Obama Manages to Be All Things for Everyone on Iran


Domestic American politics may require tough talk to threaten the Iranians, although it’s not clear exactly what is being demanded of Iran by way of a final outcome. And if Tehran remains defiant, the US president could find that his own rhetoric has narrowed his options, notes Tony Karon.


Washington’s foreign affairs punditocracy couldn’t agree last week on just what message President Barack Obama intended to communicate when he invited a select group of columnists to a special White House briefing.


The Washington Post’s David Ignatius saw – or thought he saw – signs of a pivot back to engagement with Iran in the president’s remarks at the on-the-record briefing. Mr Obama said the sanctions imposed by the UN, the US and its European Union allies were more comprehensive than Washington had expected, and were having a real impact in Tehran, prompting Iranian officials to reach out discreetly for talks.

“It is very important to put before the Iranians a clear set of steps that we would consider sufficient to show that they are not pursuing nuclear weapons,” Ignatius quoted Mr Obama as saying. “They should know what they can say ‘yes’ to.” Of course, just what the administration could consider sufficient is far from clear – the as-yet unchanged US position is that no enrichment of uranium on Iranian soil is acceptable.

But Ignatius, perhaps wishfully, saw the event as dialing back of war rhetoric in Washington, and the resumption of diplomatic overtures. He saw a shift to diplomacy based on Iran’s recognition that sanctions will hurt, and that its enrichment programme has suffered technical setbacks. He did concede, however, that the briefing for the select group of journalists showed “The White House choosing an unusual way to send its signals to Tehran.”

Well, yes, but Tehran may not have been the intended audience.


Others at the White House briefing were less sanguine about renewed diplomacy, and saw the exercise more as an attempt by Mr Obama to demonstrate the achievements of his sanctions policy. Even though he was unsure of whether the sanctions would “change Iran’s calculus”, ABC’s Christiane Amanpour said the administration was stressing that sanctions had ben more painful than Iran had anticipated.

The Economist’s Peter David said Mr Obama “unveiled no new policy” and stressed the “options on the table”. Pressed to elaborate, Amanpour quoted Mr Obama: “I’m not going to issue any public red lines. Iran should understand when I say we have all options on the table. I’m not going to announce any particular red lines at a meeting like this.”


A “meeting like this”, in other words, may not have been directed at the Iranians at all. US administrations have learnt that the best way to enlist key members in the media to sell their policies is to seduce them with privileged access, distinguishing them from the quotidian scrum at the daily White House press briefing.

By that measure, it seems to have worked a treat: the long-time neoconservative thinker Robert Kagan criticised dovish commentators he said were clutching at straws over Mr Obama’s comments about further talks. Administration officials at the meeting “made perfectly clear – in a half-dozen artful formulations – that, no, there was no new diplomatic initiative in the offing,” Kagan said. He emphasised, as did White House officials speaking to reporters on Friday, that the president had low expectations of any progress in new talks with Iran. And, he added, “I left feeling sympathy for this and every administration. The ‘news’ out of this briefing was that the administration wanted everyone to know how tough it was being on Iran.” Kagan was clearly impressed.

Jeffrey Goldberg of the Atlantic Monthly, a columnist influential in pro-Israel circles in the US, also saw the emphasis on coercive measures rather than any new engagement. “I got the sense that this session represented something of a victory lap for his national security team, which had worked assiduously to implement stronger sanctions against Iran than sceptics had thought possible,” Goldberg wrote. And he was impressed by Mr Obama’s lack of naivete over the prospects that sanctions may fail to change Iran’s calculations.

While Ignatius might like to imagine that he was among the first to see a signal to Iran of a renewed willingness to negotiate, the meeting may have had a more prosaic political function. Mr Obama’s Democratic Party is facing a difficult congressional election in November. While foreign policy is unlikely to be a major focus for voters, Republicans have been pummelling the administration for being soft on Iran. And key Democrats have warned that the perception that Mr Obama is insufficiently responsive to Israel’s concerns is hurting their ability to raise funds.

Grandstanding House Republicans last week introduced a bill that would endorse Israel’s right to bomb Iran if it does not halt its nuclear programme – the sort of resolution that nobody on Capitol Hill wants to be seen resisting. In that climate, convincing respected Iran hawks that his administration is holding Iran’s feet to the fire may make sound political sense.


There’s a problem, however. The US military, and reportedly even Mr Obama himself, are well aware that bombing Iran in order to stop it from gaining nuclear weapons is a potentially catastrophic and not even particularly effective option. But domestic politics may require tough talk to threaten the Iranians, although it’s not clear exactly what is being demanded of Iran by way of a final outcome. And if Tehran remains defiant, the president could find that his own rhetoric has narrowed his options.

http://www.middle-east-online.com/english/opinion/?id=40482