachev, which Podhoretz saw as a failure to encourage the break-up of the Soviet Union.  “[P]resented with an enormous opportunity to further that process, what has President Reagan done?” asked Podhoretz in a cry of anguish over Reagan’s foreign policy—helpfully titled “The Neoconservative Anguish Over Reagan’s Foreign Policy.”

“Astonishingly, he has turned the opportunity down,” Pohoretz continued. “This is all the more astonishing in that the risks of seizing that opportunity were and are minimal.”

“In the current Soviet effort to look reassuring, even liberal, there has been no more gullible collaborator than Ronald Reagan,” wrote David Frum in 1988.

By sitting down and talking with adversaries, Reagan proved his critics wrong, just as Obama is doing.

Despite the outcry from the hawks, there are encouraging signs the president has continued support for diplomacy. Speaking at the progressive Netroots Nation conference last weekend, Sen. Patrick Murphy of Connecticut indicated that he would support an extension of the talks. A letter from Senators Robert Menendez and Lindsey Graham, which laid out a number of potentially problematic conditions for any final deal, was supposed to close for signatures last week, but remained open because they’re having trouble finding Democrats who are interested in constraining the administration’s diplomacy. Just as with the Democrats who pulled their support from a provocative and ill-times sanctions bill earlier this year, this seems like an encouraging sign that fewer in Congress are willing to risk hurting the chances for a breakthrough with Iran. 

Talks are set to resume in September.

 

 

Comments

A couple of thoughts

1. The only reason this is a bright spot in Obama foreign policy is because all the other parts of have exploded. A n issue that has yet to fail is by definition a bright sport compared to those that have already failed.

2. The only reason the talks are ongoing is because the US has shifted its own negotiating position over the last four years. Heck if we signed an agreement with Putin that recognized the annexation of Crimea we could claim such agreement is proof that the Russian reset is a success. Of course we would have to be willfully blind to the fact that he overturned the territorial settlement of post-war Europe by force. Similarly, I guess we just ignore that Iran is still a robust state sponsor of terror, and is a major force is destabilizing an entire region...but heck, we might get a signed piece of paper. Wooohooo!

3. The author fetishizes agreements. Agreements are neither good not bad, but depend upon the content of that agreement. This is the old arms control mentality int he Cold War where often negotiators and journalists judged success or failure on the existence of an agreement or not, not on whether that agreement increased the national security of the US. An agreement with Iran that puts Iran in a position to still achieve breakout status with a few weeks is a bad deal and is worse than no deal at all. The problem with Iran is not the technical capabilities it has, but the regime itself and its long-term goals. Ant-Americanism and opposition tot he West are encoded in the DNA of the Islamic Republic and no nuclear deal will change that. A deal with an Iran not run by the ayatollah..sure, but not this regime.

As far as I'm concerned --- all of the "negotiating" with Iran is of no worth unless there is discussion of the liberation of the Yaran 7 who have been imprisoned now for more than 5 years for being members of the Baha'i Faith --- and beyond that, the total liberation of the Baha'i community in Iran, and Its inclusion as a recognized religion in the "Islamic" Republic of Iran's constitution. As to whether or not Iran can be trusted with a nuclear agreement --- even if they signed the agreement inside a copy of the Holy Qu'ran, they would not adhere to it --- history will testify to this.

You need to be logged in to comment.
(If there's one thing we know about comment trolls, it's that they're lazy)

Connect
, after login or registration your account will be connected.
Advertisement