Can Obama Get Away With Iran Inaction? -Jonathan Tobin
President Obama has been assuring the public since before he was elected in 2008 that he would never allow Iran to acquire nuclear weapons. But the question facing the White House this year is whether a failure to make good on that pledge will be more damaging to his chances of re-election than a spike in oil prices.
That’s the dilemma Obama has been grappling with since Congress passed a bill over his objections last month that mandated a complete ban on all transactions with entities that did business with Iran’s Central Bank. Sanctions on the bank are the lever by which an international embargo on the sale of Iranian oil is made possible. But as American diplomats are laying the groundwork for such an embargo, the administration is also sending out signals that indicate it is less than enthusiastic about dealing with the possible economic fallout of the one tactic that might stop the Iranians short of war.
According to the New York Times, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner has already told Congress he thought the bank measure interfered with the administration’s “carefully phased” approach to sanctions on Iran. Having demanded and gotten a waiver inserted into the bill that would allow the president to put off the sanctions indefinitely, there is now a very real chance Obama will decide the sanctions are not worth the trouble. With the president’s favorability numbers already low, the White House may believe the impact of a major increase in the price of gas and the consequent economic distress may be more politically toxic than actions that can be interpreted as acquiescing to a nuclear Iran.
But with diplomacy offering no hope and since the administration has made it clear it will not support the use of force against Iran and opposes Israel doing so on its own, punting on an oil embargo will be seen as an indication Obama is not prepared to do anything to stop Tehran.
[F]or Obama to refuse to use the one economic lever he has at his disposal to avert an existential threat to Israel as well as to the entire Middle East would certainly cost him heavily among Jews as well as non-Jewish friends of Israel.
Essentially, Obama has until late June to decide whether or not to use the waiver. While we must expect the administration would attempt to explain its use as part of a long-range strategy against Iran, the consequences of doing so could be greater than just some lost votes. If the United States chooses not to push tough sanctions against Iran, then Israel may decide it must take matters into its own hands. [T]he president has acted at times as if he was more afraid of Israel attacking Iranian nuclear sites than he was of the ayatollah gaining control of a bomb.
Even worse for the president is the possibility that further delay will result in an Iranian announcement of nuclear capability on Obama’s watch.
But if Obama is left with no good choices about Iran he has only himself to blame. Having wasted his first three years in office on a foolish policy of “engagement” with and feckless diplomatic initiatives that accomplished nothing, the fact that he has painted himself into a corner on this issue during an election year is entirely his own doing.
[Commentary]
*
4 comments:
Another poorly thought out commentary. Congress did nothing over Obama's objections. Obama supported tougher sanctions. Obama has to be cognizant of economic factors like oil prices because the same people clamoring for him to get tough on Israel will accuse him of hurting the economy when oil prices go up because of the sanctions as they have done with everything that has gone on while he has tried to repair the damage done to the economy by conservatives the 8 years before he got in to office. I would like to see everyone calling for harsh sanctions including all the Republicans pledge their allegiance to claiming Obama did the right thing when oil spikes and the economy dips. When we see such bipartisan support maybe politicians could start acting in our best interests without watching themselves get stabbed in the back.
Actually, Obama did object strongly to the tough sanctions proposed by a bi-partisan Congress and unfortunately succeeded in getting several out-clauses inserted into the bill. See this from the Washington Post, a paper usually supportive of Obama:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-wrong-signals-to-iran/2011/12/06/gIQAvzNYgO_story.html
If you don't want to follow that link, the most important sentence from that editorial is this:
"The administration is resisting pressure from allies such as France and from Congress to sanction the Iranian central bank."
Actually the key is "Without the out clauses". Show me a Republican president who accepted a proposal supported by Democrats without options. The reason Obama demanded these options was exactly what i wrote here. Let us see conservatives, Republicans in Congress and MidEast soundbites make it clear to the country that they support these policies and will support the president despite whatever economic turmoil might result from the escalated tensions in Iran. We have seen such bipartisan support--from Tip O'Neil supporting Regan to Democrats supporting both Bush's MidEast military actions, but we have seen no such bipartisanship from Republicans, not when they forced two government shutdowns with Clinton, and not with anything for Obama
Time [about 6 months, i believe] will tell if Obama stays the course with sanctions.
MidEast Soundbites certainly supports anyone who makes the right choices, regardless of party affiliation.
Post a Comment