There is a pervasive restlessness these days, not only in
Congress but in the nation as a whole, at what appears to be a fumbling indecisiveness
in the White House about Iran’s nuclear ambitions. Michael Doran has a provocative
essay in Mosaic, Obama’s Secret Iran Strategy, which is worth reading and thinking about. Of course Mosaic sees the world from a Jewish
point of view, and in that point of view Iran’s nuclear ambitions are a clear existential
threat, not least because the current Iranian leadership has repeatedly and publically promised to “wipe Israel off the map”. Nevertheless, Doran’s
narrative and interpretation of events rings true.
It seems to me clear that President Obama harbors a liberal vision
of somehow converting autocrats like President Putin of Russia and ayatollah Ali Khamenei of Iran by sweet reason and diplomacy. We all know how the
much-ballyhooed “Russian Reset” went. Clearly President Obama’s naïve vision there
was at odds with the reality on the ground in Putin’s Russia.
So the question now
is how realistic is President Obama’s vision of achieving a deal with Iran that
really eliminates the chances of a nuclear “breakout” for the foreseeable
future. He clearly thinks it is possible. Many others, including a lot of very
experienced foreign policy experts, think he must be smoking something if he
really believes that. More than that, a lot of people are worried that he will
accept a one-sided deal just to seal his “legacy” and be able to claim that he
achieved something in this area, even if it is illusionary. Certainly he has in the past made a lot of
claims and taken a lot of credit for things that, in fact, were really fairly disastrous
(think of all the claims about Obamacare or about the rate of US economic
recovery.
Only time will tell
whether his vision of what is possible is farsighted or simply naïve. But my
own inclination, based on his record and actions (or lack of actions) to date, is
to think he really doesn’t understand the cultural and political forces at work
in the world today, and moreover that he appears unwilling to listen to advisers that don’t see things his way.
If true, this does not bode well for our foreign policy over the next decade
or so, because if he fumbles the ball here the uncomfortable consequences will
be with us long after he has left office.
Posts
