A neocon split on Barack and iran
Leading neoconservatives WIlliam Kristol and Robert Kagan are disagreeing about President Obama's approach toward Iran.
Writing at the Washington Post Web site, Kristol says Obama's vow on Tuesday to be "persistent" with Iran was troubling:
But President Obama also invoked persistence with respect to Iran.
“When it comes to Iran, you know, we did a video sending a message to the Iranian people and the leadership of the Islamic Republic of Iran. And some people said, ‘Well, they did not immediately say they were eliminating nuclear weapons and stop funding terrorism.’ Well, we didn’t expect that. We expect that we’re going to make steady progress on this front.”
Is stopping Iran from getting nuclear weapons really like improving health care or advancing the Middle East peace process? I would have thought not. The American (and European) position -- and the position of candidate Obama -- has been that this Iranian regime acquiring nuclear weapons is “unacceptable.” If that’s so, then there’s a deadline, so to speak, to all the incremental efforts. And since, by all accounts, that deadline is fast approaching, there would have to be a certain speed to the hoped-for “steady progress.” President Obama seems to evince no sense of urgency about Iran’s nuclear program. Did his relaxed statement about Iran tonight suggest he has quietly decided to accept the previously unacceptable?
But Kagan asks "What's the harm?":
But there is logic to the administration’s approach. After all, if the White House is going to give diplomacy and engagement a chance, it might as well do so thoroughly and aggressively. Pay Iran’s leaders the respect some of our Iran experts claim they crave. Put on the friendliest possible face. Remind the Iranians of all the international goodies they can get if only they take the necessary steps on their nuclear program. Draw the starkest contrast between the present benevolent U.S. administration and the evil Bush administration.
What is the risk? It’s not as if the Bush administration was doing anything to help the people of Iran rid themselves of their leaders. And it’s not as if the Bush administration’s approach had slowed Tehran down, either in its pursuit of nuclear weapons or in its support of Hezbollah and Hamas. Of course, the Obama White House is trying a different tack. The American bottom line hasn’t changed, only the tactics -- as the Iranians themselves have pointed out. “The problems will not be solved by them altering the words or selecting the terms they use,” said Ali Larijani, speaker of Iran's parliament. So one of two things is going to happen: Either the friendly diplomatic approach works, and the Iranians actually cave and accept American and European demands, which would be good. Or the friendly approach doesn’t work, and the Iranians proceed on their present course, thus proving that even diplomacy sincerely pursued by a well-intentioned president has no impact on Tehran’s calculations. I honestly can’t see the harm in the Obama administration’s efforts. I hope they succeed.
Share
Facebook
3 Comments
Comments RSS Feed Reader Comments
The “risk(s)” that Robert Kagan claim do not exist in relation to Obama’s departure from the American policy toward Iran existing up until the point Obama took office (and effectively reversed its course) are two: 1) that the assumption among the ruling mullahs in Iran that Iran may amass nuclear weapons sans any serious effort on the part of the civilized world will be now impossible to disabuse; and, worse still, 2) that an Obama administration already steeped in either extreme and arrant naivete and illusion where it comes to the motivations of America’s declared enemies, may, in its own right, be impossible to disabuse of its illusions/delusions before it is too late.
This President of the United States is problematic for William Kristol. That makes me sleep better at night.
Israel should develop missle defense and covert ops designed to stop nuclear attack. Sooner or later Israel is going to have to settle into the current game of mutual destruction that has been working for everyone else since the beginning. If Tehran launches their one little bomb, then Israel launches their 300 high-tech superbombs. Hopefully, Iran is smarter than that.
There is no more eloquent argument for resolving differences than the fact that technologies will be spreading and nothing can be done to stop them. More countries than Iran will have the bomb. Do you want to do some pre-bombing in those other countries too? It is insane. If anyone had an ounce of wisdom they would see the writing on the wall and conclude that the time for peace between Israel and her neighboors is now a desperate necessity.
Leave a Comment
To leave a comment, you must first be logged in to JTA. If you are not registered, please click here.
Already a JTA member?
Need to know? Get JTA's free e-newsletters!
sylvia scott
03/27/09 03:46 AM
I believe the crucial issue is how much time can we allow Iran to acquire
nuclear weapons? Not much is my estimation. Iran has defiantly ignored
all sanctions, fooled past inspectors, and has continued to pursue her ambitions for dominance in the Middle East-and beyond. When she starts chanting “We’re going to push Israel into the Sea” and “Death to the U.S.” I think it’s more dangerous to deal with a nuclear Iran, than to do it now. If the U.S. would act quickly, I feel it would send a clear message of warning to others with similar ambitions.