Thursday, March 26, 2009

Point-CounterPoint: Obama & Iran


Iran Has a Problem as "Great Satan" Turns on the Charm -David Blair

If Iran's leaders could choose between a belligerent America threatening "regime change" and a conciliatory U.S. President hailing their "great and celebrated culture," they would probably prefer firebreathing threats.

Their difficulties only arise when the "Great Satan" stubbornly refuses to be remotely satanic. President Barack Obama's conciliatory and nuanced approach towards Iran confronts its leaders with their greatest foreign policy dilemma in years. Any visitor to Tehran is struck by how young Iranians have embraced Western - and specifically American - popular culture. By appealing to Iran's Westernized youth, Obama is seeking to widen the divide between the regime and its people. In addition, there are pragmatic figures inside Iran's regime who want to explore the possibility of easing tensions with Washington.

Obama's intervention is designed to help them while isolating Ahmadinejad. Obama's words are designed to help Ahmadinejad's opponents in the June election by raising the possibility of a genuine rapprochement with America.

If Obama's approach succeeds, he will achieve one of history's greatest diplomatic coups. If he fails, America has carefully ruled nothing out. Obama may yet have to decide whether to destroy Iran's nuclear facilities by military means. If he ever reaches that juncture, he will be able to argue that America tried every alternative.
(Telegraph-UK)



Free Lunch -Caroline Glick

[A]s the mullahs sprint toward the nuclear finish line, the Obama administration is pretending that the jury is still out on whether or not the Islamic republic wants a nuclear arsenal.

[T]he Americans have dropped even the pretense of requiring a change in Iran's rhetorical positions as a precondition for diplomatic recognition. The US now pursues its diplomatic reconciliation with Teheran with the sure knowledge that this peace process will lead to Iran's emergence as a nuclear power.

Sadly, Western leaders are not pursuing peace, [t]hey are pursuing appeasement.
[Jerusalem Post]
*

2 comments:

LHwrites said...

I find this a particularly fine juxtaposition of viewpoints. I think the first article outlines things accurately, and is very correct in pointing out that Obama has ruled out nothing. The second article is as usual, Glick's narrow minded and almost uniformly incorrect impression that the only way to handle things in the Middle-East is by her overly simplistic and heavy handed ideals. If the time ever comes for a military solution, the US should indeed be able to tell the world stage that it tried everything it could. If Obama handles things as well as he seems capable, it might never need to get to a military option. Time will tell, but I think the first article gets it right that the US would have done everything it could and should, whatever the final method turns out to be.

Bruce said...

I hope you are right. All depends on Obama's thinking...while Glick fails to give him the benefit of the doubt, i fear that David Blair may be too optimistic.

Obama's approach is still an unknown...as you said, time will tell. i hope President Obama has not resigned himself to a nuclear Iran as some have.