Regarding Obama's increasing "tougher stance"

The GOP isn't going to nail Obama on responding too slowly to events in Iran.

He's responding as things are happening. There is no reason to get in front when things are going so well.

This is James Baker/George H.W. Bush smart circa 1989.

Let your enemies dig their own graves so long as they're ready and willing. No sense in grabbing anybody's shovels and declaring it all to be about America. Please, this is why we elected the guy. We wanted smart and cool and calculating and careful.

Roger Cohen (NYT) reporting from Iran to Wolf Blitzer just now (23 June 2009): Obama couldn't be more popular among the protesters.

So you know what? As much as I'd love to be proven wrong and have the regime drop tomorrow (I'm thinking months, not weeks), we play it smart to highlight issues as they emerge, letting the world judge and mobilize. We have such a self-negating history here, from the 1953 coup to the Iran-Iraq war to the "axis of evil" decisions by Bush, that we don't have the same easy entry we typically enjoy in such situations.

So yeah. Tweak 'em, tweet 'em, promo it like crazy, letting the news cycle work it's maniacal magic. Iran is isolating itself through its actions. It don't get any better than this.

And Obama's just humble enough and smart enough not to get in the way while things are going well.

It's when things truly go bad that he'll be more usefully employed.

Comments

[Dean Turnbloom]

"Obama's just humble enough and smart enough..."

Puh-lease...smart, I'll give you, but there's not a humble bone in his body...not there should be...but I think Mr. Barnett is mistaking cautiousness to the n'th degree for humility...I have come to expect better from Tom...

[Tom Kelley]

While I'm with you for the most part on using a soft touch on Iran right now, I believe that the administration stumbled in to the right reaction for unclear reasons.

However, I can't buy for a minute that a "We stand with the people of Iran in their quest for freedom and liberty" statement shouldn't have been made on day one.

After leaving the Shia in Southern Iraq high and dry after OpDS, it would have been better to say nothing than to talk of "not meddling."

[Mark Fragale]

Tom,

I didn't vote for the guy. Don't like his domestic policies and increased spending. Not blaming him for the errors of past Presidents, Congress etc.

If he can preside over the current turmoils in Iran and get it right, (rule set for connectivity / direct foreign investment / resolve the nuclear issues), his critics will have to shut up, at least about his foreign policy decisions.

[Steve G]

U.S. support to the Iranians is important but the youth of Iran see the election as a tipping point to push for more democratic freedoms. If not now when? This is just a tipping point issues that helps Iranians on the march toward democracy and the minimization of Islamic rules that hold their country back.

I remember sitting in an audience in DC hearing that (paraphrasing here) "when the Islamic worlds starts treating the women of their society as equals to men and throws off the 14th century rule sets, will the Islamic countries be able to join the other democracies of the world." - Thomas Barnett Thanks to our strategists with great vision.



We are now seeing the peoples of Iran move toward that end. I think we need to provide strong verbal support at this point in time. Too bad the Iranians don't have the right to bear arms. But our cell phones expose lots of things that repressive regimes no can longer control and maybe world opinion may have a fueling effect on the young people.

Reasoning with the Republican Guards via cell phone may take the edge off of their aim.

via Google G1 Phone

[Louis Heberlein]

The Bush #1 / Baker approach set up Saddam to occupy, and then stay 'one day too long' in Kuwait. The 'weak' president seemed to be represented by a weak and uninformed lady ambassador on our position on Kuwait.

Meanwhile Robin Wright and other lady experts appeared on CSPAN TV talking about how macho and clever Saddam was, and our need to be prudent. A string of bipartisan politicians made pilgrimage tours to see Saddam.

Then, after denying a willingness to deal with Saddam without signs of his cooperation, Bush #1 sent Baker for a last minute meeting that involved Saddam's two most informed and realistic assistants. Baker offered them a 'last chance' letter to Saddam on public TV with a herd of reporters present. One of Saddam's assistants read the letter, said it was too rude to be given to Saddam, then he stalked off with his buddy. Baker covered the opened letter with his hand until they left. Then he shared the letter on TV with the media who saw no rude or hostile wording.

Presto, Bush #1/ Baker got attaboys from Saudis/Arabs, Americans, and the major powers.

Soon, F117s were on the way, and our troops were coming in from a side of Saudi border far from Kuwait.

Hope our current crew is clever too!

[Tom Barnett]

Ah, I see the entirety of Bush-Baker reduced to Iraq.

There was that small thing called the fall of the Soviet bloc.

[Louis Heberlein]

Dr. Barnett

It was curious that Bush-Baker allowed themselves to be distracted from the potential crises coming with the fall of Soviet Bloc.

However, it was even more curious that neither Soviets, nor Chinese gave buddy Saddam satellite info and intel on where our armored troops were really marshaling, while Saddam concentrated on the little flaps around Kuwait, and all those Marines who were waiting on ships for so many days on his Persian Gulf doorstep.

Dorothy, don't pay attention to that man behind the curtain.

[Javaid Akhtar]

If you search out the shennanigans of Iranian youth culture..you'll see quite a wild party scene , easy going and a very pro-West ( but still anti-Arab) Persia.Killing off a whole generation to save the revolution is coming to haunt them .As Tom predicted..the youthfulness of this generation is the achilles heel of this style of dictatorial governance.Irans leader would dearly love a strike by Isreal right now.

[John]

I think Obama's still feeling his way in the dark on this, so the comparison to Baker/Bush era just doesn't work for me. How much of the Baker/Bush "playing it smart" was due to the fact that there weren't any tweets, YouTube, camera phones, and other self-styled journalism to fill in the blanks and, therefore, produce a faster reaction from Washington?No, this isn't about America, but that doesn't mean that Iranian protesters aren't looking for some sign of acknowledgement from Washington. How many pictures have you seen of protesters wearing "I didn't get my vote" buttons? The regime already thinks we're medling, they also know America's position whether it's stated or not. So, giving some words of encouragement to people trying to establish a democratic toehold against overwhelming odds should not that hard.Unfortunetly, the only words we have are how we respect the Iranian republic. This sounds like we're trying to lump the nuclear issue in with the voter disemfranchisment in hopes that not saying anything about the 2nd will help with the 1st.