Normally I can’t tell the difference between Newsweek and Time. Their websites even have similar color schemes.
But while Newsweek recently ran a piece by Richard Haass advocating for regime change in Iran, Time published a much more insightful article by Massimo Calabresi.
Calbresi explains that the Obama administration’s core strategy – to offer “engagement” as a way to generate international support for more sanctions on the Islamic Republic – has failed.
From the piece:
The idea behind Obama’s engagement effort, though, was that if Iran kept stalling, countries previously opposed to sanctions, such as Russia, China and Germany, could be persuaded to support new punitive measures aimed at forcing Iran to cooperate. “We actually believe that by following the diplomatic path we are on, we gain credibility and influence with a number of nations who would have to participate in order to make the sanctions regime as tight and as crippling as we would want it to be,” Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told the House Foreign Affairs Committee in last April.
So, how’s that working? Not very well, by all indications.
True, with Iran stalling, the Germans seem to be playing along, although earlier in the year they said they’d only support sanctions if approved by the U.N. And while senior American officials and European diplomats say Russia has come around to supporting sanctions, nothing that has happened publicly has confirmed that claim — and the signals from Moscow remain mixed.
But where Russia had previously taken the lead in blocking sanctions efforts, that role has now fallen to China, which has a rapidly growing stake in Iran’s energy sector. Beijing believes that while Iran must be brought into compliance with the international nonproliferation regime, its nuclear program does not represent an imminent danger of producing nuclear weapons and diplomacy should therefore be given a lot more time.
Beijing has bluntly opposed any effort to introduce new punitive measures against Iran, and last weekend China’s Deputy Foreign Minister snubbed his counterparts from the U.S., Britain, France, Russia and Germany and sent only a low-level official to a meeting called to discuss new efforts to pressure Tehran. “The meeting we had last weekend was not great,” says a European diplomat. “The Chinese sent someone along who said, ‘I can’t make any decisions.’ ” Worse, the Chinese have become allergic to the very mention of sanctions. After last weekend’s meeting, a senior European diplomat speaking on background with reporters declined even to utter the word sanctions for fear of upsetting Beijing.
Without China, which holds a Security Council veto, there is no prospect of meaningful sanctions at the U.N. That in turn means difficulty getting tough sanctions from all the European countries, some of whom can’t act without U.N. approval.
As Calabresi indicates, the Obama administration has perhaps inadvertently set itself on a strategically counter-productive path of sanctions, threats, and indefinite conflict with the Islamic Republic – while China, Russia and others continue to “race for Iran.”
– Ben Katcher
The Israeli/Zionist lobby staffed by American traitors is not the only or most powerful lobby in the US. AARP, corporate America and the gun lobby for starters are more powerful in money and votes. Neither of which, along with millions of other Americans are all keen and raring to go for another war.
Besides precipitating a global economic crises, the final straw that broke the back of the US economy were the trillions of dollars in unnecessary war expenses and liabilities the Bush/Cheney regime added to US debt. We just narrowly dodged a global depression that cost trillions more in lost value and bailouts to avert. Start another war and 300 million Americans may as well shove a revolver in their mouths and scream; ‘its all over except for the shout’ before they pull the trigger.
I seriously doubt another war is in the cards with anybody. I don’t even think the US can afford to go to war with Liechtenstein. Nor was I ever convinced Haass is a ‘realist,’ though he incessantly claims to be one. And I believe he is lying where he carries on as if has had an epiphany regarding the Iranians and solemnly intones: “I’ve changed my mind.” I’ve suspected Haass was a closet neocon and now I know.
Calabresi is saying a mouthful where he asserts: “…Obama faces the unpleasant reality that neither the engagement track nor the sanctions track appear to be going anywhere…” The Leverett’s and guests on this site have well documented the reasons for the former, while the latter is or was a stepping stone to more coercive actions against Iran in Dennis Ross’s game plan. A policy that is profusely bleeding to death at the feet of China, Russia and Germany.
I am not giving up on Obama. He has been in office 1 year and entered under adverse circumstances that only Madison, Lincoln and Franklin Roosevelt faced. Its a cakewalk to Monday quarterback, but how many of us could manage as well or better? This president has a super abundance of enemies just waiting for him to stumble and fall, and the worst are in the Democrat party on the extreme, progressive left. So far, like Reagan, Obama has been lucky in the American people, but unlucky in his party.
I’m giving Obama the benefit of the doubt for a least this year. He of course must break out of the policy reverses he has suffered as he navigates between the Scylla of domestic politics and Charybdis of foreign policy. If he can’t prevent his enemies from dictating his agenda the midterms will likely be devastating instead of merely a historic correction and on his way to being a one term president.
With one stick down, then, only military action is left. I think we all felt sanctions were a non-starter. Certainly I’ve been writing to that effect for some time. I don’t necessarily see Obama as being “slick” on this, however. He has to play the game within the boundaries set by the foreign policy establishment, Congress and AIPAC. Saying something (i.e., sanctions) will be done if Iran doesn’t negotiate in good faith is the least he can do. If he were stand up and say, “The nuclear issue really is irrelevant to American security. What we need to do is build a strategic partnership with Iran.” he’d be attacked from all sides, possibly even impeached.
We all have to live in the real world. That sometimes involves saying and doing things we don’t really believe in. I do believe the president wants a constructive relationship with Iran, but he needs help getting there, and not least from the Iranians.
Can someone update us on the status of the uranium swap negotiations? If Iran isn’t willing to meet Obama at least halfway on this, the prospects for engagement are nil. I still believe that AMERICAN military action is not going to happen so long as Obama is president and Gates Secy. of Defense. That alone, however, will not form the basis of a policy that serves the interests of the American people. Stalemate and drift will allow the neocons and others to make mischief, with potentially serious consequences for the American people.
Great insight: “The idea behind Obama’s engagement effort, though, was that if Iran kept stalling, countries previously opposed to sanctions…could be persuaded to support new punitive measures aimed at forcing Iran to cooperate.”
Once again, Obama proved himself slick at offering something he never intended to follow through on. But I think people are on to him. And it only took a year.