One way to look at the first year and a quarter of the Obama administration is as a time when Obama was tested by foreign leaders who pushed
and pushed to determine the limits of this administration. In most cases -- from
North Korea to Iran, from Pakistan to China, from Moscow to Jerusalem -- the
result was they found an administration unwilling to push back hard. Oh, there
was plenty of rhetoric from the administration in each instance -- or at least
in most instances. But hard actions were few and far between.
The consensus among foreign leaders and domestic critics of
the president was that he was long on talk and short on action. Whether that
was due to lack of domestic political will, dwindling resources, an ideological
bent or sheer inexperience was open to debate although all these theories have
been advanced.
But I wonder if another way to look at this period was as
one in which Obama and his team was taking the measure of the world. Knowing
who would push and how was key to them moving from a reactive foreign policy,
managing what they inherited, to one in which they could devise their own
strategies. Whether this was a plan or not, it seems likely that it will be a
consequence of the events of the past year and an Obama policy process that is
nothing if not carefully analytical of the world.
When National Security Advisor Jim Jones meets tomorrow in
an outreach session with most of his predecessors in the post, it is quite
likely that the discussion they have will turn on the lessons learned from the
past year. And the resulting drift may be surprising to some who have seen the
Obama administration's last year as one that was fairly "soft" in the face of
challenges.
Take the current contretemps with Israel. It is now clear to
many around Obama that the Netanyahu administration -- which not only allowed
Vice President Biden to be embarrassed on his recent visit with the unexpected
announcement of additional construction in a disputed area of Jerusalem but has
progressively made matters worse with tough talks on settlements ever since -- is
not going to make it easy for the U.S. to help revitalize the peace process. The
Israelis are negotiating with cranes and concrete in a way that makes other
sorts of constructive talks less likely. So where does that lead?
To some who will be influential in advising the White House
and shaping the view of the U.S. policy community, it may well lead to a stance
where the U.S. plays a more aggressive role in establishing the terms of a
settlement and then seeking to win support for those terms from other
influential third parties, such as Arab nations in the region. If the
Palestinians can't get their act together and the Israelis won't, you may well
see the United States try to play an unprecedented role as an engine of consensus
building on the Arab side and then returning in the position to be much
tougher. Frankly, this is the strategy that the Netanyahu team is forcing on
the United States, but it is one which could prove more productive than other failed
past efforts.
In the same vein, on Iran, the administration has tested
many avenues. Based on a widely (although not universally) held view within the
U.S. government that military action against the Iranians to stop their nuclear
program was an undesirable option, there has been an effort to craft meaningful
sanctions. This effort, while earnest and possibly producing a near term sting
for some in Iran, is almost certainly likely to be a failure. Which then leaves
us with containment. While some argue this will work with any rational actors
in the government, the problem lies with what happens if weapons were to fall
in the hands of actors like Hezbollah, Iran's state-sponsored terrorist group
or were it to trigger an arms race in the region that increased the likelihood
of arms falling into the hands of a non-state actor? Containment can't stop
this threat. Multilateral talks aimed at a more effective international arms
control regime are a worthy idea, but unless there is broad consensus about
effective enforcement mechanisms with teeth -- and there won't be -- this too
will be useless. So where might this bring the Obama team?
Back to the idea of taking some kind of military action to
slow the development of the Iranian nuclear program. Not a war but some
meaningful strikes -- ideally ones that suggest to the Iran people the danger
in which the current regime is putting them. (While walking the fine line of
not strengthening the regime through such action.)
Certainly, this is not a best case option but it is also
clear that putting it back on the table in a serious way increases the
likelihood of effectiveness of virtually all other options, many of which are
likely to be pursued in parallel at the same time. This approach is likely to
be best presented in "belts and suspenders" form saying the United States seriously
reserves the right to use force to protect its interests and at the same time
the United States will work with regional allies like the UAE, Saudi Arabia, Iraq and
Afghanistan to create the ability to swiftly take action against any Iranian
regime that is even poised to use nuclear weapons... or which acts through some
non-state partner.
Would regime change be the best possible option in Iran as
Richard Haass at the Council on Foreign Relations has compellingly argued? Yes.
But we're notoriously bad at making regime change happen and often produce
unintended consequences or blowback from our efforts in that regard so it alone
cannot constitute the totality of a strategy. The military option seriously
must remain on the table and while it is unclear where the administration is
headed on this, it is clear that both Secretaries Clinton and Gates remain more
open to the option than others.
The story is likely to be the same worldwide whether in
dealing with the Chinese on economic issues or in taking tough stances with our
"allies" in Baghdad, Kabul or Islamabad. There is evidence of such a shift in
each of these areas. It's not exactly the flower petal strewn world of engagement
and "can't we all get along" that some saw from Obama but it is, it evolves in
this direction, a sense that as in his dealings with the U.S. Congress and his
Republican opposition, Barack Obama is first and foremost a pragmatic president
who is capable of learning and adapting on the job.
Read More
(6)
HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE