When it comes to Iran and Iraq, the next president will have a small window to set our policy on a new path.
Middle East nations have written off the Bush administration. Iran's rulers have clearly decided to bide their time and wait to see who next occupies the Oval Office. There's little incentive to make concessions on Iraq, let alone on the nuclear issue, to a lame duck still hoping for regime change.
The winner in November will have a slim but real chance to get U.S.-Iran relations on a new track - a key to Iraq progress. That's if the winner is a Democrat (on Iran, Sen. John McCain seems determined to continue the failed Bush line of endless confrontation).
Many Iran experts believe Iran may make a gesture to a new Democratic president. But Tehran will also be trying to exploit any perceived weakness in the next U.S. leader. A victorious Democrat would have to take office fully prepared to grapple with an adversary that has frustrated America for 30 years.
So I was eager to ask Sen. Barack Obama his thoughts on dealing with Iran when he spoke to the editorial boards of The Philadelphia Inquirer and the Philadelphia Daily News on Monday. Obama has called for setting a 16-month timeline to withdraw troops from Iraq and a "diplomatic surge" in the Mideast that includes Iran.
Obama is right to call for a diplomatic surge. But I believe his strategy will need rethinking if he gets the Democratic nod.
The smart part of his strategy involves talking to Iran without preconditions. Obama is on target in saying that an essential part of an Iraq strategy is "diplomacy ... not just among the factions in Iraq ... but also involving the powers in the region, including Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and also Syria and Iran." If the latter two are excluded, he said, "they will continue to cause problems and headaches. If you've got (Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-) Maliki inviting (President Mahmoud) Ahmadinejad over for discussions and treating him as an ally, it's hard to figure how we're going to structure a policy in which Iran would be entirely excluded."
On this Obama is right.
But with whom would he negotiate? The senator says he'd talk with Iran's leaders. An invitation to Ahmadinejad would, however, reward the hardest-line faction in Tehran and give the Iranian president an excuse to claim Americans were bowing to his unacceptable vision. It could also boost him in Iran's 2009 presidential elections.
Is Obama aware of this danger?
"I have said consistently that we should have direct talks with Iran without preconditions but not without preparation," Obama said. "Any time we initiate talks ... it is going to proceed in a step-by-step fashion with lower-level diplomats meeting and maybe ... discussions of noncontroversial topics, which over time lead to more substantial discussions.
"And so I would not meet with Iran without an agenda, and on that agenda would be the odious and constant attacks rhetorically on Israel, the funding of Hamas and Hezbollah, the development of nuclear weapons and stability in Iraq. :
"That would be our agenda. They might have another agenda."
Obama noted correctly that the Bush administration's tactics "give an excuse to Iran to portray itself as being bullied by an administration bent on regime change" and give Russia and China an excuse to stand on the sidelines. Talks without preconditions would test Iran's readiness to behave like a rational actor on the world stage.
And what about talking to Ahmadinejad?
Obama's response: "I would include Ahmadinejad to the extent that he is part of an Iranian government, but I would not restrict my meetings to him. I don't know where he will be a year or year and a half from now." (Ahmadinejad could lose in 2009.)
Obama said he would also seek to meet "with negotiators who may have more power than (Ahmadinejad), including the clerics who are the ultimate authority." I presume the senator meant Iran's most powerful leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.
My question: Why even raise the Ahmadinejad issue? Talks with Iran can be commenced via back channels or via senior U.S. emissaries with experience in dealing with Tehran. A leadership summit should be left for announcing major breakthroughs, which are at best years away.
One more point where I think Obama's sequencing is off. Any timeline for a U.S. troop withdrawal should be used as a negotiating card with Iran. Giving it away for free, before talks even start, badly weakens the U.S. position. It encourages Iraqi and regional players to start arming for the post-U.S. era.
Obama's on the right track. But for his diplomatic surge to work, he needs the strongest possible cards in hand.
Comments
LJWorld.com doesn’t necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full policy. Also, read about banned accounts and harassing comments.
toe (anonymous) says…
Aruba, jamaica ooo I wanna take youObama come ona sounds like OsamaKey largo, montego baby why don't we goJamaica
merrill (anonymous) says…
We need regime change at home. Leave the mideast oil business to the countries that own the oil. Oil is a polluter that must be used extensively less. Some have calculated that americans are paying $15-$20 per gallon due to the long term military intervention which has been going on since the 50's. Wasting trillions and 10's of thousands of lives on oil is rather stupid when other means are available now. USA auto makers simply do not want to cooperate. Luxury automobiles and 4 wheelers will not disappear. Driving 60-65 mph is safer and cleaner.Let's spend our tax dollars bringing the many alternative automobile power sources on line that will not produce the unhealthy pollution. Iran was not a problem until Bush invaded Iraq. Let's leave people alone to THEIR oil business.
TopJayhawk (anonymous) says…
I don't disagre with a lot of what you say about needing to change energy sources (cars etc.) But you lost me when you said that Iran wasn't a problem until Bush came to power. .........HUH?
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (anonymous) says…
It's not up to the US to decide who speaks for Iran. But what's clear is that a majority of Iranians want better relations with the US and the west. They want better economic relations, and they want fewer restrictions on themselves by their own government.Of course, any president would have to begin talks through diplomatic back channels, and if those talks are constructive, any real negotiating will happen with both the ayatollahs and the president, who is mostly a figurehead. If the talks with the ayatollahs go well, Ahmadinejad will be in no position to do anything about any agreement/understanding that might come about.
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (anonymous) says…
That "crowd," as I pointed out, is a majority of the Iranian population, and Ahmedinejad has no real power, anyway. I might also point out that if Bush were up for re-election, he'd be lucky to even get re-nominated by the Republicans, much less re-elected. Ahmedinejad is even less assured of re-election.
Oracle_of_Rhode (anonymous) says…
"My question: Why even raise the Ahmadinejad issue?"This is simple, Trudy. We talk to Ahmadinejad because -- whether we like him or not -- he is the elected leader of Iran.
chet_larock (anonymous) says…
To Marion:Obama was 8. You are startingto soundlikeKevinwith his Clintonbashing.
chet_larock (anonymous) says…
To Marion:Raise valid points about Obama, leave the You are startingto soundlikeKevinwith his Clintonbashing.
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (anonymous) says…
" he was a grown man when he became Ayers' friend."First, there is no indication that Obama and Ayers are "friends." Certainly, they have had some relationship by living in the same town and having some political connections given that they are both Democrats, but even if they are "friends," so what? Ayers has served whatever sentence was given for his actions in the underground, and is now a college professor leading a pretty mundane life. Any contact between the two now is no indication of any sort of endorsement of Ayer's previous actions by Obama.But we all understand your desperation, Kevin.
ndmoderate (anonymous) says…
Ah, fearmongering.
yourworstnightmare (anonymous) says…
We all know that John McCain's spiritual mentor was racist homophobe pastor John Hagee.Sure, he has denounced him, now that he is in political trouble.But who can deny that those times McCain and Hagee spent together, resulting in McCain receiving his endorsement, didn't have a profound effect on McCain?This association is scary.
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (anonymous) says…
Here's the real bombshell, courtesy of Stephen Colbert--Obama is supported by Ted Kennedy, who is Catholic, and the Catholic Church is led by a Pope who was in the Hitler Youth, that can mean only one thing: Obama loves Hitler!
jason2007 (anonymous) says…
If Colbert says Obama loves Hitler, I'm in total agreement. And don't forget, Joe Ratzinger also was an anti-aircraft gunner towards the end of WWII so that also means Obama would like nothing more than to personally shoot down American jets.
georgeofwesternkansas (anonymous) says…
Does Iran really want to have a relationship with the U.S?? Or do they just want to influance our election to gain clout for their cause (destroy jews)??
jason2007 (anonymous) says…
UHadMeat: Some press people? Those that dislike Obama or prefer Clinton or McCain are VERY far and few between. He's the heir apparent and the fact that the media likes him so much should make all of us quiver in our boots.
jason2007 (anonymous) says…
BalikBalik: The Obama, Ted Kennedy, Hitler Youth thing is a joke.....turn on Colbert just once and you'll see what we're talking about here.....Jokes are always unfunny as soon as they have to be explained....:)
monkeyspunk (anonymous) says…
Stephen Colbert sure does love using that "transitive" property of politics!John Stewart MADE Huckabee.
Mkh (anonymous) says…
"John Stewart MADE Huckabee."---------------------------LOL. Actually it was the Rockefeller family that made Huckabee...but you were oh so close.