Get PJ Media on your Apple

Obama’s Engagement Policy with Iran Is Dead. What’s Next?

What will the administration do, now that its hopes for a grand bargain with the mullahs is improbable?

by
Jennifer Rubin

Bio

June 29, 2009 - 3:41 am
<- Prev  Page 2 of 2   View as Single Page

First, Senators Lieberman, Graham, and McCain have introduced legislation to help fund Radio Farsa, Voice of America, and a Farsi-language website for news and  to give Iranian dissidents tools to evade the regime’s censorship efforts. Lieberman explained:

We’ve seen that the Iranian regime has tried to deploy new technologies to restrict its people from getting access to information, prevent its people from exercising their freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, particularly online.

The Iranian government has jammed satellites and radio broadcasts, disrupted cell phone service, monitored Internet use, and blocked particular Web sites. It’s now trying to slam shut the door that a vibrant election had begun to open. The legislation we intend to introduce is inspired by a clear and simple purpose. We want the Iranian people to be able to stay one step ahead of the Iranian regime, getting access to information and safely exercising freedom of speech and freedom of assembly online.

Next, there is the Iran Petroleum Sanctions Act. This would require the president to impose sanctions on any entity that supplies refined petroleum to Iran, or that assists Iran in obtaining refined petroleum through shipping services, insurance, or financial assistance. The bill was introduced in April with bipartisan support from 27 Senators (including such diverse figures as Evan Bayh, Russ Feingold, Jon Kyl, Chuck Schumer and Tom Coburn) and now has more than 60 Senators supporters. A parallel measure sponsored by Reps. Howard Berman (D-Calif.), chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen of Florida, the panel’s ranking Republican, is pending in the House.

These measures, and continued clear and unequivocal rhetoric from the president, would signal both to fence-sitters in the Iranian regime and those protestors on the streets that there is only one viable path — regime change — if Iranians want a normalized relationship with the world and improvement in the lives of its citizens.

Indeed when both the editorial board of the Washington Post and former UN Ambassador John Bolton support regime change, perhaps it is a policy worth taking seriously by the Obama administration. After all, what is the alternative? As Bill Kristol explained on Fox News Sunday:

He is not going to be able to engage successfully with this regime if it cracks down. If it succeeds in staying in power, it’s going to be, I think, even more hostile than it has been, even less prone to make any kinds of concessions, et cetera. So is he willing to — is he just going to kind of mindlessly go on this path, and let them get nuclear weapons and possibly force Israel to take action if it feels it has to? Or is he going to actually rethink where he is and go for what — as the Washington Post put it yesterday, the serious realistic policy on Iran now is now to help accelerate regime change.

As for the most pressing concern, Iran’s nuclear weapons program, the president would be well advised to direct his energy toward rallying international opinion and enforcing existing UN resolutions. We recall that the president had promised that if “talk” could not end the threat of a nuclear-armed Iran he would be willing to pursue tougher measures. Now seems to be that time. Certainly he will never have more public support at home and abroad for denying the mullahs the capability to threaten Israel and its other neighbors with a nuclear holocaust.

Toward that end the president might go back to edit his Cairo speech, wherein he declared “no single nation should pick and choose which nations hold nuclear weapons.” Perhaps he might make clear that not just one nation, but the nations in the “international community” have determined that Iran, most especially in light of its recent behavior, cannot continue to defy “international norms and agreements” in pursuit of nuclear weapons which it would use to threaten its neighbors. We are told that when Obama speaks the world listens, so this would be a good time to start talking about a serious set of diplomatic and economic sanctions.

What we do know is that engagement is dead. We will see if Obama pursues any of these proactive measures or, instead, sinks into passivity, allowing the mullahs to crush the protestors — and with it,  all hope for a normal relationship between Iran and the rest of the world.

<- Prev  Page 2 of 2   View as Single Page
Jennifer Rubin blogs at the Washington Post.
Click here to view the 56 legacy comments

Comments are closed.

One Trackback to “Obama’s Engagement Policy with Iran Is Dead. What’s Next?”