For Diplomacy to work it takes two sides, an important concept that too many forget. President Obama reached out to the Iranian people and leadership yesterday in a message calling for ‘new beginnings’. Unfortunately, the message brought back some of the same old, same old from the Iranian leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, who called this proposed change ‘insulting’ and unsubstantial. First here’s the meat of Obama’s speech:

So in this season of new beginnings I would like to speak clearly to Iran’s leaders. We have serious differences that have grown over time. My administration is now committed to diplomacy that addresses the full range of issues before us, and to pursuing constructive ties among the United States, Iran and the international community. This process will not be advanced by threats. We seek instead engagement that is honest and grounded in mutual respect.

And Khamenei’s reaction:

”He (Obama) insulted the Islamic Republic of Iran from the first day. If you are right that change has come, where is that change? What is the sign of that change? Make it clear for us what has changed.”

So it appears as Obama’s throwing softballs, Iran’s Islamic Republic is coming back with hardball.  This just exemplifies how much has to go right for US-Iranian relations to improve in any strategic way.  One could argue that in fact a real rapprochement may be impossible as the nature of the two regimes are in complete contrast to the other.  Continuing that domestic politics thread is the argument that the Islamic Republic’s livelihood depends on having an American and Israeli enemy; Little and Great Satan.

Even with the unwelcome reply by the Ayatollah this move could pay dividends in the long term, of course by that time the Tehran could have nukes.  This move by Obama, though providing no concrete carrots or sticks, does put his and the US’s head out there for an opening and though I’m skeptical, it could lead to an easier opening at a later time.  Of course former President Bush made several speeches directly targeted at the Iranian people, including this one at the UN, to little avail.

So some think this move by Obama as strong, others as weak: What do you think?  Is this a solid first step in smoothing relations or just a superficial attempt which will fail to alter the longstanding feud?

Tags: Bush, diplomacy, Iranian nuclear program, Obama

*Adam Stern is the author of this piece, not Pat Frost

According to the New York Times, “President Obama sent a secret letter to Russia’s president last month suggesting that he would back off deploying a new missile defense system in Eastern Europe if Moscow would help stop Iran from developing long-range weapons, American officials said Monday. The letter to President Dmitri A. Medvedev said the United States would not need to proceed with the interceptor system, which has been vehemently opposed by Russia since it was proposed by the Bush administration, if Iran halted any efforts to build nuclear warheads and ballistic missiles.”

States have no friends, only interests. With a clever leak, it seems likely that the Obama Administration clearly buys into this oft-held realist notion, especially where U.S. foreign policy towards Russia is concerned. It seems as if just yesterday Vladimir Putin and Moscow were up in arms over the Pentagon’s plans to install missile defense systems in Poland and the Czech Republic. Russian leadership has remained adamant since that an American missile shield not be constructed on their watch. Their argument, and a reasonable one at that, is that Russian national security would be unduly compromised if NATO missiles were located within striking distance of their borders. In the early 1960’s, JFK had a similar reaction when nuclear components reached Cuban shores courtesy of our comrade Nikita Khrushchev.

Fast forward to the present. The U.S. is engaged in multiple conflicts abroad, a rise of terror in Pakistan and holding together a tenuous peace in Gaza. It’s clear that the Obama Administration has bigger foreign policy issues to contend with than Cold War era spat. It seems logical and in America’s best interests not only to diffuse unnecessary tension with Moscow, but, best case scenario here, enlist Russian support in curbing Iran’s nuclear aspirations.

It’s too early to tell if Vice-President Biden is serious when he expressed an interest in “hitting the reset button” on U.S. foreign policy towards Russia. The U.S. still harbors serious concerns over the amount of power wielded by former President (and current PM) Vladimir Putin. In addition, Russia’s handling of relations with its neighbors and former members of the USSR often leave much to be desired.

If states have no friends though, it might also be said that states have no enemies. At least not on a permanent basis. Currently, it’s in the American interest to take symbolic steps to bring Russia on board. President Obama’s letter and Vice-President Biden’s rhetoric might not amount to much in the long run but for time being these symbolic gestures indicate that the Administration recognizes there are far more pressing challenges on the horizon. Challenges like Iran, which will be far easier to confront when allies lend support.

Tags: diplomacy, Medvedev, Obama, Putin

Anyone following the North Korean diplomatic situation over the last ten years or so can’t help but throw their hands up in the air. Perhaps the consistent theme in all of the agreements and compromises that have been reached over the years is that North Korea always wins. At no point does this seem more true than today.

Two months after convincing the U.S. to remove North Korea from the State Department’s list of terror sponsoring countries in exchange for written verification of its nuclear disarmament process, North Korea has reneged. In what seems to be an almost comical series of rebukes on U.S. led diplomacy, the North Korean regime has refused to provide written verification that it is in fact, actually disarming its nuclear capabilities. Anyone counting on a nuclear free Korean peninsula, I wouldn’t hold my breath.

Even worse is that the North Koreans have already begun reaping the ‘rewards’ of the fuel oil agreement reached under the six party talks with China, S. Korea, Japan and Russia. Supposedly the remainder is going to be halted upon receiving this verification, but this is basically just kicking the can farther down the road until the Obama Administration takes office in January.

What do we have to look forward to? Obama has denounced the hardline stance of the early Bush Administration and the six-party talks and instead called for bilateral negotiations, saying “more diplomatic engagement is necessary.” Perhaps Obama was referring to the good ole days of bilateral negotiations in the 1990’s under President Clinton. Leading up to the 1994 Agreed Framework, North Korea threatened to pull out of the non-proliferation treaty and develop a nuclear weapons program. This was met by negotiations that allowed the North Koreans to give up their nuclear ambitions in exchange for the equivalent energy in fuel oil and two 1,000 MW light water reactors to be primarily subsidized by the U.S., South Korea and Japan.  Unsurprisingly, the fuel oil began to flow but the attempts by North Korea to enrich uranium, disallow IAEA inspectors free access, and bait its neighbors continued.

"I will make you an offer you can't refuse. I'll even throw in a nuke. Let's Deal!"

The type of diplomacy used by the Bush Administration under Christoper Hill and Condi Rice has consistently failed to move the ball forward and it is unlikely more talking by an Obama Administration will do any better. Kim Jong-Il has consistently gotten the upper hand in his dealings with the US/West because he realizes that no matter how many North Koreans he starves or nuclear weapons he chases, the limits of diplomacy will save him.

We need a new strategy for N. Korea, one that can actually move/force them to discontinue their nuclear weapons program.  

Tags: Bush, China, diplomacy, North Korea, Nukes, Obama, Six-party talks, United States

First off, thank you to all the veterans who have fought to keep us safe and free and continue to do so everyday.

Seeing the pictures of newly-elected President Obama with current President Bush yesterday, I couldn’t help but notice how much older W looks today than he did eight years ago. The presidency of the United States is truly an exhausting position and it will be interesting to look back on these photos when Obama ends his one/two term(s).

Trying to stabilize and bring good governance to Afghanistan will be one of the main issues which will gray Obama’s hair and stretch his wrinkles. Much has been written lately regarding his Afghan policy and how it will compare to the Bush Administration’s. I have discussed US/NATO Afghan policy and the dire situation on the ground there extensively on my Foreign Policy Association ‘Afghanistan and Central Asia‘ blog and have already found the media’s take on Obama’s perceived likely policy choices something to watch.

Widely discussed is Obama’s greater regional and multilateral approach to conflict. Obama no doubt should utilize as many useful and willing national, regional, and multilateral partners as he can, but for the most part most major political organizations in the world are already present in Afghanistan, including; NATO, OSCE, UN, Shanghai Cooperation Organization, even the CIS and CSTO have provided some assistance, and many other smaller entities such as law enforcement and border security groupings.

What Obama could bring is a renewed sense of mission, especially from the Europeans, and a rapprochement with an Iranian government that fears a radical Sunni-led government in Afghanistan as much as the US. But these both have caveats, as the Europeans may be wild over Obama, but this may not translate to them sending more troops with greater strategic requirements, as the Germans already seem to be preparing to dodge a future President Obama request. Regarding Iran, it will be difficult to split US policy in Afghanistan with Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons. A growth of ties regarding Afghanistan stability may heal some wounds and provide some strategic assistance, but it may also make it more difficult to push/pull the Iranians from the nuclear brink. In addition, an Iran as an ally, though crucial to Iraq’s stability, is less a powerful transformational force in Afghanistan.  What can Iran really do to stop the Taliban hiding out in Pakistan’s tribal regions?

Obama and Bush seem to hold similar views on sending in more troops and the fact that a new strategy must be tried against the Taliban. The Bush administration is actually due to complete a comprehensive report analyzing the Afghan situation and it will reportedly layout policy recommendations this month. It will be interesting to see how this report’s conclusions fit into or affect Obama’s own Afghan plans. Such is the plight of democratic transitions.

Obama and Bush also seem to differ in another key, yet underreported aspect; what is an acceptable Afghan government for the US? In other words, is it the United States concrete goal to leave a liberal democracy or just a stable, anti-Al Qaeda, anti-Islamic radical, pro-US government in Afghanistan? Bush seems determined on the former, while Obama may actually lean toward the latter. This is obviously a crucial element which will affect many policy choices and strategies and will garner my attention in the months ahead.

The answer to the last question will have ramifications on today’s final topic; Negotiating with the Taliban and other insurgents. The US military seems willing, Petraeus, McKiernan, to try ‘reconciliation’, but the State Department and the Bush administration have been more cautious;

Assistant Secretary of State Richard A. Boucher said. “They keep hijacking buses, killing people and chopping their heads off. These are not people who have shown any serious desire to negotiate.”

I don’t have much evidence, but listening to Obama for awhile now, one would think he will at least look deeply into engagement with the enemy. With all these issues, time will tell.

(Photo Source: New York Times)

Tags: Afghanistan, Bush, diplomacy, insurgency, Obama, Taliban