Obama's video appeal to Iran

I thought it was good and proper, but I'm not surprised by Iran's response or by those of knowledgeable experts: for now these are good words, but absent some movement off the actual demands/actions of Bush-Cheney, that's all they amount to. Iran isn't going to fall over itself, especially as a presidential election is ramping up, to gush warm in our direction on this basis alone.

Obama signaled acknowledgment of Iran's regime and its revolution, but nothing regarding the pursuit of nuclear capacity, where we still declare our firm resistance and maintain intense sanctions. So long as we're on that path, Iranian leaders and enough of the population will feel a certain insecurity--a certain fear that the war is still coming from either the U.S. or Israel or both.

Obviously, Ahmadinejad and his mouth are a huge sticking point. Absent his pointless and toothless threats, the whole subject would be much smaller and therefore perhaps far more approachable. But the man asks for conflict, with great political purpose, and we provide it, in Pavlovian discipline, and so the stand-off is maintained, despite the change in tone.

Absent Ahmadinejad's defeat in June, I don't see this changing too much. Obama will feel the need to stand firm on terror and nukes, and Iran will feel the same regarding our use of force in other people's countries with impunity (or am I missing the UN approval of our strikes inside Pakistan?) and our continued possession of nukes--ditto on both counts for Israel.

Comments

[stuart abrams]

It struck me that it is very dangerous to raise expectations here. As long as everybody concentrates on Iranian nukes, this is a diplomatic initiative that is doomed to failure. I guess Obama is deliberately trying to go around the Iranian government and make contact directly with the Iranian people, but I don't know how effective he can be. The big battle will be if Netanyahu says he has lost patience and wants to strike. If Obama can't stop that, then I fear that it's Sarajevo time. Building up expectations for diplomacy could make it harder for Obama to stop Israeli military action.

[Arsalan]

I would have to agree with both of you. This maneuver will not bear any real diplomatic. However, I disagree with Stuart on Obama's appeal to the Iranian public. In the end, Obama's act is far more in relation to continually charm the citizens of the united states of America.

[michal shapiro]

I would love to hear some constructive ideas about how to keep Netanyahu from dictating the US agenda. Most posts seem to put him in the driver's seat.

[Tom Barnett]

Netanyahu can strike and Iran may well strike back, but I don't see any lasting conflict on that basis, or some spread regionally. I think those fears are overblown.

[Jeff J]

The US is going to have to out a little more on the table than just wanting better relations. Probably the minimum acceptable Iranian conditions are going to be the lifting of sanctions and the discontinuation of the assertion that Iran's only reason for developing nuclear power is for weapons. Remove those roadblocks and the Mullahs cannot use the excuse of outside interference to explain their poor economic management.

[stuart abrams]

I hope TPMB is right, but I think he is being way too hopeful about this. My concern goes beyond the regional conflict, although the regional ramifications, particularly in Iraq, are pretty significant. I am also thinking about the impact on our relationship with China and Russia. Everyone will conclude, correctly IMO, that Netanyahu could not act if the US told him not to. This would be a signal that the neo-cons are still calling the shots in Washington and that the unilateralist mindset is still dominant. I see strong support for Iran coming from Russia and China in the event of an Israeli attack. We end up with our good old League of Democracies, and a pretty anemic league it will be, given Asian reliance on Persian Gulf oil and European reliance on Russian oil and gas. As I said, the worst case scenario is that this is a Sarajevo moment that sets back globalization for decades - particularly when combined with the protectionist nonsense Barnett is rightly raising concerns about. Is maintenance of the Israeli nuclear monopoly really worth this?