Iran 1.0, 2.0, 3.0, 4.0
On the campaign trail, presidential candidate Barack Obama once called for a “reset” policy with Iran. Supposedly, the unpopularity of the Texan provocateur George W. Bush and his administration’s inability to finesse “soft power” had needlessly alienated the Iranian theocracy.
After all, the widely quoted but highly politicized 2007 National Intelligence Estimate claimed that Iran had ceased work on a bomb in 2003 and would not have a weapon for the foreseeable future. That flawed analysis fueled another popular talking point: that the Bush-Cheney warmongers were looking for more phantom weapons of mass destruction in Iran of the sort that had led them into Iraq.
On the campaign trail, presidential candidate Barack Obama once called for a “reset” policy with Iran. Supposedly, the unpopularity of the Texan provocateur George W. Bush and his administration’s inability to finesse “soft power” had needlessly alienated the Iranian theocracy.
After all, the widely quoted but highly politicized 2007 National Intelligence Estimate claimed that Iran had ceased work on a bomb in 2003 and would not have a weapon for the foreseeable future. That flawed analysis fueled another popular talking point: that the Bush-Cheney warmongers were looking for more phantom weapons of mass destruction in Iran of the sort that had led them into Iraq.
In contrast, Obama proclaimed himself to be a more sophisticated sort of president. His left-wing politics, postracial appeal and his father’s Muslim heritage supposedly might win over the heretofore needlessly alienated Iranians – and most others in the Middle East as well. At no point did candidate Obama stop to consider that the Iranians could view his loud politicking and opportunistic criticism of Bush’s hostility toward Iran – identical to standard U.S. bipartisan policy under at least the four prior presidents – as weakness to be manipulated rather than magnanimity to be appreciated.
After Obama took office in 2009, we had a new Iran 2.0 policy implemented on a variety of fronts. We courted Vladimir Putin by closing down an Eastern European anti-ballistic missile project in hopes that the Russians would help stop Iranian proliferation. We scheduled face-to-face talks with the Iranians. We did not press initially for economic sanctions of Iranian exports and imports. We largely ignored Iranian terrorists who were killing Americans in Iraq.
The Obama administration kept quiet in spring of 2009 when a million Iranians hit the streets to protest their cruel authoritarian regime. It seemed to apologize for the 1953 overthrow of Iranian Mohammed Mossadegh. It reopened our embassy in Syria, Iran’s closest Middle East ally. It jawboned Israel, Iran’s worst Middle East enemy.
The result of Obama’s Iran 2.0 policy?
Failure on every front. The Iranians sped up work on the bomb. They snubbed every deadline we issued. They increased weapons shipments to Hezbollah terrorists in Lebanon. The Russians aided rather than blocked Iranian nuclear efforts.
More recently, the Iranians plotted to kill a Saudi diplomat in the United States. They issued warnings to the Sunni Arab Gulf kingdoms and tried to stir up their Shiite populations. They turned to Afghanistan and helped supply Taliban and al-Qaeda terrorists. They forged an anti-American alliance in Latin America with Hugo Chavez. They are boasting about closing the Strait of Hormuz and warning allies of Israel of possible retaliation.
In the manner that Jimmy Carter’s reset foreign policy crashed in 1980 with the communists entering Afghanistan and Central America, and American hostages taken in Iran, and so was followed by a suddenly tough new Carter Doctrine, likewise the Obama administration is now forced to reset its policy.
With Obama’s new Iran 3.0, we are flip-flopping and now ratcheting up sanctions. We are announcing the dispatch of additional warships to the Persian Gulf. We are lobbying the United Nations for tougher resolutions against Iran and freezing Iranian assets in the U.S. We are no longer warning Israel to play it cool, but rather publicly and matter-of-factly announcing the likelihood of a preemptive Israeli bombing strike.
In other words, after demagoguing the old Iranian 1.0 containment strategy, the Obama administration is now trying to play 3.0 catch-up after its own failed 2.0 appeasement policy.
The ironic result is that war is now far more likely with Iran than it ever was under George W. Bush, and for far more reasons. Obama faces no knee-jerk, left-wing criticism. Just as the Left went silent when Obama suddenly took ownership of Guantanamo, Iraq, renditions and tribunals, it won’t hit the streets if he takes action against Iran. If Obama finds himself behind in the 2012 campaign, such a bold move would win him political unity and advantage in wag-the-dog fashion.
Due to Obama’s hostility toward Israel, the United States now has far less knowledge about, and influence with, the Israeli military. And the long-appeased Iranian theocracy is now more likely to miscalculate, thinking either that the confused Obama administration won’t stop it, or that any American attempt to stop it would be only half-hearted.
Obama’s initial Iran reset policy squandered the American sense of deterrence. Now we are desperately trying to regain the tough bipartisan approach taken under earlier presidents.
But the likely result of this schizophrenia will probably be an Obama 4.0 Iran policy – in other words, a big war in the Persian Gulf.
© 2012 TRIBUNE MEDIA SERVICES, INC.
