Same Message On Iran in America

Barak Obama may be coming out of his shell regarding foreign policy. About time, he has been obviously absent from the discussion, relying solely on talking points. Because Barak Obama is an excellent communicator, he has the ability to do one thing the other candidates cannot, explain the difficulties of foreign policy in a way that Americans understand. Contrasted with the last 8 years, it will be enlightenment to many.

Foreign Policy is the most important responsibility for the President of the United States. Barak Obama doesn't have a lot of experience in this field, which should be a VP consideration. His inexperience was highlighted today in his statement following the overreaction to yesterday's comment, and it drives home a point we have covered on this blog that America has few options with Iran right now.

"It is time to turn the page on eight years of policies that have strengthened Iran and failed to secure America or our ally Israel," Obama said in his statement. "

Obama read Friedman, a great read. Then he said this...

Instead of tough talk and no action, we need to do what (Presidents) Kennedy, Nixon and Reagan did and use all elements of American power—including tough, principled, and direct diplomacy—to pressure countries like Iran and Syria."

Observe Barak Obama is saying the same thing Bush is, he just sounds smarter on TV saying it. Instead of tough talk and no action by Bush we will get tough, principled, direct talk and... what?

Action by Obama? Foreign policy is a difficult discussion in this election, a central theme to be sure, but at the end of the day both Bush and Obama basically say the same thing. There are very few differences, Republicans can threaten to use the military and score points with their base while Democrats can't, otherwise there are few differences. We all know the US has been talking to Iran, so what is Obama going to do, talk to Iran? What will he say that isn't being said?

What terms or offerings does our nation have under Obama to negotiate with in these talks that we don't have under Bush? I believe the answer is nothing, unless we are selling out our existing partners in the region (a scary thought). I don't believe either Obama or McCain intends to sell our our regional partners to 'appease' Iran as Bush claims, thus the party differences in the election may be as fundamental as should action be taken, and if so which party will take action.

Which leads us back to square one. Since we are assured tough talk will be replaced with tough, principled, and direct talk, what action will replace no action? Well, if we go off what Obama is saying, we could legitimately assume that Obama intends to follow in the footsteps of Kennedy, Nixon, and Reagan and use military power to change the conditions.

What did Kennedy do? He changed the conditions by sending the Navy to blockade Cuba to insure the message to the Soviets was clear. What did Nixon do? He changed the conditions by supplying Israel's assault on Egypt to insure the message was clear there as well. What did Reagan do? He sent the Navy to the Gulf, and when that stopped being a deterrent, he called for Operation Preying Mantis. Only Reagan used direct force, but it was limited, fully supported regionally, and by the time Operation Preying Mantis began the Europeans had minesweepers all over the Gulf. In other words, Reagan started a small war to prevent a big one for the sole purpose of changing the conditions. It worked that time, but it requires understanding the art of escalation and deescalation with military power. What does Obama have in mind by "action?" No one but him can answer that.

Either way Obama's comments reveals the challenges that all Americans need to wake up to, the options in Middle East Policy dealing with Iran are so limited both parties basically have the same message. Obama's replaces diplomacy with talk, uses more adjectives, but at the end of the day it he is essentially saying he will do the same thing Bush is doing. Bush has made plenty of direct threats to Iran, and everything Bush said in Israel yesterday was principled, so the adjectives is just politics. Trying to find distinction between Obama and Bush on Iran requires a lot of nuanced political spin, because at the end of the day, the options are so limited for our national policy that the same few phrases ARE used to describe both party positions, it only sounds better when Obama says them.

Bush can read the papers, Obama makes it clear he doesn't have an alternative. If it comes down to taking military action, Bush will do it so Obama or McCain doesn't have to. Which is why we are starting to believe the talking phase is almost over, and the action on Iran is drawing near.