Site Admin
Despite his campaign promise of a new approach, President Barack Obama has moved so slowly and unsteadily towards Iran that it is obvious his administration is not yet ready to unclench the fist Washington tightened three decades ago. Granted that Mr. Obama has given himself 60 days to review American policy across a wide spectrum of areas but a resolution of the Iran question is pressing and urgent. This is so not because Iran is about to start making nuclear weapons. It is essentially because the hardening of rhetoric out of Tel Aviv following the victory of the Binyamin Netanyahu-led extremist coalition in Israel is going to reduce the administration’s room for manoeuvre in the weeks and months to come. U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Mr. Obama’s special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan, Richard Holbrooke, have made the right noises about involving Iran in any regional initiative to discuss the Afghan issue. But what is needed is not the opportunistic holding out of a slender olive branch — but the offer of a robust reconfiguration of bilateral relations with Tehran across the full range of problems that have kept the two countries apart since 1979.
Grand bargains cannot be struck overnight. It is nobody’s case that a magic formula exists that Mr. Obama can pronounce to melt away 30 years of hostility and mistrust. But the manner in which the new administration seems to be going about its business with Iran does not augur well for the big picture. First, Ms Clinton has openly expressed her skepticism about the possibility of peacefully resolving the Iranian nuclear issue. Secondly, the appointment of Dennis Ross as the administration’s point man for Iran is not a good sign, given his association with muscular neo-con policies towards Tehran in the past. Finally, Mr. Obama’s proposal to President Dimitry Medvedev whereby Washington’s provocative missile defence programme would be held in abeyance so long as Moscow helped tighten the screws on Tehran suggests the U.S. is looking to arm itself with an even bigger stick before it makes its first opening towards Iran. If there is one lesson Washington should have learned these past few years, it is that coercion and the threat of sanctions have not brought the Iranian nuclear issue closer to peaceful resolution. Breaking with the Bush policy means treating Iran with respect. Tehran has signalled its readiness to play ball by slowing down the pace of its uranium enrichment programme. Tightening sanctions to force it to accept preconditions like stopping uranium enrichment will be counter-productive. It will make an eventual conflict more rather than less likely.
Despite his campaign promise of a new approach, President Barack Obama has moved so slowly and unsteadily towards Iran that it is obvious his administration is not yet ready to unclench the fist Washington tightened three decades ago. Granted that Mr. Obama has given himself 60 days to review American policy across a wide spectrum of areas but a resolution of the Iran question is pressing and urgent. This is so not because Iran is about to start making nuclear weapons. It is essentially because the hardening of rhetoric out of Tel Aviv following the victory of the Binyamin Netanyahu-led extremist coalition in Israel is going to reduce the administration’s room for manoeuvre in the weeks and months to come. U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Mr. Obama’s special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan, Richard Holbrooke, have made the right noises about involving Iran in any regional initiative to discuss the Afghan issue. But what is needed is not the opportunistic holding out of a slender olive branch — but the offer of a robust reconfiguration of bilateral relations with Tehran across the full range of problems that have kept the two countries apart since 1979.
Grand bargains cannot be struck overnight. It is nobody’s case that a magic formula exists that Mr. Obama can pronounce to melt away 30 years of hostility and mistrust. But the manner in which the new administration seems to be going about its business with Iran does not augur well for the big picture. First, Ms Clinton has openly expressed her skepticism about the possibility of peacefully resolving the Iranian nuclear issue. Secondly, the appointment of Dennis Ross as the administration’s point man for Iran is not a good sign, given his association with muscular neo-con policies towards Tehran in the past. Finally, Mr. Obama’s proposal to President Dimitry Medvedev whereby Washington’s provocative missile defence programme would be held in abeyance so long as Moscow helped tighten the screws on Tehran suggests the U.S. is looking to arm itself with an even bigger stick before it makes its first opening towards Iran. If there is one lesson Washington should have learned these past few years, it is that coercion and the threat of sanctions have not brought the Iranian nuclear issue closer to peaceful resolution. Breaking with the Bush policy means treating Iran with respect. Tehran has signalled its readiness to play ball by slowing down the pace of its uranium enrichment programme. Tightening sanctions to force it to accept preconditions like stopping uranium enrichment will be counter-productive. It will make an eventual conflict more rather than less likely.
