The president is trapped between an angry Congress and a stubborn China
Mar 11th 2010
HE HAS missed his own deadlines, he may not have enough votes and even if the measure passes it is likely to be a watered-down affair. That is the position in which Barack Obama finds himself not only on health reform but also in his efforts to prevent Iran from acquiring a bomb.
As with health care, Mr Obama entered office with a bold idea. He would break with his predecessor and extend the hand of friendship to Iran. If Iran failed to grasp it or to come clean about its nuclear activities, the world would know whom to blame for the continuing enmity between the two countries. That would enable the UN Security Council to impose a fourth lot of economic sanctions—“crippling” ones this time—that would force the ayatollahs to comply with their nuclear obligations.
Mr Obama’s offer to engage got off to a good start. In Geneva last October the Iranians seemed to promise to ship most of their nuclear stockpile to Russia for a while, allaying fears that they could soon enrich enough uranium for a bomb. Later they reneged—but in doing so they upset Russia, making it more receptive to the American-led push for new sanctions.
China, however, remains to be convinced. Two American officials—Jeff Bader from the White House and Jim Steinberg from the State Department—have just visited Beijing to press for a new resolution. America is in a hurry. It wants action in the Security Council before Lebanon (where Iranian influence is strong) takes up the chairmanship in May and a distracting Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) review conference starts in New York.
A senior administration official claims that Mr Bader and Mr Steinberg had “good discussions” in Beijing: like America, China has an interest in a stable Gulf and does not want a nuclear-armed Iran. But diplomats from other Western countries report the Chinese as saying they oppose new sanctions so long as there is “even a 1% chance” of further dialogue (an illusion the Iranians are masters at conveying). And although China has an aversion to using its veto alone in the Security Council, its growing self-confidence as a great power suggests that it might do so now. Even if China relents, it will probably make sure that any new sanctions approved by the UN are far from crippling.
At the same time as he prods the stubborn mule that is China, however, Mr Obama is also struggling to curb the angry stallion that is Congress. Anti-Iranian sentiment on Capitol Hill was already inflamed by the Holocaust-denying rhetoric of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad but has reached fever-pitch since the regime’s clampdown since June on the pro-democracy green movement.
Democrats and Republicans alike are champing to tighten America’s own sanctions on Iran. The White House has been pleading for time—first to give engagement a chance and lately to avoid complicating efforts in the Security Council. Now the Hill’s patience has run out.
Although the White House denies that it is out of sync with Congress, Kenneth Katzman of the Congressional Research Service said this week that Congress was in a “ferment” to find “every which way” to squeeze the Iranians. The pressure is bipartisan: sponsors of sanctions resolutions include John McCain, a Republican senator, and Howard Berman, a House Democrat. One pair of bills would punish all firms, including foreign ones, that sell petrol or refining equipment to Iran (Iran is short of refining capacity). Other proposals range from targeting individuals involved in human-rights abuses to making regime change official policy.
Blunt instruments like this could shatter Mr Obama’s careful efforts to corral foreign allies and show Iranians that America is worried about their regime’s nuclear delinquencies, not hostile to Iran itself. But Mr Obama faces a tricky calculation. Some State Department advisers tell him that too much pressure will provoke Iran to retaliate in Afghanistan (which Mr Ahmadinejad visited this week), with troubling consequences for the war on which the fate of his presidency may ultimately hang. But even friendly pollsters such as Stanley Greenberg and James Carville are picking up signs that the president is becoming vulnerable on national-security issues. Sarah Palin has helpfully urged him to “toughen up” and declare war on Iran.
On health reform, the Democrats may yet summon the votes they need in Congress to snatch victory out of defeat. The same could happen in the Security Council with Iran. But what then? Having promised new sanctions if engagement failed, imposing them has become both a political necessity for Mr Obama and one of the few ways short of war the world can apply pressure to Iran. Even so, few policymakers in Washington expect sanctions alone to end the regime’s nuclear ambitions. Some of America’s Iran-watchers are therefore advocating a longer game.
Karim Sadjadpour of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace has been dusting down the article George Kennan wrote from Moscow under the pseudonym X in 1947, calling for “patient but firm and vigilant containment” of the Soviet Union. One unintended consequence of Mr Obama’s extended hand was to aid the rise in Iran of a resilient democracy movement. Better now to encourage the opposition and wait for the regime to implode, says Mr Sadjadpour (he doesn’t expect to have to wait 40 years), than to concentrate only on the centrifuges spinning in Natanz. Mr Obama might think so, too—if only he could live with the idea of Iran going nuclear on his watch
Mar 11th 2010
HE HAS missed his own deadlines, he may not have enough votes and even if the measure passes it is likely to be a watered-down affair. That is the position in which Barack Obama finds himself not only on health reform but also in his efforts to prevent Iran from acquiring a bomb.
As with health care, Mr Obama entered office with a bold idea. He would break with his predecessor and extend the hand of friendship to Iran. If Iran failed to grasp it or to come clean about its nuclear activities, the world would know whom to blame for the continuing enmity between the two countries. That would enable the UN Security Council to impose a fourth lot of economic sanctions—“crippling” ones this time—that would force the ayatollahs to comply with their nuclear obligations.
Mr Obama’s offer to engage got off to a good start. In Geneva last October the Iranians seemed to promise to ship most of their nuclear stockpile to Russia for a while, allaying fears that they could soon enrich enough uranium for a bomb. Later they reneged—but in doing so they upset Russia, making it more receptive to the American-led push for new sanctions.
China, however, remains to be convinced. Two American officials—Jeff Bader from the White House and Jim Steinberg from the State Department—have just visited Beijing to press for a new resolution. America is in a hurry. It wants action in the Security Council before Lebanon (where Iranian influence is strong) takes up the chairmanship in May and a distracting Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) review conference starts in New York.
A senior administration official claims that Mr Bader and Mr Steinberg had “good discussions” in Beijing: like America, China has an interest in a stable Gulf and does not want a nuclear-armed Iran. But diplomats from other Western countries report the Chinese as saying they oppose new sanctions so long as there is “even a 1% chance” of further dialogue (an illusion the Iranians are masters at conveying). And although China has an aversion to using its veto alone in the Security Council, its growing self-confidence as a great power suggests that it might do so now. Even if China relents, it will probably make sure that any new sanctions approved by the UN are far from crippling.
At the same time as he prods the stubborn mule that is China, however, Mr Obama is also struggling to curb the angry stallion that is Congress. Anti-Iranian sentiment on Capitol Hill was already inflamed by the Holocaust-denying rhetoric of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad but has reached fever-pitch since the regime’s clampdown since June on the pro-democracy green movement.
Democrats and Republicans alike are champing to tighten America’s own sanctions on Iran. The White House has been pleading for time—first to give engagement a chance and lately to avoid complicating efforts in the Security Council. Now the Hill’s patience has run out.
Although the White House denies that it is out of sync with Congress, Kenneth Katzman of the Congressional Research Service said this week that Congress was in a “ferment” to find “every which way” to squeeze the Iranians. The pressure is bipartisan: sponsors of sanctions resolutions include John McCain, a Republican senator, and Howard Berman, a House Democrat. One pair of bills would punish all firms, including foreign ones, that sell petrol or refining equipment to Iran (Iran is short of refining capacity). Other proposals range from targeting individuals involved in human-rights abuses to making regime change official policy.
Blunt instruments like this could shatter Mr Obama’s careful efforts to corral foreign allies and show Iranians that America is worried about their regime’s nuclear delinquencies, not hostile to Iran itself. But Mr Obama faces a tricky calculation. Some State Department advisers tell him that too much pressure will provoke Iran to retaliate in Afghanistan (which Mr Ahmadinejad visited this week), with troubling consequences for the war on which the fate of his presidency may ultimately hang. But even friendly pollsters such as Stanley Greenberg and James Carville are picking up signs that the president is becoming vulnerable on national-security issues. Sarah Palin has helpfully urged him to “toughen up” and declare war on Iran.
On health reform, the Democrats may yet summon the votes they need in Congress to snatch victory out of defeat. The same could happen in the Security Council with Iran. But what then? Having promised new sanctions if engagement failed, imposing them has become both a political necessity for Mr Obama and one of the few ways short of war the world can apply pressure to Iran. Even so, few policymakers in Washington expect sanctions alone to end the regime’s nuclear ambitions. Some of America’s Iran-watchers are therefore advocating a longer game.
Karim Sadjadpour of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace has been dusting down the article George Kennan wrote from Moscow under the pseudonym X in 1947, calling for “patient but firm and vigilant containment” of the Soviet Union. One unintended consequence of Mr Obama’s extended hand was to aid the rise in Iran of a resilient democracy movement. Better now to encourage the opposition and wait for the regime to implode, says Mr Sadjadpour (he doesn’t expect to have to wait 40 years), than to concentrate only on the centrifuges spinning in Natanz. Mr Obama might think so, too—if only he could live with the idea of Iran going nuclear on his watch
ليست هناك تعليقات:
إرسال تعليق