Robert Kagan, writing in a Washington Post article entitled “Obama, Siding With the Regime” makes the point expressed in the post Follow the Money, but in a more scholarly and better documented way. In that post I wrote that Obama was a man with deals waiting to go forward in Iran. From that point of view, the current revolt against the regime was an unwelcome inconvenience awaiting only a “decent interval” to forget.
But despite the global revulsion to their brutal crackdown, the Ayatollah’s aren’t finished yet. The hook in Obama’s throat has gone in deep. Washington is as invested in engagement as the Ayatollahs are because it is the cornerstone of the Administration’s plan to remake the Middle East. That plan is based on the idea that it is better to buy off Teheran than to fight it. And on that buyoff going forward depends a number of things ranging from the Israeli-Palestinian roadmap to Iraq and Afghanistan. The state of play, amoral as it is, was succintly expressed in Roger Cohen’s advice to Obama in the NYT: “I’ve argued for engagement with Iran and I still believe in it, although, in the name of the millions defrauded, President Obama’s outreach must now await a decent interval.” It’s not a question of if, but when.
Kagan, I think, reaches the same basic conclusion, arguing that Obama is already implicitly committed not to take the side of the regime’s opponents.
In his opening diplomatic gambit, his statement to Iran on the Persian new year in March, Obama went out of his way to speak directly to Iran’s rulers, a notable departure from George W. Bush’s habit of speaking to the Iranian people over their leaders’ heads. As former Clinton official Martin Indyk put it at the time, the wording was carefully designed “to demonstrate acceptance of the government of Iran.” This approach had always been a key element of a “grand bargain” with Iran. The United States had to provide some guarantee to the regime that it would no longer support opposition forces or in any way seek its removal.
With that Rubicon crossed, it will be difficult for the administration to turn back. Kagan believes that President Obama is slowly deflating the opposition, to defeat it without giving the appearance so that his negotiations with Ahmadinejad can go forward.
But Obama’s calculations are quite different. Whatever his personal sympathies may be, if he is intent on sticking to his original strategy, then he can have no interest in helping the opposition. His strategy toward Iran places him objectively on the side of the government’s efforts to return to normalcy as quickly as possible, not in league with the opposition’s efforts to prolong the crisis. … Obama’s policy now requires getting past the election controversies quickly so that he can soon begin negotiations with the reelected Ahmadinejad government. This will be difficult as long as opposition protests continue and the government appears to be either unsettled or too brutal to do business with. What Obama needs is a rapid return to peace and quiet in Iran, not continued ferment. His goal must be to deflate the opposition, not to encourage it. And that, by and large, is what he has been doing.
If you find all this disturbing, you should. The worst thing is that this approach will probably not prevent the Iranians from getting a nuclear weapon. But this is what “realism” is all about. It is what sent Brent Scowcroft to raise a champagne toast to China’s leaders in the wake of Tiananmen Square. It is what convinced Gerald Ford not to meet with Alexander Solzhenitsyn at the height of detente. Republicans have traditionally been better at it than Democrats — though they have rarely been rewarded by the American people at the ballot box, as Ford and George H.W. Bush can attest. We’ll see whether President Obama can be just as cold-blooded in pursuit of better relations with an ugly regime, without suffering the same political fate.
However I disagree with Kagan’s parallel between the Iranian students and the victims of Tienanmen Square. The Chinese were not at the time in a state of undeclared war with the United States nor were they an imminent threat to the stability and safety of a critical region. An Iranian nuclear weapon would almost certainly be met by a Sunni Muslim atomic program and might, in the worst case scenario, lead to a regional nuclear war. Such a war could spread, if only in the form of WMD terrorism, to Europe and America. If Kagan is right in saying that Obama’s sell-out “will probably not prevent the Iranians from getting a nuclear weapon”, then it is the worst of all possible betrayals; one done for essentially nothing. It follows that it fails the test for political realism, but not for political vanity.
That’s the kind of deal that everyone — eventually — may come to rue. And the regrets when they come, will be bitter. Stalin’s executioner, Genrikh Yagoda, a former head of the NKVD was asked by Alexander Orlov if he had reconsidered his belief in God now that he was condemned. Yagoda, then in the Lubyanka awaiting his bullet, replied in the classic words of a man who realized who was on the other side of a Faustian bargain. “From Stalin I deserved nothing but gratitude for my faithful service; from God I deserved the most severe punishment for having violated his commandments thousands of times. Now look where I am and judge for yourself: is there a God, or not…” The current administration may or may not believe in a God; but the first requirement of politics is to be able to recognize the devil.
Tip Jar or Subscribe for $5
If he really were a secret muslim what would he do different?
To quote Keynes, “When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?”
It takes someone with humility to change a position when they realize that they are wrong. Given that our current leader is not long on humility, this probably won’t be the only position that our country gets incorrectly anchored to. And anchoring to anything other than one’s principles is a quite dangerous thing to do, particularly given the uncertainty that the world currently presents.
I wonder what “decent interval” will follow the annihilation of Israel.
Wretchard, your insight is scary good. This is the money quote:
“If Kagan is right in saying that Obama’s sell-out “will probably not prevent the Iranians from getting a nuclear weapon”, then it is the worst of all possible betrayals; one done for essentially nothing. It follows that it fails the test for political realism, but not for political vanity.”
BHO’s “foreign policy” is a sleigh ride to hell.
Here is a link to a Flickr slide show of the Iranian protests:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/fhashemi/sets/72157619758530748/show/
Hat tip: Gerard at American Digest.
Who here in America will take note of that betrayal, among the general public? If many ordinary Americans do take note, how long will the memory stay with them? What difference might it make in 2010 or 2012, come election time?
I’m not too optimistic. It is information that may prove of some value when tacked onto the end of a long list of injuries and insults the people may feel they’ve endured economically. When the little pensioners who got screwed on the GM and Chrysler deals, the auto dealer employees who knew their dealerships were viable when they were closed, the commuters paying $6 a gallon because of a stiff tax, groceries going from $100/week to $115 in a matter of a month and still climbing, and rationing at the doctor’s office and at the pharmacy all start to add up to go beyond just the smoldering stage, then maybe a pissed off American people will also add, “oh yeah, and he screwed ordinary Iranians, too, and for what?”
One imgaines Chamberlain sitting across the diplomatic table from Satan, working down his checklist, when he then realizes he has just traded away his soul for the promise of future negotiations – Manchester, Last Lion II
/not an exact quote, lost the book
One imagines Stalin sitting across the diplomatic table from Hitler… one devil bargaining with another.
The President yesterday denounced the “extent of the fraud” and the “shocking” and “brutal” response of the Iranian regime to public demonstrations in Tehran these past four days.
“These elections are an atrocity,” he said. “If [Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad had made such progress since the last elections, if he won two-thirds of the vote, why such violence?” The statement named the regime as the cause of the outrage in Iran and, without meddling or picking favorites, stood up for Iranian democracy.
Would make an American proud, except the President in question is France’s Nicolas Sarkozy.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124520170103721579.html#mod=rss_opinion_main
Reminds me of Iphigenia at Aulis by Euripides
In order for Agamemnon to lead the Greeks to Troy, it was necessary to sacrifice his daughter for a goddess to be appeased and the winds to blow. Troy fell, but according to Aeschylus there were consequences.
Behold the maiden on her way, the destroyer of Ilium’s town and its Phrygians, with garlands twined about her head, and drops of lustral water on her, soon to besprinkle with her gushing blood the altar of a murderous goddess, what time her shapely neck is severed.
For thee fair streams of a father’s pouring and lustral waters are in store, for thee Achaea’s host is waiting, eager to reach the citadel of Ilium. But let us celebrate Artemis, the daughter of Zeus, queen among the gods, as if upon some happy chance.
O lady revered, delighting in human sacrifice, send on its way to Phrygia’s land the host of the Hellenes, to Troy’s abodes of guile, and grant that Agamemnon may wreathe his head with deathless fame, a crown of fairest glory for the spearmen of Hellas.
From: http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/e/euripides/ip_aulis/
The next time the Carter Administration leaves office, I say we put a stake through it’s heart so it doesn’t rise up again like this.
Oh, and regarding:
it is the worst of all possible betrayals; one done for essentially nothing.
But it’s not done for nothing. As your next sentence implies:
It follows that it fails the test for political realism, but not for political vanity.
It’s a betrayal of the country, the West, of civilization itself perhaps, but not done for nothing. Done for Obama’s vanity and for the chance to claim, for a while – long enough to get re-elected he hopes – a foreign policy triumph. What does he care what it costs us? If Obama is not remembered by history as the worst US President of the all, it will only be luck that saves him from that fate.
And the Hell of it is the rest of us better hope he is that lucky, because we have more than the legacy of one piss-ant politician at stake.
Ike Eisenhower failed to come to the aid of the Hungarians in 1956. He made a judgement call and as it turned out his judgement was flawed. That was his worst, and only major, foreign policy mistake.
George H. W. Bush failed to come to the aid of the Tiannamen Square Chinese. He made a judgement call and it remains to be seen how sound it was.
Barack Obama will not aid the friendly Iranians. This is not a judgement call on his part. As Wretchard so astutely noted, this time it is because an American President wants the enemies of America to win.
This one will almost assuredly cause a larger war with nukes a probability. His actions will result in a replication of the chain reaction of 1914.
And this is one prediction I hope and pray does NOT come to pass. However, I fail to see how making a dirty deal with an evil Persian (wannabe) Empire can do anything but inspire adverse reactions throughout the mideast, and spread to Russia, Europe and the Far East as well. Better keep an eye on Latin America too.
Obama got to where he is by showing his GOOD INTENTIONS for the world to see. Now, he expects his GOOD INTENTIONS to so alter human behavior as to eliminate warfare.
The road to where?????? is paved with good intentions.
As a general rule for predicting Obama’s behavior in any given situation, here is a handy one: He will reliably favor any approach that promotes the growth and intrusiveness of the State, at the expense of individual freedom, success, and self-determination. Have there, to date, been any exceptions to this rule? The passion, and certainty, with which he advocates such positions is what separates him from Carter and Clinton, and aligns him with several more infamous Leaders from world history.
The Iranian situation suggests that this rule may apply equally well in international affairs, as it pertains to domestic ones.
Hurray, Obananarama! Peace in our time. And all he head to do was give away the house, the truck, the girlfriend, the dog, and the baby’s college fund. Realpolitik involves costs, but Obananarama world view believes in unlimited taxpayer largess, so costs don’t really matter to him, and besides he gets a taxpayer funded pension.
No, it’s not done for nothing –GE (Jeffrey Immelt) has a BIG deal going with Obama’s green team, and as well does a lot of business with the Mullahs. Immelt delivered the Business Roundtable to Obama and now O wants to deliver more GE (and its constellation of supports) to the Iran that the GE and O organizations already know and talk with.
This will be even more important if Cap n Trade –GE’s REALLY big pay-off –can’t slink and slither its way through the whorehouse and the pirate den oops i mean the house and senate.
Just type into search [ ge iran ] or [ ge iran obama ] and/or work [ immelt ] in place of or in addition to [ ge ]. also [ immelt obama ]. play around with it. add [ nbc ] –a GE subsidiary.
and y’know, all this against the campaign’s fierce moral urgency of replacing Bush’s (the “narrative”) crass commercial concerns with love, peace, and humanity and stuff.
We’re as likely to be witnessing a revolution as against civil unrest.
How many members joined the Basij as a free ride?
It’s such a large organization that it’s hard to believe it’s elite.
Like the Iraqi National Police, don’t be too surprised if enough pressure doesn’t cause the Basij to melt away. Many members must have family members among the protesters.
I’ve seen too much footage of fleeing Basij to believe that they measure down to the standard of the SS, SD, NKVD, FSB…
well blert, Iran’s army and Saddam’s army went at it for ten years and killed a million of each other for zero result. Then later the Coalition army twice went thru Saddam’s even larger by then army like green grass thru a goose. ah, there’s some info there. also Marathon, Thermoplylae, Salamis, Platea, et cetera. Not to mention Issus, Granicus, Gaugamela, re Alexander the Great.
Obama invokes the CIA’s role in the 1953 coup of Iranian leader Mossadeq to explain his reticence concerning the aspirations of those currently protesting in Iran.
Aside from the fact that the present situation is assuredly not being directed by the CIA or other American “meddlers”, doesn’t his line of reasoning–assuming he truly believes it–suggest that the U.S. has a long-overdue debt to pay in support of democracy for the Iranian people? His public stance stands illogically opposed to his own argument for reticence.
If Obama had gone to Berlin in the early 80’s, as Reagan did, he would have said “Mr. Gorbachev, as long as you have this nice wall here, why don’t we paint some pretty pictures on it?”
The Obama foreign policy: No guts. No glory.
# RWE, it was rather Johan-Paul II’s work
Obama is a Muslim, and hates the US. What do you expect? Honestly.
Everyone in the media proclaims how sophisticated and intelligent Obanarama is. I’m betting his mind is no more complicated than that of Chauncey the gardener. In fact, the Obananarama mentality is a simple faith with only three tenets:
1) You can take away all freedoms if you get youth to believe that the other guy is trying to take away sexual freedom.
2) With the lost freedoms, you can enforce equality of prosperity and equal success of any culture by taking rewards away from hardworking people who have made hard lifestyle choices, and giving the rewards to non working people who have made failed lifestyle choices.
3) Pretty words and giving away lots of money will persuade foreign bad guys not to attack.
This way of thinking isn’t new. The goal of maintaining a strongman to subdue the restive population has been standard State Department policy for a long time, not only in the Middle East, but South America. Hasn’t worked very well anywhere, and in fact has institutionalized perverse manifestations of states.
One can almost smell the calculations. Restive crowds must be controlled. Who knows what kind of government if any would exist afterward. Breakup of a state, would need a new rolodex.
Speaking as a realist. A country that needs to shoot their population in the streets is weak and either has to change dramatically (see china after Tianemmen) or be removed. Those who tacitly support the regime become an enemy, no matter if the overthrow is successful or not. There is a century of precedent showing how dangerous that course is.
What was the name of the fellow that was going to interpret intelligence for the NSA, who praised the Chinese for their crackdown? Maybe he wasn’t a fluke, but rather a manifestation of the thought current in Washington.
Derek
signs and portents, at the moment on the right side of Drudge page, in consecutive order,
Dollar drops on reserve currency doubts…
China sells US bonds to ‘show concern’…
Beijing orders ‘Buy China’ for stimulus projects…
HuPu in Moscow…
China, Russia to Use Each Other’s Currencies in Trade…
Russia hopes ‘down-to-earth’ Obama drops Star Wars…
Brazilian President: Time for ‘new world order’…
–and on the left side,
Hillary dines with eight of her living predecessors…
(it would have been more wry had Drudge written “Secretary of State Hillary….”)
a nation in our bind that wants to survive awhile longer would take the balance of that stimulus bill, first thing in the morning, away from the grift n graft machine and start crash-building Los Angeles class hunter-killer submarines. Our fast dwindling group of allies are all at the ends of sea lanes, and the USN is looking like the man of the next hour.
Would that Hillary would dine with 8 of her dead predecessors.
What I noticed about the fly video, is the man never cleaned the palm of his hand. Would you shake hands with a man like that?
#21: How many divisons did the Pope have?
Answer: As many as Reagan wanted to assign.
Admittedly, Ronald Reagan and the Pope engaged in a conspiracy to bring down communism in the USSR and Eastern Europe. I have been waiting for the lawsuit that will bring.
Rather interesting that there were asassination attempts against both of them, isn’t it?
But in any case, if it had been up to Obama – and Carter – and Clinton – and Ford – and Nixon the wall would have stayed up. They were more comfortable with that situation.
Wow this blog has gone down hill – turned into a giant echo chamber. Does not one person here realize that for Obama to come out swinging in support of the Iranian opposition allows Ahmadinejad to immediately reframe the issue from one of him stealing votes to him standing up to yet more American meddling in Iran? Hate to break it to you people but most people in most countries, certainly in the Middle East, don’t care for America, don’t want America meddling in their affairs and want to be left alone to solve their own problems without a whole bunch of useless speechifying from hypocritical American leaders.
right on, Terry –nobody wants any useless speechifying from hypocritical American leaders. –be nice to have a non-hypocritical American leader tho –everybody agrees with that –thus forms an echo chamber i guess –
@Terry 29,
Uhhh, the fact Obama has not really said a whole lot has not stopped the Ahmedis from doing as you say. I’ve given that point of yours a lot of thought, but such ideas have not stopped the EU nations from issuing stronger condemnations of the violence and repression in Iran. If a dog farts in Iran the Ahmedis attribute it to US/Israeli plotting. One site I visited reported that the Iranian population as a whole isn’t buying such bunk.
Words mean a lot even when they are not necessarily connected to actions. It seems President Obama is not so much concerned about the Iranians but more about his plans and ideas.
Not too long ago I read a paper on the subject of the CIA sponsored overthrow of Mossadegh. Very interesting piece, the thrust of the piece (sorry I wish I could link it) was it is at best silliness to condemn the Mossadegh overthrow without putting it all in proper Cold War perspective (which kinda gets me thinking about Chamberlain prior to WWII), that Cold War imperatives made Mossadegh’s overthrow absolutely necessary. I hardly think such language (other than the obeisance it demonstrates) would be welcome by the Mullahs since they would not be any more supportive of Mossadegh than the Shah.
It was not all that long ago lefties condemned the US for engaging in Kissengerian realpolitik now they promote Kissengerian realpolitik as a policy of first choice.
Terry, if so then isn’t it odd that the Iran government is already blaming the continuation of protests on the US (and/or Western) meddling in Iran’s internal affairs? See, when you want to beat a dog, you’ll always find a stick.
Since that is an apparent modus operandi (one does not need a really guilty scapegoat), then what difference does it make?
I’d say meddle but be sly about it.
my two cents:
http://houseoflove.chebellafiori.com/2009/06/17/to-the-children-of-iran/
“Hate to break it to you people but most people in most countries, certainly in the Middle East”
Uh Terry, I hate to break it to you but I somehow doubt you have the authority to speak on behalf of “most people in most countries”.
Terry, Iraq has disabused the people of Iran about the US of America’s role as the Great Satan. Sorry, I think the fact that folks in Iran are not buying that stchick anymore is partly to blame for their impatience with the Mullahs.
Lets just agree its all Bush’s fault, shall we. But I don’t know what more or less Obama could or should do. I don’t agree that he should not come out against the regimes heavy handedness and violent response to the demonstrations, but where does that get him? How does it aid the demonstrators?
Terry: And when he falls, that stratagem can be exposed for the mechanization it is.
Some other points:
1) It is not really true that everyone in the ME, or elsewhere for that matter, “hates” the USA. This is just the projection of Liberals. There are fairly simple ways to see that this is not so. Watch, for instance, the wild ovations that a US Olympic team get during Opening Ceremonies (if you can bear to see someone actually like and support the USA, that is.)
2) To the extent that there is “hatred” for the USA, it is mostly achieved by means of the agitprop of the Western, Leftist MSM and educational system, and the scapegoating of regional tyrants.
3) The “world” actually has depended for half a century on the USA to go out there and protect civilization–what you call “meddling”, and is glad of it. Note that the real world does not consist wholly of sniffling Leftist elites and their epigones on the Third World. Your dodge here is particularity comic for without the Iraq war and the broader WOT it is hard to imagine that we should see what we have seen the last week in Iran.
You know, immediately after that highly successful thrust into Baghdad, the “Iranian Street” was murmuring about having the USA send a spare division or two into Iran when the could fit it not their schedule.
Standing up for what is right, good and true is never “meddling”.
The truth is that a great many in Iran see our silence as callow, cowardly and opportunistic. And so it is.
You really do not think that the opposition over there would not want the USA to lead a consensus of nations out to decry this tyranny and oppression?
BC an “echo chamber”? Seem to me that this is just more projection on your part.
I can distinctly remember the unseemly “meddling” (I mean, trying to curry favor via provision of life-saving food, water, etc. – how crass, hypocritical and opportunistic) on the part of the U.S. in response to the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami. I wonder when Obama will get around to apologizing for that. And while he’s at it maybe he’ll apologize on behalf of the folks who recently rendered Terry senseless via repeated application of a cast-iron skillet.
And the real issue here is trying to simultaneously have the will of the Iranian voters honored while minimizing the loss of life associated with Iranians’ perceptions that their will was thwarted. Admittedly not an easy tightrope to walk. But a better effort could be made.
The Iranians are playing Obama like a finely tuned piano. Having done a little PSYOP during my career I understand what they are doing. They know that Obama has been seeking his absentee father’s approval all his life. He now sees his father in every third world dictator and seeks favor with them. The mullah’s recent charge of American “meddling” is sophisticated play aimed at this weakness. By throwing Obama’s words back in his face they believe that he will be silent on the subject and seek their approval by backing Ahmadinejad. I think that is a good bet.
There is another reason why Obama will side with the Mullahs. A collapse of their regime will undermine all his assumptions about the Arab-Israeli conflict. It has been reported that many Iranians believe that the regime has been using Hamas thugs to suppress the protests. Whether true or not, the opposition believes this and if by some remote chance that they are successful it is a harbinger of a reproachmant between Israel and Iran. With the ensuing cutoff of funding for Hamas and Hezbollah the rejectionism of the Arab world will be on display for all the world to see. It’s a narrative breaker that will invalidate Obama’s world view. Psychologically he can’t deal with that
There is also the issue of the Norks and China.
If Obama took a principled and decisive stance here and rounded up international consensus to push this regime over, then it would be that much easy to turn China to face the issues with the Norks and thus swiftly and adroitly fix that mess.
I doubt this even occurs to him. I am certain that it does not to that boob Hillary.
If it does occur to him, it may be that he is afraid to cross his paymasters overseas.
But even if his every goal was self-glory, this would be the moment to topple the whole Nuke threat for Iran and the NOrks, and put Russia and the whole BRIC coalition back in their place.
But you would have to have some belief in the historical brief of the USA to get to that point.
They really have 5th rate minds and souls, the whole lot of them.
I am sure that they have their own deals arrangements and cogitations, and those have little to do with the good of the USA or even the people the world at large.
What a pack of Jackals.
Of course, were it me, i would seize the moment and bomb out their nuke infrastructure, but hey, that is just me. Sure would solve a lot of problems.
jerry: Plus there may be a very real chance that he (and a lot of other politicians) are is in someone’s pocket.
Terry: Wow this blog has gone down hill – turned into a giant echo chamber. Does not one person here realize that for Obama to come out swinging in support of the Iranian opposition allows Ahmadinejad to immediately reframe the issue from one of him stealing votes to him standing up to yet more American meddling in Iran?
Wow Terry. None of us ever thought of that. You should go work for State. You’re just brilliant.
When you finish Chapter 2 of Intro 101, please get back to us. We obviously need your wisdom and insight.
I wonder if Obama is starting to have nightmares at 3:00 in the morning about the American public rising up and coming after *him* with pitchforks and cellphone cameras.
And that as a result, his natural impulse would be to support the Mullah’s in a crack-down against public demonstrations after an election (or a political decision), as an example to uppity Americans of what might happen to us, too, should we decide to take to the streets any more than we already have been doing, to overthrow Obama’s Marxist/Muslim/Muppet government.
Nahn, the difference between a black panther thug in front of a Philly polling place and a Basiji militia goon in Tehran is that their nightsticks are made of different materials.
“His goal must be to deflate the opposition, not to encourage it. And that, by and large, is what he has been doing.”
How sad, how sad. One doesn’t have to be a starry-eyed idealist to see that what Obama is doing is wrong. It’s one thing to realize we can’t save the world, quite another to “deflate” opposition to a tyranny just so you get get your precious negotiations… that are destined to fail anyway.
“…the difference between a black panther thug in front of a Philly polling place and a Basiji militia goon in Tehran is that their nightsticks are made of different materials.” Joe Buzz@46
Thread winner.