The Correct Approach To The Islamic Republic of Iran
Billy Kristol hated it. Which is just about all the reason I needed to love it. Obama’s New Year’s message to the IRI has been eight years overdue. For starters, he referred to them by the name they prefer to be referred by. He demonstrated a respect that must be in place in order to achieve results in the international community; the “axis of evil” is gone. This and the interview with Al-Arabiya are sending clear messages to the moderates within the Islamic community, both in Iran and in the Arab world that the United States will respect Islamic interests when approaching the bargaining table. This is very empowering to the people we want to be in power in the Islamic world.
I am very aware that the Ayatollah is going to try and stall as much as he can. As a matter of fact, we may never change his course of behavior, though certainly he will have to work much harder to convince his very pro-American country that isolating his people from the rest of the world is a good thing. If we are never successful changing his course and he does manage to build a fully functional atomic weapon, we will at least certainly make the international community much more sympathetic to the use of force should we be forced to use it. This builds on my thoughts that I presented in my post entitled, “Why Global Approval Ratings Matter.”
Eight years of viewing foreign heads of state as either good or evil, a paradigm that has never worked, is finally over. Leaders need to view nation-states in terms of our and their interests and begin bargaining there. This includes Russia, a nation-state that has a unique position to influence the behavior of Iran. And we, by nature of our ill-founded missile defense system are in a unique position to influence Russia’s behavior. The calculus is undeniable. Russia and Iran operate in a purely realpolitik paradigm. If the benefit is there for them, eventually they will act accordingly.
Excellent post. I wouldn’t assume that characterizing the heads of other states as good or evil is over, sweetie. That is the first refuge of an administration that doesn’t otherwise know what it’s doing overseas, so I think you will see it again. I just wish more of the general public understood that and called their own leaders accountable for that kind of lazy feint.
I think the good and evil thing will reemerge in 2012. A lot of the potential Republicans are likely perpetrators of this obnoxious moralizing dichotomy.
Personally, I hope the Republican nominee is Sarah Palin. She cracks me up.
Her and Jindal, please.
Jindal is the Indian Mr. Rogers. “Americans can do aaaaanything.” *goofy smile*
I think it would be an interesting race.
And by interesting, I mean an almost guaranteed second term.
Let me just say that I really hope Obama does well economically because I do not want the Kristol/Krauthammer Republicans making more foreign policy. A slumping economy might just be the only way in for more Republicans.
I agree, Chris. What if the economy improves and his foreign policy continues to be successful, but he enacts several liberal social policies (universal health care, gay rights, etc.)? Do you think the Republicans might have an in then?
Basically, if people are getting back to work and investors are investing again in four years, I can hardly see how it would be possible for him to lose.
To begin, it seems like a significant number of people want government intervention in healthcare anyway. According to Pew, around 60% of the country favors a government guarantee of health insurance, which, if I understand right, is essentially Obama’s plan. He is closer to France than he is to Great Britain.
As for gay rights, most moderates do not get fired up about this issue. While many have a preference one way or the other, a candidate’s stance on gay rights will not tend to sway moderates actual voting behavior.
Economics is by far the most important consideration in elections. Carter lost because of the economy. Bush 41 lost because of the economy. And McCain, who was probably going to lose anyway, got waxed because of the economy. Obama will have the liberal vote no matter what. He will not have the conservative vote no matter what. If the economy is good in four years (or at least significantly better) he will have the moderate vote.
1. The Bush era preemptive action was a horrible idea as well as any reactionary policy it seems we are bound to adopt. I think PBO has the right ideas, they are just poorly executed.
2. A slumping economy is the only way Republicans will have a chance of gaining the majority again as a better economy is the only way PBO will be re-elected. That’s a big “IF.” It’s a teeter-totter ride and I don’t really care to see a winner from either camp.
3. I hope this failed agenda provides some avenue for a solid economic future, but until PBO starts applying his thoughtful ideas into perfect action, we have little to hang our hats on in respect to an investing public.
I cannot say that I’m shocked, nor do I think McCain would have been a better option, but our president has got to become someone the American public can believe in again.