The Bush administration became infamous for its belief that it could simply create its own realities by unilaterally asserting America’s military power (and the profligate use of propaganda). We all know where that got us. Well, as the saying goes, times have changed. Obama’s foreign policy team, at least initially seems more interested in recognizing the international scene as it really exists in the world and working with other countries, even long term adversaries, to achieve its goals. Here are two cases in point. First, this story out of Afghanistan where Richard Holbrooke is making an official visit:
KABUL, Afghanistan — President Obama’s top envoy to Afghanistan declared Sunday that Iran should play a vital role helping stabilize the war-torn country. It was the latest statement by Obama officials signaling a clear shift away from the Bush administration’s policy of avoiding direct engagement with Tehran. […]
“It is absolutely clear that Iran plays an important role in Afghanistan,” Mr. Holbrooke said during an interview on Sunday with Tolo TV, a private Afghan television network. “They have a legitimate role to play in this region, as do all of Afghanistan’s neighbors.”
This is only common sense. Iran’s Shi’ite leaders were never comfortable with a fundamentalist Sunni theocracy like the Taliban in control of one of its neighbors. The Taliban, and its friends in Al Qaeda, see Shi’ites as heretics, and Iran as an enemy. That is why Iran secretly helped the United States in the initial stages of the war in Afghanistan. It is why they still have an interest in an Afghanistan not dominated by Taliban extremists.
Acknowledging that Iran has a role to play in accomplishing that goal shows that Obama isn’t wedded to the misguided ideological beliefs that led the neocons in the Bush administration to dismiss out of hand a possible rapprochement with Iran in 2003 when the Iranians under moderate President Khatami were ready and willing to strike a deal. Obama’s team won’t make that same mistake, though the opportunity to work with Iran was made immensely more difficult by the election of radical leaders such as Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in 2005, an election that Bush practically ensured by his own actions and bellicose statements toward Iran.
Okay, here’s example number 2. Bush seriously damaged our relations with the Russians through his aggressive efforts to place a an anti-missile shield in Eastern Europe. That was one issue among many which helped turn Russia into an active adversary of the US when it came to dealing with Iran’s nuclear program. Obama, however, has chosen a different path. He knows he needs Russian support to avoid a potential Middle Eastern nuclear arms race. Thus he is reaching out to Russia, by offering them a carrot, rather than a stick:
(cont.)
MOSCOW (Reuters) — The United States indicated a willingness on Friday to slow plans for a missile defense shield in Eastern Europe if Russia agreed to help stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons.
Plans for the shield have contributed to a deterioration in the relationship between the United States and Russia over the past few years, but the administration of President Obama has said it wants to press the “reset button” and build better relations with Moscow.
“If we are able to work together to dissuade Iran from pursuing a nuclear weapons capability, we would be able to moderate the pace of development of missile defenses in Europe,” a senior administration official said. […]
Mr. Burns suggested that the administration was ready to reconsider plans for a missile defense system in Europe to take into account Russian concerns. The United States is “open to the possibility of cooperation, both with Russia and NATO partners, in relation to a new configuration for missile defense which would use the resources that each of us have,” the Interfax news agency quoted him as saying. Mr. Burns provided no details.
In another sign that relations may be thawing, the European Union’s foreign policy chief, Javier Solana, said that Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton would meet Russia’s foreign minister, Sergey V. Lavrov, in Geneva next month.
Russia viewed the plan to site missiles in Poland and a radar tracking station in the Czech Republic, which was devised by the Bush administration, as a threat to Russian security in its traditional backyard.
Short of an all out war with Iran (a conflict that would have a catastrophic effect on the world’s economy), there’s little we can accomplish to prevent a potential nuclear armed Iran unless we are able to obtain the help of the other major powers: the Europeans, Russia and China. It only makes sense, therefore, to work to mollify Russia on other issues which are not critically necessary to our security in order to obtain their assistance in negotiating with Iran. There was simply no cogent reason for continuing to antagonize the Russians over a defensive missile shield in Eastern Europe that was likely to be costly and ineffective.
Other than the companies with contracts to manufacture these “defensive systems,” I’ve never been able to understand why Bush was so willing to anger his “good buddy” Vladimer Putin over something that was was a marginal and dubious threat, at best. Even if Iran acquires nukes, it isn’t likely to use them to threaten Eastern Europe. Nor is a launch against Israel a realistic outcome of Iran becoming a nuclear power. Israel has more than enough highly advanced nukes and missile delivery systems of its own to deter Iran from launching a nuclear first strike.
For a number of reason, missile defense systems have long been recognized as a destabilizing element more likely to foster an arms race than provide real security, That’s why the Soviets and the US signed the Anti-ballistic Missile treaty in 1972 when that noted cold warrior Richard Nixon was our President. Missile defense means that countries waste resources building more and better nuclear armaments to overcome the system (i.e., stealth bombers, cruise missiles, MIRV missile with multiple warheads, etc.). ABM systems make little if any practical sense from a strategic standpoint. Nor have the many technical problems associated with SDI been resolved to date. So far, under conditions designed for successful interception, testing of our SDI systems has demonstrated only a 50% success rate. When we’re talking about nuclear weapons that simply isn’t good enough to justify the enormous expense involved.
Obama is showing both wisdom and realism in his decision to back off deployment of a missile defense system in Europe in order to entice Russia to provide the United States some leverage with Iran. That same intelligence and savvy can be seen in his government’s official recognition that Iran needs to be involved in any discussions regarding Afghanistan’s future. We’ve had enough of neocon fantasies that deploying, or threatening the deployment of, unlimited US military power can be the sole instrument of our foreign policy. If nothing else, Iraq and Afghanistan have shown us the inherent fallacy of such a delusional policy. The truth is that the United States has never been in a position where its military forces so dominated the globe that we could ignore diplomacy and the international institutions that previous American administrations had helped construct to deal with issues of international importance.
It’s a simple thing, perhaps, to recognize that we in America are not all powerful, and that we need allies if we are to achieve our national security goals. But after eight years of leadership which refused, out of stupidity, blindness or simple spite, to understand that basic reality, it’s nice to see a President and an administration that doesn’t view the world through the distorting lens of megalomania.
