Obama’s Finger in the Iranian Dike

I have seen the case made that Obama is showing dangerous signs of militarism in his approach to the nuclear challenge in Iran. These concerns are legitimate particularly in light of the surge in Afghanistan, which now teeters on the edge of disaster with no clear goals, and no apparent willingness on the part of the administration to reconsider. Americans have every reason to press for diplomatic solutions in Iran, and the administration needs to be pressed more forcefully to accelerate the departure from Afghanistan.  

But in Iran there is at least a glimmer of hope. We have seen that there is an argument that the President can’t win on Iran, he is either too militarist or too pacifist. It seems to me though, that what can't win are the only two solutions presented to this point. Americans we are told must choose between the wild-eyed zealotry we hear on the right—move carriers into the Gulf and so forth—and the isolationist refrain we hear from Ron Paul and some members of the liberal left.

I believe that the president has it about right, both politically and strategically. He has said the policy of this country is not to allow Iran to have nuclear weapons. He has, one hopes for strategic reasons, said that all options including military are on the table. Of course that worries me too, and I did cringe when I heard it. BUT, in taking this posture Obama has managed to slip the Gordian knot the Republican Presidential candidates and the right wing Israeli government, always too ready for war, were pulling tighter by the day. Israeli air strikes by this summer—which almost certainly would drag the US into yet another military confrontation with Muslims- seemed to becoming more and more inevitable. That is until last week.

Last week, the President, said several things. 1) The United States has Israel’s back. 2) The policy of the United States is that Iran will not be allowed to have nuclear weapons. 3) The talk of war is dangerous and unwarranted. On the three prongs of this strategy Obama seems to have bought time. One can only hope that time leads to a peaceful resolution. At minimum it is always better when the movement for war is set back in the quest for reconciliation and negotiations.

Count me among those that believe the US has done Israel no favors by not being more firm in standing up to their militarist and expansionist actions. Peace will only come when the Israel’s and Palestinians move back to the negotiating table. Politicians can bounce back and forth forever between the intransigence of each side, but negotiations are the only solution.  The Israeli’s have had a partner in peace talks available for several years, the PLO. Israel could have isolated Hamas by entering into negotiations with the PLO, but domestic political considerations have meant the continuation of settlements, and the building of the wall which now encircles and is some cases slices through much of the future Palestinian state. Nonetheless, Obama is already getting killed by those on the right for whatever modest moves he has made to encourage the Netanyahu government to moderate its stand, especially in terms of settlements to clear the way for negotiations. Republicans, without exception have denounced the President as no friend of Israel.  

There is another side of that story though. Out of curiosity about changes bought about in the season of the Arab Spring, and all the talk of the role of social media in these democratic uprisings, I dug a little and now follow several tweeter feeds which report an Arab point of view from Syria, Palestine and Egypt, and the Middle East in general. Mostly the posts are about the activities oin the ground in these places, the genocide in Homs, hunger strikes in Israel and so forth. There is ample discussion on the American policies in the region.  I have seen many comments which call the US position, especially vis a vis the Israeli Palestinian problem as hypocritical. From what I read, Arabs do not seem to think that Obama has been any friend of theirs. There does seem to be some openness to reconsider in places where the US has taken an active role—Libya and Egypt, but in Palestine and Syria there is a sense of abandonment. It seems to these people that if Obama is a friend of the Arab cause, and democracy in the region in general, he has a funny way of showing it. There is great frustration. In the real world there are two sides to every story. Competing interests abound.

The second point Obama made last week was an absolute requirement to leash the dogs of war, and diplomatically to underscore the need for the Iranians to meet the requirements for negotiations. If Obama had waffled at all on this policy, the Iranians, already operating under Chinese and Russian protection at the UN, would have been emboldened. Tough new sanctions are just now taking effect in Iran, the US is pressing the Chinese hard to reduce their oil imports from Iran. The Iranian leaders are being squeezed economically and the vast majority of the population already wants to be rid of them. The Mullahs rule only through the threat of force. Assad in Syria has shown the world and the Iranian people the price of rising up against a totalitarian state with nothing to lose and vast stores of modern weaponry.  

Finally, Obama won the rhetoric war and in doing so calmed the war talk. This was Obama’s strongest case and to me the highlight of the strategy. He challenged the Republican candidates with their dangerous militarist rhetoric to explain the costs of war to the American people. He challenged them to explain the results they would seek. There was only deafening silence. Perhaps the relentless primary calendar also contributed to this, but the one-upmanship that seemed to escalate every day on the campaign trail seems to have stopped for now. One could not help but hear a war weary nation, with the failures of Iraq still fresh in their mind, taking a deep breath and pondering what they were hearing. Without ever mentioning Iraq, America was reminded of the propaganda barrages that lead to the run-up to the immoral and unnecessary war in Iraq.

In addition, Obama made a strong case to Israel, to delay military action which could be potentially disastrous and allow diplomacy and sanctions more time to work. The Israeli president, Netanyahu is also up for reelection this fall. In Israel and the US nothing pulls the country together better than the creation or promotion of an exterior enemy.  Fear is the best running mate any candidate could ever have. Since Obama and Netanyahu met, the former head of Israeli intelligence—one rough looking M-F --has cautioned against the rush to war. Both Israelis and Americans have made the case that the Iranians have not even decided if they are going to attempt to build a weapon.  In addition, there is now a building determination to explain the dangers and the cost of a war with Iran. There is little doubt that gas prices would spike to a level that would completely undermine the economic recovery. There is also a great danger that war could escalate quickly throughout the region with consequences that no one could predict.

I believe that American would be pursuing a dangerous and immoral course were we to either strike Iran preemptively, or to nod quietly and let Israel do the dirty work. America and the world have two competing interests: We want to both stop the Iranians from possessing nuclear weapons at almost any cost, and we want to avoid war. The Republicans as they always do doubled down on the most militarist and dangerous course possible. Obama threaded a fine needle and proposed a third way which neither appeases or confronts.  There is some danger in that if the Iranians do not see the urgency of standing down, and the pressure will build on Obama and the Israelis to act. But for now at least the house is quiet.