The Belgravia Dispatch: Obama's Foreign Policy, Best in Class (So Far)

November 01, 2007

Obama's Foreign Policy, Best in Class (So Far)

Barack Obama makes some very good points in this NYT interview. A couple quick highlights, one on Iraq, the other Iran. First, Iraq:

Q. If you saw that the Iraqi government, under the duress of American withdrawals, was not making progress or if sectarian violence was beginning to increase in Iraq, would you call a halt to withdrawals or proceed anyway?
A. I think that it is important to understand that there are no good options in Iraq. There haven’t been for a very long time. I’ve said previously that I would not be surprised to see some spikes in violence as we begin the withdrawal. It is not going to be a perfectly smooth transition. But I think there is a way of managing this that keeps this violence contained. Now, at some point the Iraqis are going to have to respond to a change in the security situation inside Iraq, one way or another, and those in the region are going to have to respond as well.

During that 16 months, I’m engaging in very systematic, tough diplomacy, not just with the various factions in the region, but also with Iran, with Syria, the Saudis, Jordan, with the United Nationals Security Council program members. Once it’s clear that we are not intending to stay there for 10 years or 20 years, all these parties have an interest in figuring out how do we adjust in a way that stabilizes the situation. They’re all going to have a series of complex differences and we’re going to, obviously, have to monitor it carefully about what those interests are to make sure our interests are protected. But what I don’t want to do is to make our withdrawal contingent on the Iraqi government doing the right thing because that empowers them to make strategic decisions that should be made by the president of the United States.” [emphasis added]

Exactly.

And on Iran:

Q. The Bush administration has little influence on Iranian behavior in Iraq. How would you elicit cooperation from Iran and Syria that the Bush administration has failed to obtain? Would we offer assurances that we would not be engaged in a policy of regime change. What would you do?
A. I think you foreshadowed my answer. You’ve got the Bush administration expecting Crocker to make progress on the very narrow issue of helping Shia militias at the same time as you’ve got Dick Cheney giving a speech saying it is very likely that we may engage in military action in Iran and the United States Senate passing a resolution, suggesting that our force structure inside Iraq is dependent in someway on blunting Iranian influence. You can’t engage in diplomacy in isolation. There’s got to be a broader strategic context to it.

The Iranians and the Syrians are acting irresponsibly inside Iraq. They perceive that it is a way to leverage or impact or weaken us at a time when they’re worried about United States action in a broader context. I’ve already said, I would meet directly with Iranian leaders. I would meet directly with Syrian leaders. We would engage in a level of aggressive personal diplomacy in which a whole host of issues are on the table. We’re not looking at Iraq, just in isolation. Iran and Syria would start changing their behavior if they started seeing that they had some incentives to do so, but right now the only incentive that exists is our president suggesting that if you do what we tell you, we may not blow you up.

My belief about the regional powers in the Middle East is that they don’t respond well to that kind of bluster. They haven’t in the past, there’s no reason to think they will in the future. On the other hand, what we know, is that, for example, in the early days of our Afghanistan offensive, the Iranians we’re willing to cooperate when we had more open lines of dialogue and we were able to identify interests that were compatible with theirs.”

Q. So what assurances would you offer them to get them to be more cooperative – try to convince them that the U.S. would not pursue regime change?

A. There are a series of serious problems that we have. Iraq is one. Their development of nuclear weapons is another. Their support of terrorist activities – Hezbollah and Hamas are a third. On all these fronts, we’ve got severe issues with their actions. We expect them to desist from those actions, but what we are also willing to say is as a consequence of their changes in behavior, we are willing to examine their membership in the W.T.O., we are willing to look at how can we assure that they’ve got the kinds of economic relationships that can help grow their economy.

We are willing to talk about certain assurances in the context of them showing some good faith. I think it is important for us to send a signal that we are not hell bent on regime change, just for the sake of regime change, but expect changes in behavior and there are both carrots and there are sticks available to them for those changes in behavior. Where those conversations go is not yet clear, but what is absolutely clear is that the path that we are on now is not going to make our troops in Iraq safer. Iran has shown no inclination to back off of their support of Shia militias as a consequence of the threats that they’ve been receiving from the Bush and Cheney administration. If anything, it probably accelerates their interest in trying to make a situation in Iraq as uncomfortable as possible for us.”

Q. Would you be seeking a comprehensive rapprochement or if Iran insisted on pursuing their weapons programs, which is entirely possible, would you still try to carve out some sort of side arrangement that would pertain to stability? And what would you be prepared to offer?

A. I can’t anticipate what their response would be. What I can anticipate is that the act of us reaching out to them in a series [sic] way, empowered by the Oval Office, not that we’ll have Crocker over here doing something, while we do something else, but a serious, coordinated diplomatic effort will, if nothing else, change world opinion about our approach to Iran and will strengthen our ability should they choose not to stand down on the nuclear issue, for example, or to continue to engage in hostile activity even if directly inside Iraq, that it greatly strengthens our position with our allies – both in the region and around the world and strengthens our capacity to impose tougher economic sanctions and take other steps, not in isolation, but as part of a broader international effort.

I suppose it's no secret I'm something of a one-issue voter when it comes to Presidential elections. That is, I vote for the candidate I think will pursue the best foreign policy. Taxes go up and down, domestic policy reforms move in various directions with varied policy trends, but my heart and intellect focus on the foreign policy of this country (this of course includes fundamental 'human rights' issues such as detainee rights and torture policy). And so far, especially with Chuck Hagel not running, I think we are seeing the strongest foreign policy enunciated by the Obama campaign. Roue cynics might protest I'm damning with faint praise given the competition (almost the entire Republican field has become something of a primal goose-stepping brigade chanting on about 'Islamofascism', and I've not been particularly blown away by HRC, Edwards etc on the other side of the aisle), but be that as it may, I think he's the best we've got running so far.

B.D. will try to keep monitoring the ebbs and flows of the foreign policy debate as the election proceeds...to include what we might call the Bill Clinton and Dick Holbrooke factor (powerful players who can do what the current Administration has proven unable to, that is, actually negotiate with skill, determination and persistence). Still, for now, count me as an Obama fan, in the main. I know his almost patrician bearing and reticence to land knock-out blows have annoyed some, and there are other issues with him, of course, not least his relative youth. But boy, Rumsfeld and Cheney were sure experienced, and I'm hard-pressed to identify worse national security players in my lifetime. And his youth is also an advantage somehow, there is a freshness and openess to bucking some of the most tired bromides (save 'carrots and sticks', but that's for another day, and regardless he isn't the worst offender on this score!) that feels refreshingly honest.

Posted by Gregory at November 1, 2007 11:30 PM

Comments

can't agree: his response on Iran if full of misreading of facts or events as in stating Iran was willing to deal with us when Afghan campaign started which may be somewhat true but a Hawk could easily say that was because they were cowed by our successful show of force; his answer on Iraq is typical Obama - all rhetoric, idealism full of assumptions that when you unravel them lead nowhere. At moment I prefer HRC because she hedges - it leads me to believe she understands just how complex and dirty a business foreign policy is.

Posted by: Zig at November 2, 2007 10:11 AM | Permalink to this comment

As long as one maintains the attitude that it is 'unacceptable' for Iran to obtain nuclear weapons then a military confrontation is almost inevitable.

Posted by: gregdn at November 2, 2007 10:19 AM | Permalink to this comment

Sorry, but if foreign policy alone were the criteria, I'd go with Biden. Biden can truly hit the ground running on foreign policy, especially with regard to the middle east.

To me, the most impressive moment of the debate occured when Williams asked the idiotic "red line" question. All of the candidates were hedging ("its not the time to talk about attacking Iran...") because they didn't want to say there was not a "red line" --- Biden answered straight up, explaining the potential regional repercussions of an attach on Iran with special emphasis on Pakistan --- and saying flat out that we were better off with Iran having one nuke than having Pakistan's nuclear weapons fall into the hands of radical Islamists.

THere is also something canned about Obama's responses that suggests that he's reciting buzzwords ("I’m engaging in very systematic, tough diplomacy...", "We would engage in a level of aggressive personal diplomacy...") that I find worrisome. It sounds, at least to me, like someone who is afraid of projecting weakness; in all likelihood, the next President will be challenged and tested by other nations -- and we'll need a President who is less vulnerable to calls for over-agressive reactions from the US right-wing.

Finally, this line ("The Iranians and the Syrians are acting irresponsibly inside Iraq.") bothers me, because its the kind of pandering to the right wing that will raise questions among our allies, and our competitors, about the depth of the US commitment to a radically different direction in foreign policy. The reality is that Syria and Iran both have more legitimate interests in what happens in the US, and their reaction to the Bush regime's refusal to recognize the legitimacy of those interests is what the problem is. The Iranian and Syrian governments are reacting responsibly to what is an obvious and irresponsible threat to their sovereignty.

Posted by: p_lukasiak at November 2, 2007 10:49 AM | Permalink to this comment

p lukasiak,

Nice job of analysis. And I find myself agreeing with much of it. However, it gets me to an argument, a rather aggressive one, I'm having with myself. Leaving aside for the moment whether I am correct or not, I identify what I think is 'tough talking' bullshit. Simplistic stuff. And or Fluff. Akin to some of the things you point out in your comments. But then a voice inside my head says 'this is the stuff you have to feed the MSM or they will kill you. This is the stuff you have to feed the people that could not find Iran on a map if their life depended on it. Or the people, even worse, who know a bit about Iran and still know nothing. They just sound more knowledgeable at the dinner party. Or the people who are scared re Iran and want to have John Wayne like (or what passes for it in 2007) reassurance.

Look what happened to Obama for simply saying he would talk to the leaders of Syria and Iran? Look how that was spun...at a cost to him in the polls.

I don't like any of them because I think the entire process makes them all look bad. You have to play the fool long enough, you become the fool.

a. to get the money needed to run
b. to the keep the MSM off your ass (and even then, only relatively speaking
c. get the people listen to you for more than a few seconds
d. get the people to refrain from reaching a conclusion on predicated on 30 second sound bites

My fear is, you play the fool long enough you become the fool.

Posted by: jonst at November 2, 2007 11:58 AM | Permalink to this comment

Joonst....

Part of my concern isn't that Obama is adopting "centrist" rhetoric per se.... its that he is adopting it now. Whoever the GOP nominates, it will be (as Greg put it) "a primal goose-stepping brigade chanting on about 'Islamofascism'"; all that any Democratic candiate really needs to do is be on the "sane" side of the Republican candidate, and repeat the mantra "we can't afford to continue making the same mistakes Bush has been making for the last eight years."

Obama's use of right wing "frames" is not merely unnecessary at this point and counter-productive in the long run, it suggests that his foreign policy decisions will be overly influenced by right-wing framing.

Posted by: p_lukasiak at November 2, 2007 01:41 PM | Permalink to this comment

P Lukasiak,

We are misreading each other. My concern is twofold.

a. that Obama is adopting what you term "centrist" rhetoric. I assume this heralds a run from the 'center'. Which, in code, means, 'all deliberate speed forward' the Empire continues, albeit absent Bush's unique style of, in your face arrogance, combined with blindingly stupid, criminal incompetence . This will be a disaster in the 21st century IMO. It will simply be impossible, and undesirable, to seek to extend American supremacy (circa 1945-2000). The world has changed and "centrist" in American code does not want to recognize this change.

b. It is impossible to run for President in America, and be taken seriously, if you do not adopt what you call "centrist" rhetoric.

Posted by: jonst at November 3, 2007 08:55 AM | Permalink to this comment

"this line ("The Iranians and the Syrians are acting irresponsibly inside Iraq.") bothers me, because its the kind of pandering to the right wing that will raise questions among our allies, and our competitors, about the depth of the US commitment to a radically different direction in foreign policy. The reality is that Syria and Iran both have more legitimate interests in what happens in the US, and their reaction to the Bush regime's refusal to recognize the legitimacy of those interests is what the problem is. The Iranian and Syrian governments are reacting responsibly to what is an obvious and irresponsible threat to their sovereignty."

Nice, Luka.

The geopoitical modus operandi of Syria and Iran is politically-motivated murder and assassination.

And so we are at fault for not recognizing their more "legitimate " interests?

Are the Iraqis and the Lebanese also at fault for objecting to their own murder and asassination because of Iran and Syria's "legitimate interests"?

Posted by: neill at November 4, 2007 02:19 AM | Permalink to this comment

maybe a close look at the key issues that formed the basis for our founding fathers' break with England, and it's "legitimate interests", is in order.

Or are you proposing a "radically different direction" from those as well?

Posted by: neill at November 4, 2007 02:35 AM | Permalink to this comment

Neill is right to bring up the key issues involved in the US ("American") revolution -- one of the most key was habeas corpus, and the right of colonists to be free from secret police (run by the empire).

The current administration should be impeached, and habeas corpus and the right of citizens to be free from unlawful search and seizure should be restored, to get the country back into some sort of Constitutional basis.

A much stronger Congress is needed, to keep a rein on dictatorial administrations -- it is a fundamental principle on which the US is founded, that the President should not be allowed to lie, to cheat, to steal, to break the law, all without condemnation. Above all, he should not be allowed to use the pardon to excuse his own crimes and the crimes of his cronies. He should not be allowed to betray US agents to punish their relatives for speaking the truth; that should be treated as the blatant treason that it is.

The chickenhawk principle (hide and become rich from war profiteering while sending the sons of others to fight) is also anathema to the founding principles of the country, and it is really unfortunate that the Republican Party has so heavily embraced this corrupt and sllimy practice, and to try to recover some of the core American values, the Republican party must be routed violently.

Posted by: Frank Patriot at November 4, 2007 03:43 AM | Permalink to this comment

The geopoitical modus operandi of Syria and Iran is politically-motivated murder and assassination.

And so we are at fault for not recognizing their more "legitimate " interests?

Neill, when it comes to moral and appropriate conduct of foreign affairs, the US is really in no position to criticize the vast majority of nations (exceptions like the Sudan.) For instance, the US is providing safe haven for two terrorist groups (PJAK and MEK) because they are anti-Iranian. (and does anyone think that the Bush/Cheney cabal is incapable of ordering the murder of foreign officials?)

But you know what? Even if the US didn't have more blood on its hands than Syria and Iran combined, it wouldn't matter. Iran and Syria would still have legitimate interests in Iraq.

Posted by: p_lukasiak at November 4, 2007 08:34 AM | Permalink to this comment

America has a legitimate interest in seeing moderate, representative, non-aggressive countries in Iraq and Lebanon stabilize and thrive. As does the entire democratic world.

Iran and Syria have an interest in the de-stabilization of democratic regimes in the region through political intimidation using the tools of murder and assassination in order to expand their own anti-democratic influence and power in the region. With a nuke, the contest will be over.

Which has "more legitimacy"?

Luka has gone on record who he throws his support to.

Posted by: neill at November 4, 2007 04:15 PM | Permalink to this comment