Vindication of Barak Obama´s Iran Policy
Madhavi Bhasin
July 24, 2008
The U.S. Presidential contest between John McCain and Barak Obama is essentially a choice between the rigidity of experience and flexibility of innovation. Excessive reliance on experience tends to foreclose many diplomatic options essential for problem solving. The value of flexibility over rigidity is evident on the Iran policy of the two Presidential hopefuls - John McCain and Barack Obama. Senator McCain has favored the continuation of President Bush´s hawkish policies with regard to Iran, while Senator Obama has called for opening direct dialogue with the Iranian regime. The recent development of events has vindicated the stand of Senator Obama and has demonstrated the failures of pursuing an uncompromising strategy for long.
The Bush Administration had been insisting that Iran should halt its uranium enrichment programme as a pre-condition for talks. With tensions between Tehran and Washington mounting the world feared a direct military confrontation. Senator Obama continued to emphasize on the need for conducting a dialogue with the Iranian regime. But according to Senator McCain the proposed strategy of Senator Obama for holding talks with Iran was reflective of the latter´s "inexperience and reckless judgment". President Bush had attacked Senator Obama´s proposal for opening dialogue with Iran as reminiscent of the appeasement policy adopted with regard to the Nazis.
Irrespective of the criticism Senator Obama continued to stand by his strategy, which was to a great extent based on sound reasoning. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. Michael Mullen has stated in May this year that "we haven´t had much of a dialogue with the Iranians for a long time", a blunder which requires correction. Although Senator Obama has favors initiating a dialogue process with Iran, his strategy nowhere seeks to compromise the national interests. In a statement on the missile tests by Iran early this month, Senator Obama stated that "Now is the time to work with our friends and allies, and to pursue direct aggressive diplomacy with the Iranian regime backed by tougher unilateral and multi-lateral sanctions. It is time to offer a clear choice between increased costs for continuing their troubling behavior and concrete incentives that would come if they change course." Senator Obama´s policy is indeed the best way to deal with the Iranian propaganda. Iran has been gaining sympathy and support with its repeated requests for dialogue with the U.S. The Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad had written two letters in May 2006 and November 2006, one to President Bush and other to the American people, emphasizing the need for open dialogue. Though the propaganda value of these letters cannot be dismissed, in not appropriately responding to these overtures the Bush administration allowed Iran to gain diplomatic advantage. By opening formal channels of communication, Senator Obama seeks to demonstrate that the U.S. is keen to utilize all available diplomatic tools before employing more stringent measures.
The most important vindication of Barack Obama´s strategy has been the recent move by the White House to re-open partial diplomatic relations with Iran in the following month. The Bush administration is ready to put American diplomats in "interest sections" at the Embassy of a third nation in Tehran. Such "interest sections" are not full diplomatic missions but the minimal presence marks a positive beginning and demonstrates that the innovativeness of Barack Obama´s strategy has immense value.
The Bush Administration had been insisting that Iran should halt its uranium enrichment programme as a pre-condition for talks. With tensions between Tehran and Washington mounting the world feared a direct military confrontation. Senator Obama continued to emphasize on the need for conducting a dialogue with the Iranian regime. But according to Senator McCain the proposed strategy of Senator Obama for holding talks with Iran was reflective of the latter´s "inexperience and reckless judgment". President Bush had attacked Senator Obama´s proposal for opening dialogue with Iran as reminiscent of the appeasement policy adopted with regard to the Nazis.
Irrespective of the criticism Senator Obama continued to stand by his strategy, which was to a great extent based on sound reasoning. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. Michael Mullen has stated in May this year that "we haven´t had much of a dialogue with the Iranians for a long time", a blunder which requires correction. Although Senator Obama has favors initiating a dialogue process with Iran, his strategy nowhere seeks to compromise the national interests. In a statement on the missile tests by Iran early this month, Senator Obama stated that "Now is the time to work with our friends and allies, and to pursue direct aggressive diplomacy with the Iranian regime backed by tougher unilateral and multi-lateral sanctions. It is time to offer a clear choice between increased costs for continuing their troubling behavior and concrete incentives that would come if they change course." Senator Obama´s policy is indeed the best way to deal with the Iranian propaganda. Iran has been gaining sympathy and support with its repeated requests for dialogue with the U.S. The Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad had written two letters in May 2006 and November 2006, one to President Bush and other to the American people, emphasizing the need for open dialogue. Though the propaganda value of these letters cannot be dismissed, in not appropriately responding to these overtures the Bush administration allowed Iran to gain diplomatic advantage. By opening formal channels of communication, Senator Obama seeks to demonstrate that the U.S. is keen to utilize all available diplomatic tools before employing more stringent measures.
The most important vindication of Barack Obama´s strategy has been the recent move by the White House to re-open partial diplomatic relations with Iran in the following month. The Bush administration is ready to put American diplomats in "interest sections" at the Embassy of a third nation in Tehran. Such "interest sections" are not full diplomatic missions but the minimal presence marks a positive beginning and demonstrates that the innovativeness of Barack Obama´s strategy has immense value.
Print
Email
