One of the most common claims regarding President Barack Obama is that he is a realist in international affairs – that he constructs foreign policy on the basis of cold national interests, not ideology.
Yesterday, however, this claim was exposed as mythical. During an interview with CNN’s Ed Henry, Obama stated that recent events in Iran – which include a rigged election and violent, deadly crackdown against the pro-democratic demonstrations that followed – hadn’t affected his willingness to engage the mullahs:
Our theory has consistently been to present a door of opportunity for Iran – to have its sovereignty respected, to join the community of nations more fully.
Apparently, the self-proclaimed realist won’t let reality interfere with policymaking. Indeed, Obama refuses to acknowledge the real connection between the way a regime treats its own citizens and its credibility as a negotiating partner.
Well, perhaps Obama would be well-served listening to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s less conciliatory “theory.” As Basij militiamen were attacking protesters in the streets a few weeks ago, Ahmadinejad defiantly declared:
The means and results of the June 12th elections caused the defeat of American democratic liberalism, which is used as an instrument of hegemony. So, at the present time, the Islamic Iranian regime is a model for the world.
Indeed, Ahmadinejad resists true democracy – which would force him to accede to the wishes of his own people – on the absurd grounds that it is an American imposition. Can Obama really expect the Iranian leader to accede to actual American demands that will arise during negotiations regarding Tehran’s nuclear program?
Bottom line: the longer Obama refuses to understand the implications of recent events in Iran for the prospect of U.S.-Iranian dialogue, the more his foreign policy resembles a detached fantasy of Carteresque proportions.
3 responses so far
1 ottovbvs // Jul 8, 2009 at 10:47 am
You mean there wasn’t a rigged election and deadly crackdowns on democratic protests in Egypt. This is a country that after Israel is the principal recipient of US foreign aid. Obviously all of us including Obama deplore what has happened in Iran. However, like Everest it’s there so we can’t ignore its existence. If we were to accept this statement:
” Apparently, the self-proclaimed realist won’t let reality interfere with policymaking. Indeed, Obama refuses to acknowledge the real connection between the way a regime treats its own citizens and its credibility as a negotiating partner.”
We wouldn’t be talking to Egypt, or Russia which ran a rigged election and has repressed protests, or a host of other countries. That’s the reality Mr Trager, the world is as it is and not as we want it to be. These naive little Obama bashing excursions are basicaly juvenile. They may cheer up a few idealogues who get their prejudices reinforced but they undermine the credibility of the GOP as a serious governing party in the process.
2 balconesfault // Jul 8, 2009 at 10:50 am
” Obama refuses to acknowledge the real connection between the way a regime treats its own citizens and its credibility as a negotiating partner.”
I’m having a hard time telling if you’re really this naive, if you just hold particular venom for Iran versus all the regimes who oppress their citizens who we deal with regularly, or if you just want a place to attack Obama.
Saudi Arabia. Uzbekistan. China. Papua New Guinea. Turkmenistan. Russia. UAE. Qatar. Libya. Tunisia. All countries with horrible human rights records and little of what we call freedom available to their citizens … who we regularly deal with. Why? Because it is in our interests to do so.
Would you like the US to challenge the sovereignty of each of these governments as a precondition to us negotiating with any of them? Good luck with that.
3 midcon // Jul 8, 2009 at 5:39 pm
Well actually Eric, his continued desire to engage the Iranians does sound like realism in international affairs. It remains in our natoional interests to talk to the Iranians because the alternative is to use other means to force them to do what we want. Further, let’s be clear here, the U.S. has been completely unsuccessful in limiting membership in the nuclear club. Unfortunately there are nations who have nuclear weapons today that would give no thought to using them against their enemies should they feel threatened. That includes India, Pakistan, and Isreal. We failed to stop the spread of nuclear weapons and whatever we do now is just sticking our finger in the dike. I cannot imagine you think that U.S. has anything to gain from being confrontational with Iran.
You must log in to post a comment.