OBAMA’S IRAN POLICY COLLAPSES TO THE ACCOMPANIMENT OF MOCKERY AROUND THE GLOBE
By Joel J. Sprayregen
American Thinker
mas_iran_policy_collapses_t.html
March 9 2010
Barack Obama, in his first press conference after his election, called
Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons "unacceptable." He repetitively
offered Iran "engagement." He set a deadline of year-end 2009 for
Iranian compliance, now unilaterally extended another three months.
Iran contemptuously and repetitively responded that it had no intention
of abandoning its nuclear program. Obama’s Iran policy is collapsing
to the accompaniment of open mockery around the globe.
Obama assured us that his "engagement" would make it easier to enlist
other countries to stop Iran. The result is the opposite: Virtually
every country Obama approached has rebuffed him. Without a credible
threat of force, it is now clear that "engagement" has no chance
to stop Iran’s military nuclear program. It is indisputable that
Iranian possession of nuclear weapons would destabilize the Mideast
and gravely threaten world peace.
Let’s leave China and Russia to the end on the grounds that it may be
more difficult to persuade major powers. In recent weeks, the Obama
administration launched a curious charm offensive with the announced
purpose of weaning Syria — Tehran’s closest ally — from Iran. Syria
has been ruled by the Alawites — a despised Muslim minority considered
heretical — since the French colonialists elevated them to military
leadership. The country has since 1970 been the Mafia-like fiefdom
of the Assad family, which murdered more than 15,000 of its own
rebellious citizens in Hama in 1982.
Syria has been on the State Department’s list of terrorist countries
since 1979. Syria routinely dispatched terrorists into Iraq to kill
American soldiers. Syria dominates Lebanon, from which it extorts
wealth through violent means, including arming the Iranian proxy
terrorist forces of Hezb’allah. The U.N. authorized an interminable
tribunal to investigate charges that Syria murdered Rafik Hariri,
Lebanon’s prime minister, in 2005. The U.S. withdrew its ambassador
from Damascus in protest of the Hariri assassination. I have personal
insight into this tragic killing and farcical investigation because
Saad Hariri, Rafik’s son, desperately asked me in Riyadh in 1998 to
pass on his fears that the Syrians would kill his father to preserve
their hegemony in Lebanon. What a difference twelve years makes! Saad
Hariri is now Lebanon’s prime minister. Seeing the weakness of U.S.
policy, he now embraces Hezbollah and the Syrian forces who killed
his father.
Appeasing Syria Provokes Mockery from Assad and Ahmadinejad
The current Obama approach to Syria includes dispatching six high-level
State Department delegations, announcing that our ambassador will
return to Damascus, rescinding banned shipment of aircraft parts, and
deals worth several billion dollars. Secretary of State Clinton purred
over this "slight opening" with Syria and expressed hope that it would
lead Syria to curb support for Iran as well as Hezb’allah and Hamas.
Syrian President Bashir Assad, responding instantly following
departure of the U. S. Under-Secretary of State from Damascus, invited
the Iranian president to his capital. The Assad-Ahmadinjead press
conference can be described most tactfully as a roast of the Obama
administration. The two presidents announced removal of travel visas,
meaning that Iranian terrorists are free to travel to the borders of
Europe and Israel. Assad, not ordinarily known for humor, said of U.S.
hopes of separating Syria from Iran that "[w]e must have understood
Clinton wrong because of bad translation." The Iranian president
reliably played straight man: "The Americans are forced to leave the
region, leaving their reputation, image, and power behind in order to
escape. The U.S. has no influence to stop expansion of Iran-Syria,
Syria-Turkey, and Iran-Turkey ties. God willing, Iraq too will join
this circle."
The failure of Obama’s appeasement was understood in the region.
Editor Michael Young asked in his Beirut Star,
"Just what does Barack Obama stand for?" His answer: "The Assad
regime’s abuse of its own population, Syrian involvement in myriad
bombings in Iraq, support for Iraqi Baathists, and its permissiveness
toward Al-Qaeda in Iraq have not made the Administration reconsider its
Syrian opening. Violence works, and Obama has not proven otherwise. The
Obama Administration these days provokes little confidence in its
allies, and even less fear in its adversaries" [emphasis added].
Rebuffed by Lebanon, Brazil and Turkey
Syria is not a member of the U.N. Security Council. But Lebanon,
Brazil, and Turkey are among the nine non-permanent members. Since
Obama has unwisely delegated to the Security Council power to defend
American interests, their votes are important. It is clear from what
is written above that Lebanon, until recently a U.S. ally with its
large but no longer dominant Christian minority, will now vote as
directed by Syria and Iran.
Mrs. Clinton made a pitiful visit to Brasilia last week. It is not
far-fetched to presume that Brazilian leadership contrasted the empty
words of Obama with the deeds of their neighbor, President Chávez
of Venezuela, who is assiduously expanding the western hemisphere
bridgehead of his Iranian ally. A weekly flight from Tehran to Caracas
carries unregistered passengers who can infiltrate our porous southern
borders. The president of Brazil told Mrs. Clinton that his country
would not "bow" to demands for sanctions against Iran. He suggested
that it would be "prudent" to instead pursue negotiations. As in the
Middle East, Obama "provokes little confidence" among our traditional
good-neighbor allies.
Even more ruinous is the state of Obama’s relations with Turkey, a
country he has fulsomely praised as a Muslim democracy, notwithstanding
the apparent drive of its present government to create an Islamist
police state. Last week, Obama did nothing to prevent a symbolic
23-to-22 vote in a House of Representatives committee for a resolution
labeling as "genocide" Turkish massacres of Armenians during World War
I. I have lobbied on this issue and understand its intractability. Most
historians call the events genocide, but a minority say it occurred
during the fog of a war of reciprocal massacres in which Armenians
aided invading Russians. The resolution is driven by understandable
pressure of Armenian-Americans on California congressmen. But analysts
of U.S. foreign policy understand that passing the resolution would so
alienate Turkish voters that vital U.S. interests would be undermined
— e.g., supply of U.S.
forces in Iraq, our air base at Incirlik, and the role of Turkish
military (NATO’s second-largest) in Afghanistan and elsewhere.
Ankara Decries America’s "Lack of Strategic Vision"
The Turks did not distinguish themselves by the bullying tone
of their comments on the vote, and Obama may feel hamstrung by
campaign promises he made — which he cannot conceivably honor —
to recognize the "genocide." Turkey has resisted sanctions against
Iran because Ahmadinejad was correct when he boasted in Beirut of
blossoming Turkish-Iranian ties. But if Obama thought he might get
any help from Turkey, whose government he courted by visiting its
capital on his first overseas trip, his inaction on the genocide
resolution provoked this blast from Ankara:
This decision, which could adversely affect our co-operation on a
wide common agenda with the U.S., also regrettably attests to a lack
of strategic vision [emphasis supplied].
Obama’s difficulties in obtaining cooperation on sanctions from smaller
countries underscore his better-known problems with veto-wielding
Russia and China, whose interests are diverse from ours.
These countries, in different ways, see themselves as rivals of
the U.S. and have extensive commercial relations with Iran, by whom
they do not feel threatened. Russia at times has indicated support
for mild sanctions — rather than the "biting" sanctions aimed at
energy import/export (Iran is already rationing refined petroleum),
insurance, and banking — understood by many congressmen as the only
method short of war to influence Iran.
There were reports at week’s end that the administration would retreat
to seeking diminished sanctions that exempt China and other permanent
members of the Security Council from compliance. This would confirm the
complete collapse of "engagement." One might call it "diss-engagement,"
warranting the mockery of Obama’s policies echoing from Damascus,
Beirut, Brasilia, and even Ankara.
Joel Sprayregen is associated with think-tanks dealing with issues
of security and human rights in Washington, Jerusalem, Istanbul,
and Ankara.