The Folly Of Tough Talk
Digg 
Stumble Upon 
Newsvine 
Slashdot 
Mixx 
Diigo 
Delicious 
Reddit 
Facebook
So Obama has come out with a lengthier, “tougher” statement on Iran, some of which is redundant because he has said it before and most of which is unnecessary. John is appropriately critical of the move towards what some are calling the “Biden-Clinton line.” Unfortunately, I am being reminded more and more of Obama’s response to the war in Georgia, which was initially quite sane and responsible and devolved in a matter of days to more or less the same reckless foolishness that McCain had shown from the beginning. Obama never said that we are all Georgians, but he hewed to the same line on policy as those who did, and eventually he came around to endorsing the official version of the war in which “Russian aggression” was all that mattered.
Then as now, I get the sinking feeling that all of this new “more forceful rhetoric” is nothing more than delayed CYA (which is all the good this statement will do anyone), and it reconfirms my old claim that Obama tends to yield to that side that can do more political damage to him. Even though the hawkish voices who have been berating Obama are relatively few and do not represent most people in the political establishment or in the country, they have been able to pull Obama in their direction in just a little over a week because they are more influential, better-connected, more vocal, more on message and more aggressive. While the numbers favor Obama on how he handled things in the last week, I seem to have been simply wrong in assessing the ability of the critics to pressure Obama. There is a unified chorus damning Obama for weakness and dithering. There is not much in the way of organized resistance to this chorus, and the administration itself is divided (as administrations often are). For the most part, even most of his reliable supporters qualify and hedge their defenses of his recent actions (cue Roger Cohen’s complaints about “reading prepared lines”), and while his response to date enjoys wide support I have to wonder how deep it is.
One of the potential problems in defending Obama’s earlier restraint in terms of what would be counterproductive for the protesters is that it can create the expectation that Obama must abandon restraint in the event that the protests are not succeeding. After all, to frame things in terms of what is counterproductive for the protesters seems to accept that the protesters’ success ought to be the primary goal of U.S. policy, which means that the administration would have to change its approach if the protests are not succeeding. This overlooks that the protests have never been likely to succeed, and it misses that Washington cannot let its Iran policy and all of the other interests that hinge on that be dictated by internal Iranian affairs. Despite the reality that Obama was initially giving the protests their best chance to succeed, the more time that passes with the regime still in place the louder calls for being “more forceful” will become. If these calls are heeded, it will ironically make the protests even less likely to succeed for the same reasons why “more forceful rhetoric” or “more aggressive” support would have been a mistake over the last few days. Nonetheless, the pressure to show “more aggressive” support will continue to grow and will cease only in the unlikely event that the protesters prevail.
Obama has moved in the direction of the hawks at least partly because the more hawkish people have allies in the Vice President and the Secretary of State, who have been pressing the President for “tougher” statements almost from the beginning of the protests. It is also a reminder that, as with the war in Georgia, Biden’s influence is a malign one, and it is a reminder that Obama may take longer to get to the mistaken position on foreign policy his opponents have taken, but he will still get there because he does not fundamentally disagree with them about projecting power to defend “values.” Evidently, national security ideology will out.
It seems that the elements in the administration urging restraint are losing ground, which eerily mirrors the weird lack of confidence many advocates of engagement have in their own proposals on Iran policy. Having spent years resisting arguments that Iran’s government is irrational, will never negotiate, cannot be trusted and will not be compelled to change course by additional punitive measures, many advocates of engagement seem to be willing to throw in the towel at a time when engagement is not only more likely to be successful but also even more imperative. Robert Farley has now coined a phrase that deserves the Newspeak award of the year: “non-interventionist coercive strategy.” Coercion is a kind of intervention.
As I said before, Nixon went to China after the nightmare of the Cultural Revolution. For that matter, detente advanced under Brezhnev, who had just smashed the 1968 uprisings in central and eastern Europe; Sadat made peace with Israel after the Arabs had almost overrun the country in 1973. There was a time when we understood that these sorts of governments needed to believe that they were secure before they could take the risk of negotiating with old foes on major national security questions. What is so strange is that the psychology of strength and weakness that hawks apply to U.S. foreign policy (usually wrongly) all the time would be quite appropriate to apply to the internal politics of an authoritarian state, but they don’t do this because they are too busy citing the authoritarians’ abuses to justify confrontational policies against them. If they stopped for a moment and applied their constant fear of “showing weakness” to an analysis of the internal politics of the authoritarian regimes in question, they would see that the presence of a viable, vibrant opposition is probably the surest guarantee that the regime will make no deals with Washington. Authoritarians are most likely to make deals on security and foreign policy issues once they feel secure and in place. The ones who cannot afford to make a deal are those who are vulnerable and fear appearing weak, which invites internal challenges.
P.S. By the way, it won’t fly to say that the administration’s language has been consistent between last week and the start of this week. Expressing “concerns” about something and saying that one is “appalled and outraged” by the same thing are two very different sorts of statements as a matter of conveying displeasure diplomatically. Everyone can see perfectly well that the rhetoric has escalated, and whether or not Obama has escalated his rhetoric because of the critics who have been demanding “more forceful rhetoric” or for some other reason, he has escalated it. More to the point, his critics will take this language as vindication that their early, misguided demands for “tougher” language were right and his caution was not. Whether or not he was affected by the drumbeat on the Post op-ed pages, he has started moving in the direction that those writers wanted. One could even try to defend changing rhetoric as circumstances change, but to deny that there has been any change is silly and, I’m sorry to say, something we have seen several times from Obama over the last two years.
Filed under: foreign policy, politics
I’m not sure how Obama’s statement changes anything at all. Clearly the Iranian government’s behavior has been “appalling and outrageous.” It’s not Obama’s rhetoric that is different, it’s Iran’s actions. But even so, I see nothing in his response that indicates any kind of active intentions on Obama’s part, other than continuing to condemn the violent actions the government has taken. It seems to be a continuation of his policy of condemning violence and advocating peaceful internal solutions. So no, I don’t see any real change on his part, any indication that he intends to “get tough” on the Iranian government, or back some kind of silly intervention policy, sanctions, etc. In fact, he re-affirmed that it was Iran’s internal affair, that it was up to Iranians to figure out what to do, and that the US would not interfere. So please, tell me where the substantive change is here? I don’t hear him saying “we are all Iranians now”, or using any such rhetoric that could be interpreted as implying that we must act to somehow support the Iranian protesters. He’s simply stating an emotional fact, that he (and the US government) finds the Iranian government’s violent response to peaceful protests appalling and outrageous. Isn’t it, after all? And yet, also affirming that this is for Iranians to work out. Whether they care what the world thinks is another matter, but it’s at least fine to declare that we think it’s pretty shoddy.
I agree with conradg: while I just don’t see a substantive change in Obama’s rhetoric on this. While earlier he expressed his support for rights of free speech and free assembly, he’s now decrying the Iranian administrations brutal crackdown of those rights. It would be disingenuous for the US President to not abhor those things. There’s an awful lot of room between what Obama said today and what his critics have been calling for, and I think you can’t really only compare them insofar as any statement on the Iranian situation lays on the same line that other, more hawkish or dovish statements do.
All this posting about Iran is certainly something, but it lacks that je ne sais quoi that is the US bombing funeral goers in an unmanned strike, who are there at a funeral for people who died by being bombed in an unmanned strike the week earlier. Irony? Perhaps it is the indifferent malice that will probably come to symbolize the Long War, or whatever it’s being called now.
I don’t know. All I know is that in a sea (desert?) of confusing and complicated conflicts around the world, and especially in the Middle East, where it’s impossible to talk about and agree upon “the good guys,” we have here a conflict in Iran that is simple and has many of the hallmarks of a good story or blockbuster Summer movie. Plucky political dissidents face off with a tyrannical government, backed by nameless and faceless supporters and police. Outside help seems more than just a prayer away. Will they make it? All the archetypes of a myopic struggle, played out day-by-day via CNN. Perhaps Twitterbursts are the new “shakycamera.”
Anyways, what I’m trying to get across is that there’s some other news going on in the world that, I think, requires your insight, Dr. Larison.
I’m with everyone above. There seems to be little to no change in his rhetoric, other than a fair amount of snark and irritation at the press conference today. He is not suggesting a UN resolution, a new sanctions regime, or any other sort of actions that he’s actively taken in response to North Korea. It is odd, after talking for weeks since the Cairo speech about the difference between actions and words that a fairly small change in language, that mostly seems to stem from what everyone agrees is a pretty brutal series of images and videos, indicates some sort of mea culpa.
And the argument that major foreign policy questions can be better decided with authoritarian regimes is true enough, but its not immediately apparent that Iran is interested in doing so, and even less so now. This is not an argument for some sort of neo-con intervention, but rather an argument for letting moss grow; despite the hilarious protestations of hard-liners of an America that is “isolated”, there is no immediate reason to negotiate a weak deal with a regime we’re not even sure will survive in its current form, and which needs international acceptance (and more importantly foreign direct investment) far more than anyone else.
To me, being a non-interventionist, or willing to deal with hostile countries, does not implicitly mean we have to take just any deal we can get just to get it done. It over-values the significance of international actors that are, frankly, almost irrelevant. Theres no reason to believe that, given the current turmoil, that waiting it out may yield a better deal.
This week, the House of Representatives is moving ahead on historic legislation that will transform the way we produce and use energy in America.
This legislation will spark a clean energy transformation that will reduce our dependence on foreign oil and confront the carbon pollution that threatens our planet.
This energy bill will create a set of incentives that will spur the development of new sources of energy, including wind, solar, and geothermal power. It will also spur new energy savings, like efficient windows and other materials that reduce heating costs in the winter and cooling costs in the summer.
These incentives will finally make clean energy the profitable kind of energy. And that will lead to the development of new technologies that lead to new industries that could create millions of new jobs in America, jobs that can’t be shipped overseas.
He’s still clueless about the energy problem.
Daniel, I don’t see any change. Georgia was during the election and McCain could actually hurt him them.
McCain is perfectly cognizant that endorsing the Sea of Green and Musavi would powerfully de-legitimize the resistance and allow that evil hirgabi Khameni to paint the Sea of Green as part of Operation Ajax Redux. John McCain is an evil old man (just like Khameni) that cares nothing for the consequences to the Iranian people, if only he can somehow make Obama look bad.
I realize most people don’t have my knowledge of Islam, but I tell you Obama has been sending a coded message to the Sea of Green, a message of support and encouragement that is inaudible to McCain and his posse of Obama hatahs.
Justice is the beating heart of al-Islam. The Prophet said a nation can exist without god, but a nation cannot exist without justice. Salihat, just duty, is part of the 5 pillars and the 8 practices of Islam. So today Obama said justice six times. He did not say democracy even once…because sadly democracy has come to mean something else to the people of MENA. It means western meddling, attempts at democratization by force of arms, the war on al-Islam, and triumphalist colonialism. In his last speech before this Obama said justice three times.
The Shi’ia have a strong tradition of non-violent religious protest. It is how they survived the Umayydd Caliphate after the martyrdom of Imam Ali. It is how the Shi’ia overthrew the tyrant Shah. Even now non-violent marches and the chanting of Allahu Akbar and Death to the Dictator is exactly what happened 30 years ago. Obama today, and also the last time he spoke on this, referenced MLK. Obama himself is a visible and powerful symbol of triumph over injustice, and the success of a non-violent religious civil rights movement in America. The Sea of Green are muslim, and MLK and his followers were Christians, but the parallel is strong, and that is why Obama references it each time he speaks.
This message is unintelligible to McCain and the neocons and the base of the right. For years they have heard only a cartoon version of al-Islam, the jihaadi/fundamentalist version promoted by VDH, Robert Spencer, Steyn, Michelle Malkin, Pipes, Spengler/Goldman. The right is trying hard to frame the conflict as secularized young people revolting against “the mullahs”.
But their narrative is false for anyone with eyes to see.
It is especially terrible for us muslims (I am a Sufi convert) to see the martyr Neda Soltani crudely used as a club to beat Obama with by that evil old man, John McCain, when the right will not even acknowledge that she was a devout muslimah, because it does not fit their selfish and evil narrative.
Khameni and Nejad killed Neda along with many others.
And McCain and his ignorant neocon supporters care nothing for the plight of the Iranian people except as an opportunity to strike at Obama.
The Iranian people remember who sang bomb bomb bomb Iran. It was played many times on state tv.
And muslims do not forget. We have long memories.
Dhikr, remembrance, is one of the five pillars.
But I believe the Sea of Green will overcome.
Just like MLK and his arc of justice.
If not tomorrow, then another day…one more pillar is sabr, patience.
Ya Haqq!
I just saw Lindsey Graham on NewsHour, he was happy to welcome Obama to his side of the argument, for what that’s worth, but Lindsey might just be counting coup and quickly changing the subject. Now that the counter has moved as far as he’s concerened, he is calling for UN resolutions and more sanctions. (Man, he is a strange Republican).
Kerry was the Democrat debating with him, and if Mousavi is truly the John Kerry of Iran, the protest movement must be doomed. Kerry was happy to attribute the Iranian uprising and Lebanon elections to the Cairo speech. Kerry’s defense of Obama’s position was tactical: “We don’t want to give the Mullahs more ammunition.” Neither really questions, as a general proposition, that we should be siding with one side or the other.
Very frustrating.
A very evil old man.
sylvie_oshima, are you the same person that comments on Protein Wisdom and on sites about motorcycle gangs? Inquiring minds want to know.
sylvie_oshima, that was a pretty good comment. I like the idea that Obama is making specific Islamic references….I hadn’t considered that he knows some of the theological lingo but, now that I do consider it, I think that you are probably correct. A little Koranic lore and Urdu poetry can take a feller a far piece these days.
@jamie
It seems like John Boehner also declared victory over the Pres. Fortunately, I didn’t hear Obama say much beyond “ain’t it awful”. I certainly don’t see any UN action in the cards unless the whole thing tips into Civil War.
. . . engagement is not only more likely to be successful . . .
This throwaway line deserves a post of its own. Why should we think engagement is more likely to be successful now than in the past?
As one of the people who supports engagement without much confidence, I don’t see anything strange about that position. Engagement is unlikely to work, but it’s worth a try, and failure will leave us no worse off.
[...] Larison: [...]
shukran, jetan.
;)
sabr is needed….the 1979 revolution took about a year. Look for an event, a very large demonstration on the 40th day after Neda’s martyrdom. Possibly Rafsanjani will have consolidated his support by then, possibly not.
I remain astonished at the ugliness and bigotry and hypocracy of the right….the sheer exploitiveness oand opportunism. The consumate evil of McCain and his following will not even allow her her true name in death…Neda means “divine calling” not “voice”, and she was studying islamic philosophy and religion, not “philosophy”.
Is there any difference at all between evil old man John McCain trying to exploit Neda’s death for political gain and evil old man Khameni trying to destroy the meaning of Neda’s death by turning her into a MEK terrorist?
I see no difference at all.
If I may quote from the Holy Qu’ran…like many here quote the Bible.
The injustice of Neda’s death will be avenged.
They called him liar
and hamstrung her for the slaughter
Then their lord rumbled down upon them
for their crime and wiped them away
with no fear of what came after
Khameni’s tribe is the tribe of Thamud now.
And so is John McCain’s.
The consumate evil of McCain and his following will not even allow her her true name in death…Neda means “divine calling” not “voice” . . .
If this is true, I don’t see how you can blame the error on ‘McCain and his following’. I think I’ve heard it on both CNN and MSNBC, and I have not seen or heard it disputed until now.
May I ask you David Tomlin, have you ever heard or read Neda described as anything other than a “philosophy” student?
She was an islamic philosophy student.
That means she studied islamic religion.
Perhaps that evil old man knows Neda’s true name, but he would not use it if he did. It does not fit their narrative, of Obama eating icecream while westernized student protestors are shot.
/spit
The evil old man McCain cares nothing for the Iranian people or for Neda except as a club to beat Obama with. He sang bomb bomb bomb about killing Iranians and that tape was played endlessly on statetv to validate regime paranoia and keeping the boot on the people’s throat.
Inshallah his tribe [republicans] will suffer the fate of the Thamud and Khameni and Mojtaba and their tribe of hirgabi as well.
May I ask you David Tomlin, have you ever heard or read Neda described as anything other than a “philosophy” student?
Not that I recall. I haven’t been following the coverage so closely as to put any weight on what I haven’t heard.
Well I am disgusted by evil old man McCain and his kabuki theater on whether Obama is harsh enough. Who cares?
People are dying in Iran, a LOT of people and all rightwing sites are doing is posting adnauseum streams of how bad Obama is screwing up.
He is not screwing up.
He is doing more than them in speaking to the Sea of Green in words that resonate, and by respecting their belief in al-Islam that is their sustenance and courage in this fight.
What we CAN do for the Sea of Green is show the world their voices and images, and respect their struggle for justice and freedom.
I missed this the first time….
“But we must also bear witness to the courage and the dignity of the Iranian people, and to a remarkable opening within Iranian society. And we deplore the violence against innocent civilians anywhere that it takes place.
This is not about the United States or the West; this is about The Iranian people can speak for themselves. That’s precisely what’s happened in the last few days. In 2009, no iron fist is strong enough to shut off the world from bearing witness to peaceful protests of justice. Despite the Iranian government’s efforts to expel journalists and isolate itself, powerful images and poignant words have made their way to us through cellphones and computers, and so we’ve watched what the Iranian people are doing.
This is what we’ve witnessed. We’ve seen the timeless dignity of tens of thousands of Iranians marching in silence. We’ve seen people of all ages risk everything to insist that their votes are counted and that their voices are heard. Above all, we’ve seen courageous women stand up to the brutality and threats, and we’ve experienced the searing image of a woman bleeding to death on the streets. While this loss is raw and extraordinarily painful, we also know this: Those who stand up for justice are always on the right side of history.”
The word shahid means witness, and also martyr. I think the concept of witness is also deliberate in Obama’s speech.
The word shahid means witness, and also martyr.
The English word ‘martyr’ derives from a Greek word for ‘witness’.