Obama's Fear Of The "Provocative"

The Weekly Standard: Iran Must Be Dealt With Firmly, Yet The Candidate Has Been Dovish

(Weekly Standard)  This column was written by Matthew Continetti.

---

Asked how the United States ought to respond to last week's Iranian missile tests, Barack Obama told CNN that it was important "we avoid provocation." Just as last year, Obama criticized a Senate bill designating the Iranian Revolutionary Guards a terrorist organization because it was too "provocative." This has us wondering: Is the problem with Iran that the United States seems provocative?

Iran revealed to the world in late 2002 that it had been conducting a secret uranium enrichment program for 15 years. This was a violation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, to which Iran is a signatory. Uranium enrichment is the first step on the road to building an atomic bomb. Most everyone seems to agree that Iranian nukes would destabilize the Middle East. What to do?

Obama might not admit it, but for about five years now the Bush administration has followed a course of action rather similar to his preferred policy. Bush has pursued multilateral diplomacy through international institutions (the U.N., the IAEA) and through an ad hoc coalition called the P5+1 (China, France, Germany, Russia, the U.K., and the United States) in order to induce Iran to suspend its enrichment activities. Obama's policy would be a tad more unilateral, because he would prefer to have direct negotiations with the Iranians and thus remove our allies from the equation altogether.

But does any serious person believe that an offer of direct negotiations without preconditions would change the basic situation? Most reasonable advocates of such talks advocate them just so the United States can say it has "gone the extra mile" in trying to persuade Iran to give up its nuclear program.

Iran has been immune to peaceful persuasion. Since 2006, the Security Council has adopted five resolutions calling on Iran to suspend its enrichment activities and comply fully with the IAEA. And because those resolutions were summarily ignored, the Security Council has also enacted four rounds of punitive sanctions directed at the Iranian regime. No change.

Meanwhile, the P5+1 has made two direct offers to the Iranians, one in June 2006 and the other in June 2008, to lift sanctions and implement security guarantees if Iran "suspends" -- not ends -- uranium enrichment. As the P5+1 foreign ministers put it in their latest appeal to their Iranian counterpart, "We are ready to work with Iran in order to find a way to address Iran's needs and the international community's concerns, and reiterate that once the confidence of the international community in the exclusively peaceful nature of your nuclear programme is restored, it will be treated in the same manner as that of any Non-Nuclear Weapon State party to the Non-Proliferation Treaty." This isn't exactly what you would call provocative language.

You might call it, instead, a good-faith attempt to resolve an international crisis. But the attempt is failing miserably. Iran has gone right along with its enrichment activities. With each passing day it draws closer to developing the technology and material necessary to construct a nuclear weapon. The latest IAEA report on Iran, released on May 26, stated the obvious: The regime is in continued defiance of the U.N. Security Council, it continues to develop nuclear technology, and it denies international monitors its full cooperation.

The Iranian regime is increasingly confident and bellicose. The president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, openly pines for a world without America and Israel. In 2007, the regime arrested American citizens, holding them in captivity for months, and held 15 British sailors and marines hostage for almost two weeks. Iran is funding, training, and in some cases providing direct assistance to radical Shiite "special groups" killing American soldiers in Iraq. In January of this year, five Iranian ships ran at U.S. naval vessels in the Strait of Hormuz, breaking off moments before the Americans used deadly force. Then last week's missile tests and fiery rhetoric.

And the frontrunner for the presidency of the United States fears his own country may be too "provocative."

Iran has suffered no major consequences from the Bush administration -- or anyone else -- for its reckless and belligerent actions. Quite the contrary: The more irresponsible Iran's behavior has been, the more entreaties for diplomatic rapprochement it has received. This is dangerous. History shows that conflict is more likely when aggressors feel emboldened, when provocations go unanswered. Only when America reestablishes a credible threat of the use of force might Iran alter its behavior. When it comes to Iran, then, maybe it really is time for a change we can believe in. Maybe it's time the Bush administration -- in response to the failure of its current policy -- changed from scared-to-provoke doves to scary-to-the-enemy hawks.

[patriot12436]

hologram5
I agree with you. I travel extensively and this is what i am told by foreign nationals. We need to stop trying to be the world police. Economically we can no longer afford to try and we can no longer afford foreign aid. Time for every nation to stand on its own without depending on us for anything monetarily.

[blackyowe]

Obama is a Milktoast!

[lucasnico]

no such poll.......whatever you''re smoking, put it down.

[imnho]

It would not be wise to start a third war with Iran. It maybe easy for the weekly slander to avocate such a position since they don''t plan on doing any of the fighting or dying. The truth of the matter is that we are too over extended in a current conflicts to be starting a new one. We need to wrap up Iraq as quickly as possible. We need to have the troops in
case AQL takes over Pakistan. If we cannot deploy troops to counter that then are only option will be a nuclear one. Being limited to a nuclear option in Pakistan is basically courting disater. Of course invading Iraq bodered on sheer lunacy.

[hologram5]

We need to take care of our own and lead by example before we worry about others. We are too busy being international busy-bodies.

[ausus-2009]

ainttaken,

Iran with nuclear weapons becomes more than a two-bit dictatorship.

The US has a long history of taking on Muslim aggressors in the Middle East. In one of its first overseas forays, it tackled and later defeated the Barbary pirates. The President who initiated these actions was Thomas Jefferson.

[bluestardad]

WEEKLY STANDARD

TAKE YOUR DUEL PASSPORT HOLDING ISRAELIS AND AIPAC MEMBERS WHO HAVE NEVER SERVED IN THE MILITARY AND GO FIGHT IRAN ON YOUR OWN!

AMERICA IS TIRED OF DOING YOUR DIRTY WORK!

IN FACT THE MIDDLE EAST IS NO THREAT TO AMERICA IN ANY WAY ALSO THEY HOLD NOTHING WE REALLY NEED!

SO TAKE THE 65 YEARS YOU HAVE DUPED BRIBED AND BLACKMAILED POLITICIANS INTO CARRYING YOUR WATER AND START DOING IT YOURSELF!

WAR CRIMES TRIALS ARE COMING FOR BUSH AND THE NEOCONS WHO GOT AMERICA INTO IRAQ AN THEN WE ARE COMING FOR YOU!

AMERICA STAND UP OR SHUT UP!

YOU PUSHED AMERICA INTO THE IRAQ WAR

[ausus-2009]

Many of the contributors don''t seem to be worried about nuclear enrichment, threats to Israel, missile tests or sea piracy by Iran. What about an actual nuclear test? Is it still time to say, "pretty please, that wasn''t very nice Mr Iranian President".

[ubrew12]

The Weakly: "History shows that conflict is more likely when aggressors feel emboldened, when provocations go unanswered."

I took a look at his list of ''aggressions'' Iran has supposedly committed and its obviously inflated. It reminded me of the ''aggression'' Saddam Hussein had supposedly displayed before our invasion. This guy is a propagandist, pure and simple. Go ahead, Weakly, cry ''wolf'' one more time. I don''t think the U.S. is entirely bankrupt yet.

[markangeloo]

Last time I looked the USA was alot further than

1250 miles from Iraq. Why should I be scared of

these missiles which are highly inacurate ?

[paris1969]

72% of Americans want McCain as Commander in Chief ... this pretty much says it all ... bye, bye, Bama!

[noloyalisti]

Oh yeah, this is just like the Nazis and D-day. A third world country with WMDs. Oh my god, be afraid, be very afraid! Oh yeah, and kill everyone who is not a white male Christian or subservient to Them.

How dare we, an imperialistic war mongering country run by religious extremists with nuclear weapons, tell anyone anything. How about we lead by example and quit murdering.

[dremn1]

Good thing you were not around when D-DAY hit or you wouldn''t have this blog to type your non-sense.


Yeah Weakly, let''''s start another un-necessary war for oil to send out soldiers to die for Corporate America. After all, it is working out so well for us in the other two losing occupations we are involved in.

I guess you can''''t teach an old dog (or old morons) new tricks. Help these right wing wackos get a brain!

[afmca]

No, at this current time Iran does not need to be handled firmly. They have had Bush''s firmness for the last 8 years and it has forced them to build a nuclear arsenal just in case the Christian Crusader decides to take on another Arab country for their oil. The bottom line is a firm, but honest diplomatic approach would work as none of the Iranian leaders really want to risk their oil riches for Iraq, Lebenon, or the Palestinians. It''s all a show .. but every time Iran and Bush Inc. does the war dance the price of oil goes up and both Iran and Exxon get richer. That is the real plan.

[noloyalisti]

Yeah Weakly, let''s start another un-necessary war for oil to send out soldiers to die for Corporate America. After all, it is working out so well for us in the other two losing occupations we are involved in.

I guess you can''t teach an old dog (or old morons) new tricks. Help these right wing wackos get a brain!

[taddles3]

"Iran revealed to the world in late 2002 that it had been conducting a secret uranium enrichment program for 15 years. This was a violation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, to which Iran is a signatory."


This is false. It is NOT a violation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation treaty, of which Iran is a signatory, to develop uranium enrichment for commercial use. There is NO documentation that supports the charge that Iran is developing anything but commercial uranium enrichment. If there was it would be international news...it isn''t.

The author of this piece is obviously ill-informed on the realities of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation treaty.