Soccer Dad

Try a little tenderness ... in foreign policy

Joe Klein on the difference President Obama makes in international relations.

Rather than making peremptory judgments, pro and con, about foreign leaders, as Bush did, Obama seems predisposed to see every foreign policy problem in its global context -- the decision to press the reset button with Russia, for example, could have a profound influence on the start of talks with Iran, especially if the Russians agree to help dissuade the Iranians from an illegal nuclear program (in return for a U.S. pledge to halt the antimissile defense system that Russia fears).

Roger Cohen on how to deal with Iran:

So what does this astute man want? What will he give? Khamenei said last year: "Undoubtedly, the day the relations with America prove beneficial for the Iranian nation, I will be the first one to approve of that." This suggests dogma does not preclude movement.

Khamenei sees his primary task as safeguarding a revolution whose core values include independence, cultural and scientific self-sufficiency, the global revitalization of Islam as a guiding body of law, and social justice. He believes America demands "submission and surrender to its hegemony."

Given these convictions, the United States must embark on a visionary change of direction. Obama must assure Khamenei that not only has America abandoned the goal of regime change, it sees Iran as a central player in regional stability. That deals with the independence obsession.

Charles Krauthammer on how "quiet" has worked out with Russia:

President Bush's response to the Kaliningrad deployment -- the threat was issued the day after Obama's election -- was firm. He refused to back down because giving in to Russian threats would leave Poles and Czechs exposed and show the world that, contrary to post-Cold War assumptions, the United States could not be trusted to protect Eastern Europe from Russian bullying.

The Obama response? "Biden Signals U.S. Is Open to Russia Missile Deal," as the New York Times headlined Biden's Feb. 7 Munich speech to a major international gathering. This followed strong messages from the Obama transition team even before the inauguration that Obama was not committed to the missile shield. And just to make sure everyone understood that the Bush policy no longer held, Biden said in Munich that the United States wanted to "press the reset button" on NATO-Russian relations.

Not surprisingly, the Obama wobble elicited a favorable reaction from Russia. (There are conflicting reports that Russia might suspend the Kaliningrad blackmail deployment.) The Kremlin must have been equally impressed that the other provocations -- Abkhazia, Kyrgyzstan, the rapid-reaction force -- elicited barely a peep from Washington.

and the "visionary change of direction" with Iran:

Iran has been similarly charmed by Obama's overtures. A week after the new president went about sending sweet peace signals via al-Arabiya, Iran launched its first homemade Earth satellite. The message is clear. If you can put a satellite into orbit, you can hit any continent with a missile, North America included.

And for emphasis, after the roundhouse hook, came the poke in the eye. A U.S. women's badminton team had been invited to Iran. Here was a chance for "ping-pong diplomacy" with the accommodating new president, a sporting venture meant to suggest the possibility of warmer relations.

On Feb. 4, Tehran denied the team entry into Iran.

Then, just in case Obama failed to get the message, Iran's parliament speaker rose in Munich to offer his response to Obama's olive branch. Executive summary: Thank you very much. After you acknowledge 60 years of crimes against us, change not just your tone but your policies, and abandon the Zionist criminal entity, we might deign to talk to you.

So the softening of the administration's stance toward Syria that I and others have noticed, didn't occur in a vacuum. (And it was no more successful than those overtures to Russia and Iran.)

Surveying the results so far, Krauthammer isn't very optimistic.

I would like to think the supine posture is attributable to a rookie leader otherwise preoccupied (i.e., domestically), leading a foreign policy team as yet unorganized if not disoriented. But when the State Department says that Hugo Chávez's president-for-life referendum, which was preceded by a sham government-controlled campaign featuring the tear-gassing of the opposition, was "for the most part . . . a process that was fully consistent with democratic process," you have to wonder if Month One is not a harbinger of things to come.

In a related matter Don Surber notes that President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton owe ex-President Bush an apology:

AFP reported in December 2007 that both Mrs. Clinton and Obama accused Bush of saber-rattling over Iran -- clinging to one intelligence report that Iran may have stopped its nuke program in 2003 after we invaded Iraq.

Anyone above the age of reason knew that was a temporary halt at best.

Clinton: "I vehemently disagree with the president that nothing has changed and therefore nothing in American policy has to change."

Obama: "It is absolutely clear that this administration and President Bush continues to not let facts get in the way of his ideology. They need, now, to aggressively move on the diplomatic front. They should have stopped the saber rattling -- should never have started it."

Outrageous. Irresponsible. Political opportunists.

Bush's toughness towards adversaries wasn't counterproductive as his media and political critics claimed. However his successor's ineffective responses towards provocations have only encouraged them.

Trying a little tenderness in foreign policy doesn't seem to change thugs much, does it?