Nice capture of Obama's tendency to lead from behind in foreign affairs
Sunday, May 30, 2010 at 12:04AM 
Comes from Roger Cohen's 20 May NYT column.
The guts of the argument:
Iran has been producing, under International Atomic Energy Agency inspection, LEU (enriched to about 5 percent). It is this LEU that would have to be turned into bomb-grade uranium (over 90 percent) if Iran were to produce a nuclear weapon. The idea behind the American deal in Geneva last October was to get a big chunk of LEU out of Iran to build confidence, create some negotiating space, and remove material that could get subverted. In exchange, Iran would later get fuel rods for a medical research reactor in Tehran.
Iran, doing the bazaar routine, said yes, maybe and no, infuriating Obama. Iran now wanted the LEU stored on Iranian soil under I.A.E.A. control, phased movement of the LEU to this location, and a simultaneous fuel rod exchange. Forget it, Obama said.
Well, Turkey and Brazil have now restored the core elements of the October deal: a single shipment of the 1,200 kilograms of LEU to a location (Turkey) outside Iran and a one-year gap — essential for broader negotiations to begin — between this Iranian deposit in escrow and the import of the fuel rods.
And what’s the U.S. response? To pursue “strong sanctions” (if no longer “crippling”) against Iran at the United Nations; and insist now on a prior suspension of enrichment that was not in the October deal (indeed this was a core Obama departure from Bush doctrine).
Obama could instead have said: “Pressure works! Iran blinked on the eve of new U.N. sanctions. It’s come back to our offer. We need to be prudent, given past Iranian duplicity, but this is progress. Isolation serves Iranian hard-liners.”
No wonder Ahmet Davutoglu, the Turkish foreign minister, is angry. I believe him when he says Obama and U.S. officials encouraged Turkey earlier this year to revive the deal: “What they wanted us to do was give the confidence to Iran to do the swap. We have done our duty.”
Yes, Turkey has. I know, the 1,200 kilograms now represents a smaller proportion of Iran’s LEU than in October and it’s no longer clear that the fuel rods will come from the conversion of the LEU in escrow. But that’s small potatoes when you’re trying to build a tenuous bridge between “mendacious” Iranians and “bullying” Americans in the interests of global security.
The French and Chinese reactions — cautious support — made sense. The American made none, or did only in the light of the strong Congressional push for “crushing” sanctions. Further sanctions will not change Iran’s nuclear behavior; negotiations might.
I sense no overriding vision whatsoever, and when the administration's top people try to articulate any, it just comes off as so reactive--nuanced to the point of incoherence. I read through Obama's recent military academy speech previewing a new national security strategy: it was all just nouns and verbs strung together in the most boiler-plate fashion. There is the sense of care-taking of the system but nothing more. We don't have leaders anymore; we have good stewards of the Earth--fine I guess, but oh so tiresome. There's nothing to push against with this bunch; it's like an entire administration of Condi Rices--full of points, neatly arranged, signifying nothing but intelligent coping with the world as they find it. Leadership is left to others; we play zone defense.
Sad times for the grand strategist.
I cannot help but detect this tendency in Obama to give the people what they want in U.S. foreign policy--as quickly as possible. People want out of Iraq; full speed ahead! People want to deal our way out of Afghanistan; advantage Islamabad. People want sanctions on "crazy" Iran; stitch that meaningless package together and spend all our diplomacy on UNSC resolutions.
Cohen on the same:
Presidents must lead on major foreign policy initiatives, not be bullied by domestic political considerations, in this case incandescent Iran ire on the Hill in an election year.
Hillary's response to the Brazil-Turkey deal was snide to the point of condescension--so much for the multi-partner world.
This is what you get with a lot of lawyers running the show, I suppose. They want to win in court, no matter how mendacious they come off at various points.
I know, I know. You make your bed and then you have to lie in it. Problem is, the alternative sucked worse, not that that makes my disillusionment any less painful.
Nice piece by Cohen though. It scratched one mighty intellectual itch.
Reader Comments (6)
Shakespeare was so right....
Pity the lawyers are too numerous at the moment.
Maybe we could outlaw practicing as an attorney for money?
Just a thought.
As they said a long time ago, "If you want to make peace, prepare for war."
I wish Obama would get this. It works.
Well, they headed home to Chicago for the holiday. Take care of some local politics, have a BBQ, get away from the Oil Spill... which reminds me of an old Japanese monster movie. "It's getting bigger every day, our weapons are useless."
The President can relax in Chicago, if the constant gunfire doesn't keep him awake (32 shot in 2 days) and he can take calls from Mrs. Clinton about the latest Israeli / Palestinian fiasco.
Free health care for all and a Supreme Court that listens to old Joan Baez albums? Is that going to be it? "Zone Defense" is a good description. I just hope we don't go to a "Prevent Defense." That is a sure way to lose a game.
Excellent article and analysis. Thank you. "[W]e have good stewards of the Earth." A steward is defined by Webster as the "person who looks after the passengers on a ship, aircraft, or train." Thus, I wonder whether the United States is running on "auto-pilot'? I wish some politicians would allow the markets to run on auto-pilot rather than try to control the wheel with taxes and regulations.
I hear a lot of backbiting with little or no offers for viable solutions. It reminds me of the time I was taking a CPR course with some colleagues. At one point a volunteer was needed to demonstrate how to administer CPR to a dummy baby. No one felt confident enough to volunteer so I offered. No sooner had I begun when I was bombarded with all sorts of 'expert' directives from my well-meaning (but annoying) colleagues.
My point: I'm tired of people waisting their energy venting rather then using their brainpower to come up with SOLUTIONS to deal with a regime that says "... yes, maybe and no..." (Cohen) all in one breath.
A practicing attorney wants to point out that the attorney can only go so far from the client's wishes. In this case, it seems to me that the Administration is severely constrained by public opinion , even if it knows full well that the public opinion is ill-informed. What howl's would the "lawyers" hear from the client (say Congress) if it went "soft" on Iran? Leadership only works with followers. Also, most of a lawyer's work is done outside of court by negotiation, which allows greater breadth of persuasion but which cannot escape the need to keep the client's needs and limitations in mind. (N.B. re your FDR note a couple of posts back: who was more "mendacious" than FDR? Perhaps not his most appealing trait, but a key one, I think.)