In Democratic Individuality, I argued that at a high level of abstraction, modern conservatives, liberals and radicals believe that the best economic, social and political institutions foster each person’s individuality. Their differences are largely empirical or social theoretical. All clash with modern authoritarians. I will take up practical issues such as torture and the lineage of the neocons and link them to larger issues in how we conceive a decent regime, locally and internationally.
Some thoughts on Obama’s direction away from war and the neocon alliance with ISIL
Neocon foreign policy, far into the “establishment” including Democratic “humanitarian interventionists” (neo-neo cons) in the Obama administration, has played a murderous and, for the US, self-destructive role. It is based on militarism (over a trillion dollars a year spent on the military and “intelligence,” 1280 military bases abroad kept secret from the American people by a “bipartisan consensus” in Congress and the corporate press, and a war complex (a military-industrial-congressional-media-academic-think tank-foreign military clients and the like complex); it spawns unending and losing wars. Militarism breeds enmity toward the United States through its endless slaughters. There is, here, a dialectical interplay of capitalist interests in predatory expansion and ideas. But Straussian/neo-con ideas – see here for chapter 13 ” Segregation, Aggression and Executive Power: Leo Strauss and the ‘Boys'” in Sanford Levinson and Melissa Williams, eds., American Conservatism (New York University Press, 2015) – set/consolidated the foreign policy elite on the path of militarism, conquest, torture. Though with a different etiology, Democrats in the foreign policy elite (Samantha Power, Anne-Marie Slaughter, Jane Harman), often echo this. For they have been taken seriously by the media if and only if they plump for war.
The most pathetic indication of self-destructiveness, of the Empire having become a shadow of its former self is that the US, having lost two wars in Iraq – the first by a “coalition” to secure oil, the second a naked aggression and Occupation – is now reduced to fighting the Sunni ISIL, often commanded by former Saddam Hussain’s officers kicked out and thus unemployed by the US invasion, by bombing alone.
But the ironic virtue in this last policy is that Obama has had to rely on balancing rather than invasion by itself (with “us” or against “us”). As a result, the US has had to bomb, for instance in Tikrit, in tacit alliance with Iranian shia fighters joined with Iraqis, to battle ISIL.
Stunningly, neocons/Netanyahu/pro-Netanyahu commentators (the latest, Senator Chuck Schumer) have increasingly allied with Al-Qaida and ISIL against Iran (the tacit alliance includes Saudi Arabia and its attack in Yemen). In a New York Times column on March 18, Thomas Friedman even speculated about doing this publicly:
“Shouldn’t we at least bomb the Islamic State to smithereens and help destroy this head-chopping menace? Now I despise ISIS as much as anyone, but let me just toss out a different question: Should we be arming ISIS? Or let me ask that differently: Why are we, for the third time since 9/11, fighting a war on behalf of Iran? [Friedman fails to note that the US invaded/occupied two countries surrounding Iran] (The US’s invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, according to Friedman, “created a vacuum in both Iraq and the wider Sunni Arab world,” allowing “Tehran’s proxies” to “indirectly dominate four Arab capitals: Beirut, Damascus, Sana and Baghdad.”) ISIS, with all its awfulness, emerged as the homegrown Sunni Arab response to this crushing defeat of Sunni Arabism…. Obviously, I abhor ISIS and don’t want to see it spread or take over Iraq. I simply raise this question rhetorically because no one else is: Why is it in our interest to destroy the last Sunni bulwark to a total Iranian takeover of Iraq? Because the Shiite militias now leading the fight against ISIS will rule better? Really?“
Note that one purpose of Obama’s powerful interview with Tom Friedman below is to defeat this line of thinking and make pro-Israel commentators aware of the extreme danger of Israeli/neocon policy…
But seeing through the elite haze enforced by the American corporate press, ordinary Americans might be surprised to learn that “our” (neocon) response to 9/11 is now to ally with the forces that brought it about – those that behead captured Americans – in order, on Netanyahu’s behalf, to attack yet another country that had nothing to do with 9/11.
Some people might really get angry if this thought – the staple of the American/Netanyahu Right – were made plain in ordinary English…
In addition, the danger in bombing Iran – the only neocon/Israeli policy, that is, for the US to bomb Iran – is that it would lead to larger regional war, over many years, with vast, unpredictable consequences. Yemen has collapsed and Saudi Arabia has invaded to conquer the Houthis (with American and Israeli support). The threat is of long-lasting Shia/Sunni war, the Sunnis backed by Israel and the US, in which Iran has an army and ordinary Americans, fortunately, are increasingly unwilling to fight to conquer the Middle East (see the view of Iraqis – all evil – of Clint Eastwood’s “American Sniper” here…). That such a war might endanger Israel, despite its weaponry, is clear.
But it is also unclear how long young Israelis will want to fight. For Israel’s horrible ethnic cleansing of Palestinians/experimentation with weapons for the international market in Gaza and to a lesser extent, the West Bank, is likely to dishearten many (except fascists).
A note from the illegally Occupied Shuhadah (Jews-only) Street in Hebron reports an 11 year old girl pepper-sprayed by settlers yesterday:
“IMEMC (International Middle East Media)/Agencies 5 Apr — Israeli settlers, on Saturday, opened pepper spray on 11-year-old Qamar Qafisha, from Hebron, on Shuhada street in the city. PNN reports that settlers from Beit Hadassah and Ramat Yishai settlements, illegally built on Palestinian lands in the Hebron district, opened OC poisonous spray in the girl’s face while she was standing in front of her house in Hebron. Qamar suffered intense asphyxiation, and was treated on the spot by residents. Violations on Palestinian children by Israeli settlers are not uncommon in the region, taking place in the form of multiple hit and run attacks with moving vehicles, kidnapping attempts, torture and even burning, as in last summer’s case of 17-year-old Muhammad Abu Khdeir … Israeli forces shot and injured at least 30 children across the occupied West Bank and East Jerusalem since the beginning of this year -” See more such incidents in the last few days here, here and here.
But Israel has nuclear weapons. In a long losing war, as a tiny country, with a racist, authoritarian, colonial leadership, acquiesced in by the rest of the Israeli establishment, Israel might well use them (check out former Pentagon Secretary Robert McNamara in the Errol Morris’s documentary “The Fog of War” on the nearness of nuclear winter in the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962 to see how weakly rationality – i.e. don’t destroy yourself – functions as an obstacle to nuclear war…)
Iran has so far invaded – aggressed against – no other countries in the region (Obama mentioned Iran suffering in its war with US-supported Iraq in the interview with Tom Friedman below). But the US has, once again, invaded Iran’s neighbors in Afghanistan and Iraq (the latter a plain aggression). And the Bush-Cheney aggression against Iraq undercut a tacit Iranian diplomatic/military alliance with the US against the Taliban and Iranian feelers to the Bush administration for peace…).
Brushing aside Israeli and American propaganda, no outside observer would see Iran’s foreign policy – despite the unattractiveness of its regime – as the main aggressive or “destabilizing” threat in the Middle East.
Now Obama underlines Iranian determination and resilience in war (losing a million soldiers against US-backed Iraq) and defending their honor as circumscribing the willingness of their leaders, including moderate ones, to scrap peaceful nuclear energy as part of an agreement. He highlights the difference between “defensive demands,” motivated by real grievances against the United States’ imperial interventions against democracy – the CIA overthrow of the elected Mossadegh regime in 1954, the backing of the depraved Shah and the U.S. alliance with Saddam in the Iraq-Iran war – and what he names “offensive” demands.
In contrast, Netanyahu has long plumped against the “dangerous” Iran as a way to divert attention from Israeli occupation/brutalization of the Palestinians. He and Republican flunkeys, backed by a few pro-Israel billionaires, casino magnate Sheldon Adelson leading the way – see the New York Times, honest for the first time about the funding of Republicans, here – seek desperately and self-destructively to embark on an uncontrollable war in the Middle East.
Thus, against neoconservativism (with the partial exception of Obama’s policy in the Ukraine), Obama represents a new direction in the Middle East. Instead of bombing Iran, he and the European partners, who have stronger trade interests with Iran have created the framework for a nuclear agreement exchanging restrictions on Iran nuclear power to the production of fuel – all that the Iranians have worked towards apparently, at least according to US and Israeli intelligence – for lifting of sanctions.
This new agreement with Iran diminishes the threat of an escalating Shia/Sunni war culminating in the threat to Israel and thus, the danger of a nuclear war (initiated by Israel). It diminishes the use of unwilling Americans to try to conquer – actually, to fail bitterly in, on and on – the Middle East. It undercuts the diversion from the Israeli oppression of Palestinians, the theme song of Netanyahu’s depraved electoral campaign (“Arabs in droves…”). For diverting attention from the Occupation is Netanyahu’s and previous Israeli leaders’ main reason for invoking Iran’s supposed aggressiveness.
Obama also rightly says that the last Iranian prime minister was a Holocaust-denier (and that the Iranian regime exhibits this feature of anti-semitism). He understands the historical persecution of Jews, and underlines his opposition to it (others would do well to think deeply about this, as for example, Sami Awad at the Holy Land Trust does in Palestine).
Obama justifies the deal to Israelis and Americans by pointing out that testing out whether a nuclear deal is possible is a once-in-a-generation chance to “lower the pressure”; it is, as he says, the only way to head off Iranians developing the bomb (to bomb Iran would just prove that getting a nuclear weapon is, a la North Korea, the only protection against American aggression…).
Further, Friedman identifies a new Obama doctrine toward Cuba and Iran. Cuba is a tiny country and with no Soviet backer, hardly a threat to the United States. Why not, Obama says, test inclusion? He underlines that he keeps his weapons, and could adjust policy as need be.
Similarly, Iran, though larger and a regional power, spends $30 billion on the military, 1/20 of what, according to Obama, the US spends (in real terms, the US government probably spends closer to a trillion, Iran’s expenditures 1/33rd of that total). Further, the US, though negotiating, is armed – Obama underlines. In addition, the new inspections regime would monitor Iran from start (mining) to finish. Iran would have to create a whole alternate path toward nuclear weapons.
And an international committee would be set up to monitor – and could mandate inspections over Iran’s objections. The actual agreement is apparently stronger than previous IAEA regimes and likely enforceable.
Further, though disagreeing with Netanyahu about settlements, Obama underlines his support for Israel a) by arming it to the teeth, b) by making it clear that the US will intervene to protect Israel (and the Arab tyrannies with which it is tacitly allied). He reminds the Israelis that he (disgustingly) backed the slaughter in Gaza last year – some 439 Palestinian children killed, one Israeli child killed – on the grounds that “Israel has a right to defend itself” against Hamas attacks.
But Israel is the illegal occupier of the Territories. As the aggressor, it has no “right” to use force period, whereas Palestinians, the Occupied, have the right of self-defense. Of course, Hamas has no “right” to murder and terrorize civilians, that is, innocents, something that only strengthens reaction in Israel. Iin fact, mass nonviolent resistance, including the Boycott and Divestment movement, is a far more effective way to oppose the Occupation and avoids criminality.
So Obama remains a large defender (apologist for)/armer of Israel, even as he tries to defeat Netanyahu/Republicans’ proposals for ineffectual aggression and larger, more chaotic war.
In addition, the deal does not make the US elite less exploitative. An agreement with Iran – as with Cuba – will, over time, make ordinary Iranians prey to immensely inegalitarian American capitalism.
The Obama doctrine, Friedman suggests below, is to test negotiations with the threat of force and continued boycott, in order to achieve important aims, include the “enemy” and if possible with popular pressure from their own citizens gradually open or even “convert” them rather than exclude and attack them. But this policy represents the more “moderate” wing for achieving capitalist purposes.
Still, this policy could also strengthen a democratic and liberalizing movement from below in Iran. And by avoiding war, it could save many many lives abroad and here.
In fact, it is pretty amazing in terms of the difference – war and nuclear war (radiation spreads…), combined with even more brutal policies toward the Palestinians – as opposed to a comparatively decent agreement and inegalitarian capitalism to be fought from below over time.
Peter Beinart has a very astute, heartening column below comparing the decline in the ferocity of proxy wars – often anti-colonial wars as in Vietnam or Angola on the pro-Soviet side – caused by the agreement between Reagan and Gorbachev, with at least this first step between Obama and Iran (Obama points out below that the least the agreement will do is to delay Iran’s acquiring a nuclear weapon, no small accomplishment).
Further, this smaller but still fierce Cold(and hot) War, if ended or moderated by this agreement and other kinds of cooperation, means that Sunni radicalism will be the main target in the Middle East. This agreement also means that Saudi expansion – very likely, something that might also bring about, despite American weaponry, the collapse of the decadent Monarchy – may be moderated. Note: peaceful development, without the diversion of war against Iran, may also isolate the Wahhabi leadership and may threaten the Monarchy (Obama also speaks obliquely to this issue in his interview with Friedman).
Even “3AM” Hillary Clinton, for a while a neocon friend of McCain belting down drinks, supports Obama’s new direction on Iran (see Mondoweiss below). Note: polls in Pennsylvania show Rand Paul defeating her currently. She could not beat Rand Paul (and very likely would have no advantage against Republican “hawks”) if she ran to the Right. As a result, Hillary may remember some features of her youth (at Wellesley, she spoke out against Vietnam), and in any case, because of Obama’s new direction, move more intelligently and less belligerently in international politics. She has relied, out of domestic political calculation, on privatized militarism, and whether she can be as creative in this direction, as Obama is, is doubtful. But at least, the first signs are that the electorate will no longer have to choose between a neo-con against a neo-con in the next election…
If many Americans are no longer bewildered by the propaganda for aggression from the Right, a democratic movement from below to demand major changes – Occupy, Black Lives Matter! – has more room to develop (nonwhite Americans are of course vastly less bewildered than many whites…).
But the US can only achieve stability in the Middle East by moving away from Israel, fighting over time for or at least tolerating the rights of Palestinians. The agreement with Iran – and the defeat of Netanyahu’s bullying (see Phillip Weiss’s astute comments on Obama’s letting Netanyahu hang himself below, a mirror of his electoral approach to Hillary, McCain and Romney) – make a move toward recognizing those rights possible. Iran will no longer be the diversion.
But Israel is an increasingly vicious apartheid regime – it has been since at least 1967 – as well as an increasingly self-undermining one. The international community, including the United States under Obama, increasingly looks at it in this way (even though Obama’s interview, with Friedman, speaks and is sympathetic only to Israelis, the longer run issue is also clear: only treating Palestinians as human will save Israelis and perhaps even the state of Israel…)
Again, this agreement with Iran clears the way for a moral fight – led by the Boycott and Divestment movement – over the rights of the dispossessed and transferred.
Probably a one state solution with equal rights for all will be the only way for Palestinians to gain freedom (alternately, the demand for it might force the Israeli government into a two state settlement – see Pharaoh Netanyahu here). But Obama’s Iran agreement is an important step in creating the preconditions for this.
in the essential interests of the United States, its allies in the region–including Israel–and the world…. There must also be no question that, if a final agreement ultimately cannot be reached, the United States is not to blame
the New York Times (which also mentions Israel second, to Sunni Arab nations)–
Yet in today’s poisonous political climate, Mr. Obama’s critics have gone to extraordinary lengths to undercut him and any deal. Their belligerent behavior is completely out of step with the American public, which overwhelmingly favors a negotiated solution with Iran, unquestionably the best approach.
Chris Matthews, who was strong for the deal last night; Jonathan Chait, a neocon-litecommentator who has been appalled by Israel’s conduct in the last year–
I was really hoping @BillKristol would go with 30 Years war negotiations this time, but nope, Munich again.
and Peter Beinart, who is astute as always:
can’t help thinking how different debate in Washington (+ Jerusalem) over #Irandealwould be if Sheldon Adelson had a different hobby.
What you must remember about Clinton, the New York Times, Chait and Beinart is that they all joined Kristol 12 years ago in supporting the disastrous Iraq war (in part, surely, because of Israel’s supposed security interests). So the war coalition of 2002-2003 is shattered. Hillary Clinton is getting beaten in Pennsylvania by Rand Paul in the latest Quinnipiac poll: she cannot run as a hawk.
We can thank history for that, principally, but Obama and Netanyahu also deserve credit. Netanyahu did so by overplaying his hand in the last three months and, in the most entitled manner, seeking to bully and manipulate the American political process.
And Obama deserves credit for his strength throughout the last eight weeks. He allowed the fight with Netanyahu to become public. Doing so was a gamble, but he is a good student of politics and he saw that the lobby was fracturing; and the result was that he actually consolidated political support inside the liberal Jewish establishment.
For another thing, he made sure through John Kerry that the deal that was announced yesterday surprised everyone, overwhelming expectations. Remember that in the days leading up to the deal we thought it either wasn’t going to happen or they were going to kick the can down the road, issuing a flimsy statement of general agreement with June set as the hard deadline. No: they shocked the Lausanne deathwatch crew with pages of specifics.
The effect was electrifying. Reporters like Andrea Mitchell and Wolf Blitzer deferred to the diplomatic stroke on television yesterday. It’s not for nothing that reporters likened the talks to Versailles, which ended World War I; and the president’s speech was elegantly triumphant. Obama and Kerry had seized the moment, using the majesty of their offices to the utmost. With all the drama they could summon, they said, This is our generation’s historic moment. And almost everyone deferred to the presidency yesterday. Obama’s liberal base is over the moon; and the celebration in Tehran is also an element of the historic blow they struck. Reporters are sensitive to the zeitgeist. They sense, this is something that cannot be undone. It’s like the Cuba opening. Who will oppose that?
Of course there will be hardliners who try and block the deal, both in Washington and Tehran. But they already look to be obstructionists, fighting the stream of history. And here is my bet: Chuck Schumer will not be among them. The most important congressional swing vote will survey the political landscape and recognize that he must support the president.
The Iran deal is done. It was cut during the last eight weeks, first when Netanyahu tried to commandeer Congress and then when he issued his racist appeal against droves of Arabs on election day in Israel. Obama played that moment like a chess master. Netanyahu’s “kind of rhetoric… starts to erode the meaning of democracy,” he said. And today he has gotten his wish, of moving the U.S. and Iran forward, at last. The result will be growing pressure on the Israeli occupation.
The Real Achievement of the Iran Nuclear Deal
Details of the accord matter less than the potential end of Washington’s cold war with Tehran.
Right now, a thousand pundits and politicians are debating the details of Thursday’s framework nuclear deal with Iran. That’s fine. I think the details are far, far better than the alternative—which was a collapse of the diplomatic process, a collapse of international sanctions as Russia and China went back to business as usual with Tehran, and a collapse of the world’s ability to send inspectors into Iran. But ultimately, the details aren’t what matters. What matters is the potential end of America’s 36-year-long cold war with Iran.
For the United States, ending that cold war could bring three enormous benefits. First, it could reduce American dependence on Saudi Arabia. Before the fall of the shah in 1979, the United States had good relations with both Tehran and Riyadh, which meant America wasn’t overly reliant on either. Since the Islamic Revolution, however, Saudi Arabia has been America’s primary oil-producing ally in the Persian Gulf. After 9/11, when 19 hijackers—15 of them Saudis—destroyed the Twin Towers, many Americans realized the perils of so great a dependence on a country that was exporting so much pathology. One of the unstated goals of the Iraq War was to give the United States a large, stable, oil-producing ally as a hedge against the uncertain future of the House of Saud.
What George W. Bush failed to achieve militarily, Barack Obama may now be achieving diplomatically. In recent weeks, American hawks have cited Saudi anxiety about a potential Iran deal as reason to be wary of one. But a big part of the reason the Saudis are worried is because they know that as U.S.-Iranian relations improve, their influence over the United States will diminish. That doesn’t mean the U.S.-Saudi alliance will disintegrate. Even if it frays somewhat, the United States still needs Saudi oil and Saudi Arabia still needs American protection. But the United States may soon have a better relationship with both Tehran and Riyadh than either has with the other, which was exactly what Richard Nixon orchestrated in the three-way dynamic between Washington, Moscow, and Beijing in the 1970s. And today, as then, that increases America’s leverage over both countries.
Over the long term, Iran may also prove a more reliable U.S. ally than Saudi Arabia. Iranians are better educated and more pro-American than their neighbors across the Persian Gulf, and unlike Saudi Arabia, Iran has some history of democracy. One of the biggest problems with America’s Mideast policy in recent years has been that, from Saudi Arabia to Pakistan to Egypt, the governments the United States supports preside over populations that hate the U.S. Thursday’s nuclear deal, by contrast, may pave the way for a positive relationship with the Iranian state that is actually undergirded by a positive relationship with the Iranian people.
Which brings us to the second benefit of ending America’s cold war with Iran: It could empower the Iranian people vis-à-vis their repressive state. American hawks, addled by the mythology they have created around Ronald Reagan, seem to think that the more hostile America’s relationship with Iran’s regime becomes, the better the United States can promote Iranian democracy. But the truth is closer to the reverse. The best thing Reagan ever did for the people of Eastern Europe and the U.S.S.R. was to embrace Mikhail Gorbachev. In 1987, American hawks bitterly attacked Reagan for signing the INF agreement, the most sweeping arms-reduction treaty of the Cold War. But the tougher it became for Soviet hardliners to portray the United States as menacing, the tougher it became for them to justify their repression at home. And the easier it became for Gorbachev to pursue the policies of glasnost and perestroika that ultimately led to the liberation of Eastern Europe and the disintegration of the U.S.S.R.
Iranian President Hassan Rouhani, like Gorbachev, wants to end his country’s cold war with the United States because it is destroying his country’s economy. And like Gorbachev, he is battling elites who depend on that cold war for their political power and economic privilege. As Columbia University Iran expert Gary Sick recently noted, Iran’s hardline Revolutionary Guards “thrive on hostile relations with the U.S., and benefit hugely from sanctions, which allow them to control smuggling.” But “if the sanctions are lifted, foreign companies come back in, [and] the natural entrepreneurialism of Iranians is unleashed.” Thus “if you want regime change in Iran, meaning changing the way the regime operates, this kind of agreement is the best way to achieve that goal.”
The best evidence of Sick’s thesis is the euphoric way ordinary Iranians have reacted to Thursday’s agreement. They’re not cheering because they want Iran to have 6,000 centrifuges instead of 20,000. They’re cheering because they know that opening Iran to the world empowers them, both economically and politically, at their oppressors’ expense.
What George W. Bush failed to achieve militarily, Barack Obama may now be achieving diplomatically.
Finally, ending the cold war with Iran may make it easier to end the civil wars plaguing the Middle East. Cold wars are rarely “cold” in the sense that no one gets killed. They are usually proxy wars in which powerful countries get local clients to do the killing for them. America’s cold war with the U.S.S.R. ravaged countries like Angola and El Salvador. And today, America’s cold war with Iran is ravaging Syria and Yemen.
When America’s relationship with the Soviet Union thawed, civil wars across the world petered out because local combatants found their superpower patrons unwilling to send arms and write checks. The dynamic in the Middle East is different because today’s cold war isn’t only between Iran and the United States, it’s also between Iran and Sunni Arab powers like Saudi Arabia and Egypt, neither of which seems particularly interested in winding down the civil wars in Syria and Yemen. Still, a different relationship between the United States and Iran offers a glimmer of hope. In Syria, for instance, one reason Iran has staunchly backed Bashar al-Assad is because it fears the fierce hostility of his successors. The United States cannot entirely alleviate that fear, since some of the groups battling Assad—ISIS, most obviously—are fiercely hostile to Iran and to Shiites in general. But if Iran’s leaders knew that at least the United States would try to ensure that a post-Assad government maintained good relations with Tehran, they might be somewhat more open to negotiating a transfer of power in Syria.
Clearly, the United States should push for the best nuclear deal with Iran that it possibly can. But it’s now obvious, almost three decades after Reagan signed the INF deal with Gorbachev, that it’s not the technical details that mattered. What mattered was the end of a cold war that had cemented Soviet tyranny and ravaged large chunks of the world. Barack Obama has now begun the process of ending America’s smaller, but still terrible, cold war with Iran. In so doing, he has improved America’s strategic position, brightened the prospects for Iranian freedom and Middle Eastern peace, and brought himself closer to being the kind of transformational, Reaganesque president he always hoped to be.
In an interview with Thomas L. Friedman, President Obama says that his policy of engagement in Iran and elsewhere doesn’t mean the United States isn’t ready to defend its interests or that of its allies.Obama on Iran and His View of the World
In September 1996, I visited Iran. One of my most enduring memories of that trip was that in my hotel lobby there was a sign above the door proclaiming “Down With USA.” But it wasn’t a banner or graffiti. It was tiled and plastered into the wall. I thought to myself: “Wow — that’s tiled in there! That won’t come out easily.” Nearly 20 years later, in the wake of a draft deal between the Obama administration and Iran, we have what may be the best chance to begin to pry that sign loose, to ease the U.S.-Iran cold/hot war that has roiled the region for 36 years. But it is a chance fraught with real risks to America, Israel and our Sunni Arab allies: that Iran could eventually become a nuclear-armed state.
President Obama invited me to the Oval Office Saturday afternoon to lay out exactly how he was trying to balance these risks and opportunities in the framework accord reached with Iran last week in Switzerland. What struck me most was what I’d call an “Obama doctrine” embedded in the president’s remarks. It emerged when I asked if there was a common denominator to his decisions to break free from longstanding United States policies isolating Burma, Cuba and now Iran. Obama said his view was that “engagement,” combined with meeting core strategic needs, could serve American interests vis-à-vis these three countries far better than endless sanctions and isolation. He added that America, with its overwhelming power, needs to have the self-confidence to take some calculated risks to open important new possibilities — like trying to forge a diplomatic deal with Iran that, while permitting it to keep some of its nuclear infrastructure, forestalls its ability to build a nuclear bomb for at least a decade, if not longer.
President Obama lays out his preference for engagement over isolation in his approach to foreign policy. This is an excerpt of an interview with Thomas L. Friedman.
“We are powerful enough to be able to test these propositions without putting ourselves at risk. And that’s the thing … people don’t seem to understand,” the president said. “You take a country like Cuba. For us to test the possibility that engagement leads to a better outcome for the Cuban people, there aren’t that many risks for us. It’s a tiny little country. It’s not one that threatens our core security interests, and so [there’s no reason not] to test the proposition. And if it turns out that it doesn’t lead to better outcomes, we can adjust our policies. The same is true with respect to Iran, a larger country, a dangerous country, one that has engaged in activities that resulted in the death of U.S. citizens, but the truth of the matter is: Iran’s defense budget is $30 billion. Our defense budget is closer to $600 billion. Iran understands that they cannot fight us. … You asked about an Obama doctrine. The doctrine is: We will engage, but we preserve all our capabilities.”
The notion that Iran is undeterrable — “it’s simply not the case,” he added. “And so for us to say, ‘Let’s try’ — understanding that we’re preserving all our options, that we’re not naïve — but if in fact we can resolve these issues diplomatically, we are more likely to be safe, more likely to be secure, in a better position to protect our allies, and who knows? Iran may change. If it doesn’t, our deterrence capabilities, our military superiority stays in place. … We’re not relinquishing our capacity to defend ourselves or our allies. In that situation, why wouldn’t we test it?”
Obviously, Israel is in a different situation, he added. “Now, what you might hear from Prime Minister [Benjamin] Netanyahu, which I respect, is the notion, ‘Look, Israel is more vulnerable. We don’t have the luxury of testing these propositions the way you do,’ and I completely understand that. And further, I completely understand Israel’s belief that given the tragic history of the Jewish people, they can’t be dependent solely on us for their own security. But what I would say to them is that not only am I absolutely committed to making sure that they maintain their qualitative military edge, and that they can deter any potential future attacks, but what I’m willing to do is to make the kinds of commitments that would give everybody in the neighborhood, including Iran, a clarity that if Israel were to be attacked by any state, that we would stand by them. And that, I think, should be … sufficient to take advantage of this once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to see whether or not we can at least take the nuclear issue off the table.”
He added: “What I would say to the Israeli people is … that there is no formula, there is no option, to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon that will be more effective than the diplomatic initiative and framework that we put forward — and that’s demonstrable.”
The president gave voice, though — in a more emotional and personal way than I’ve ever heard — to his distress at being depicted in Israel and among American Jews as somehow anti-Israel, when his views on peace are shared by many center-left Israelis and his administration has been acknowledged by Israeli officials to have been as vigorous as any in maintaining Israel’s strategic edge.
With huge amounts of conservative campaign money now flowing to candidates espousing pro-Israel views, which party is more supportive of Israel is becoming a wedge issue, an arms race, with Republican candidates competing over who can be the most unreservedly supportive of Israel in any disagreement with the United States, and ordinary, pro-Israel Democrats increasingly feeling sidelined.
“This is an area that I’ve been concerned about,” the president said. “Look, Israel is a robust, rowdy democracy. … We share so much. We share blood, family. … And part of what has always made the U.S.-Israeli relationship so special is that it has transcended party, and I think that has to be preserved. There has to be the ability for me to disagree with a policy on settlements, for example, without being viewed as … opposing Israel. There has to be a way for Prime Minister Netanyahu to disagree with me on policy without being viewed as anti-Democrat, and I think the right way to do it is to recognize that as many commonalities as we have, there are going to be strategic differences. And I think that it is important for each side to respect the debate that takes place in the other country and not try to work just with one side. … But this has been as hard as anything I do because of the deep affinities that I feel for the Israeli people and for the Jewish people. It’s been a hard period.”
You take it personally? I asked.
“It has been personally difficult for me to hear … expressions that somehow … this administration has not done everything it could to look out for Israel’s interest — and the suggestion that when we have very serious policy differences, that that’s not in the context of a deep and abiding friendship and concern and understanding of the threats that the Jewish people have faced historically and continue to face.”
As for protecting our Sunni Arab allies, like Saudi Arabia, the president said, they have some very real external threats, but they also have some internal threats — “populations that, in some cases, are alienated, youth that are underemployed, an ideology that is destructive and nihilistic, and in some cases, just a belief that there are no legitimate political outlets for grievances. And so part of our job is to work with these states and say, ‘How can we build your defense capabilities against external threats, but also, how can we strengthen the body politic in these countries, so that Sunni youth feel that they’ve got something other than [the Islamic State, or ISIS] to choose from. … I think the biggest threats that they face may not be coming from Iran invading. It’s going to be from dissatisfaction inside their own countries. … That’s a tough conversation to have, but it’s one that we have to have.”
That said, the Iran deal is far from finished. As the president cautioned: “We’re not done yet. There are a lot of details to be worked out, and you could see backtracking and slippage and real political difficulties, both in Iran and obviously here in the United States Congress.”
On Congress’s role, Obama said he insists on preserving the presidential prerogative to enter into binding agreements with foreign powers without congressional approval. However, he added, “I do think that [Tennessee Republican] Senator Corker, the head of the Foreign Relations Committee, is somebody who is sincerely concerned about this issue and is a good and decent man, and my hope is that we can find something that allows Congress to express itself but does not encroach on traditional presidential prerogatives — and ensures that, if in fact we get a good deal, that we can go ahead and implement it.”
Since President Obama has had more direct and indirect dealings with Iran’s leadership — including an exchange of numerous letters with Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei — than any of his predecessors since Iran’s revolution in 1979, I asked what he has learned from the back and forth.
“I think that it’s important to recognize that Iran is a complicated country — just like we’re a complicated country,” the president said. “There is no doubt that, given the history between our two countries, that there is deep mistrust that is not going to fade away immediately. The activities that they engage in, the rhetoric, both anti-American, anti-Semitic, anti-Israel, is deeply disturbing. There are deep trends in the country that are contrary to not only our own national security interests and views but those of our allies and friends in the region, and those divisions are real.”
But, he added, “what we’ve also seen is that there is a practical streak to the Iranian regime. I think they are concerned about self-preservation. I think they are responsive, to some degree, to their publics. I think the election of [President Hassan] Rouhani indicated that there was an appetite among the Iranian people for a rejoining with the international community, an emphasis on the economics and the desire to link up with a global economy. And so what we’ve seen over the last several years, I think, is the opportunity for those forces within Iran that want to break out of the rigid framework that they have been in for a long time to move in a different direction. It’s not a radical break, but it’s one that I think offers us the chance for a different type of relationship, and this nuclear deal, I think, is a potential expression of that.”
What about Iran’s supreme leader, who will be the ultimate decider there on whether or not Iran moves ahead? What have you learned about him?
“He’s a pretty tough read,” the president said. “I haven’t spoken to him directly. In the letters that he sends, there [are] typically a lot of reminders of what he perceives as past grievances against Iran, but what is, I think, telling is that he did give his negotiators in this deal the leeway, the capability to make important concessions, that would allow this framework agreement to come to fruition. So what that tells me is that — although he is deeply suspicious of the West [and] very insular in how he thinks about international issues as well as domestic issues, and deeply conservative — he does realize that the sanctions regime that we put together was weakening Iran over the long term, and that if in fact he wanted to see Iran re-enter the community of nations, then there were going to have to be changes.”
Since he has acknowledged Israel’s concerns, and the fact that they are widely shared there, if the president had a chance to make his case for this framework deal directly to the Israeli people, what would he say?
“Well, what I’d say to them is this,” the president answered. “You have every right to be concerned about Iran. This is a regime that at the highest levels has expressed the desire to destroy Israel, that has denied the Holocaust, that has expressed venomous anti-Semitic ideas and is a big country with a big population and has a sophisticated military. So Israel is right to be concerned about Iran, and they should be absolutely concerned that Iran doesn’t get a nuclear weapon.” But, he insisted, this framework initiative, if it can be implemented, can satisfy that Israeli strategic concern with more effectiveness and at less cost to Israel than any other approach. “We know that a military strike or a series of military strikes can set back Iran’s nuclear program for a period of time — but almost certainly will prompt Iran to rush towards a bomb, will provide an excuse for hard-liners inside of Iran to say, ‘This is what happens when you don’t have a nuclear weapon: America attacks.’
“We know that if we do nothing, other than just maintain sanctions, that they will continue with the building of their nuclear infrastructure and we’ll have less insight into what exactly is happening,” Obama added. “So this may not be optimal. In a perfect world, Iran would say, ‘We won’t have any nuclear infrastructure at all,’ but what we know is that this has become a matter of pride and nationalism for Iran. Even those who we consider moderates and reformers are supportive of some nuclear program inside of Iran, and given that they will not capitulate completely, given that they can’t meet the threshold that Prime Minister Netanyahu sets forth, there are no Iranian leaders who will do that. And given the fact that this is a country that withstood an eight-year war and a million people dead, they’ve shown themselves willing, I think, to endure hardship when they considered a point of national pride or, in some cases, national survival.”
The president continued: “For us to examine those options and say to ourselves, ‘You know what, if we can have vigorous inspections, unprecedented, and we know at every point along their nuclear chain exactly what they’re doing and that lasts for 20 years, and for the first 10 years their program is not just frozen but effectively rolled back to a larger degree, and we know that even if they wanted to cheat we would have at least a year, which is about three times longer than we’d have right now, and we would have insights into their programs that we’ve never had before,’ in that circumstance, the notion that we wouldn’t take that deal right now and that that would not be in Israel’s interest is simply incorrect.”
Because, Obama argued, “the one thing that changes the equation is when these countries get a nuclear weapon. … Witness North Korea, which is a problem state that is rendered a lot more dangerous because of their nuclear program. If we can prevent that from happening anyplace else in the world, that’s something where it’s worth taking some risks.”
“I have to respect the fears that the Israeli people have,” he added, “and I understand that Prime Minister Netanyahu is expressing the deep-rooted concerns that a lot of the Israeli population feel about this, but what I can say to them is: Number one, this is our best bet by far to make sure Iran doesn’t get a nuclear weapon, and number two, what we will be doing even as we enter into this deal is sending a very clear message to the Iranians and to the entire region that if anybody messes with Israel, America will be there. And I think the combination of a diplomatic path that puts the nuclear issue to one side — while at the same time sending a clear message to the Iranians that you have to change your behavior more broadly and that we are going to protect our allies if you continue to engage in destabilizing aggressive activity — I think that’s a combination that potentially at least not only assures our friends, but starts bringing down the temperature.”
There is clearly a debate going on inside Iran as to whether the country should go ahead with this framework deal as well, so what would the president say to the Iranian people to persuade them that this deal is in their interest?
If their leaders really are telling the truth that Iran is not seeking a nuclear weapon, the president said, then “the notion that they would want to expend so much on a symbolic program as opposed to harnessing the incredible talents and ingenuity and entrepreneurship of the Iranian people, and be part of the world economy and see their nation excel in those terms, that should be a pretty straightforward choice for them. Iran doesn’t need nuclear weapons to be a powerhouse in the region. For that matter, what I’d say to the Iranian people is: You don’t need to be anti-Semitic or anti-Israel or anti-Sunni to be a powerhouse in the region. I mean, the truth is, Iran has all these potential assets going for it where, if it was a responsible international player, if it did not engage in aggressive rhetoric against its neighbors, if it didn’t express anti-Israeli and anti-Jewish sentiment, if it maintained a military that was sufficient to protect itself, but was not engaging in a whole bunch of proxy wars around the region, by virtue of its size, its resources and its people it would be an extremely successful regional power. And so my hope is that the Iranian people begin to recognize that.”
Clearly, he added, “part of the psychology of Iran is rooted in past experiences, the sense that their country was undermined, that the United States or the West meddled in first their democracy and then in supporting the Shah and then in supporting Iraq and Saddam during that extremely brutal war. So part of what I’ve told my team is we have to distinguish between the ideologically driven, offensive Iran and the defensive Iran that feels vulnerable and sometimes may be reacting because they perceive that as the only way that they can avoid repeats of the past. … But if we’re able to get this done, then what may happen — and I’m not counting on it — but what may happen is that those forces inside of Iran that say, ‘We don’t need to view ourselves entirely through the lens of our war machine. Let’s excel in science and technology and job creation and developing our people,’ that those folks get stronger. … I say that emphasizing that the nuclear deal that we’ve put together is not based on the idea that somehow the regime changes.
“It is a good deal even if Iran doesn’t change at all,” Obama argued. “Even for somebody who believes, as I suspect Prime Minister Netanyahu believes, that there is no difference between Rouhani and the supreme leader and they’re all adamantly anti-West and anti-Israel and perennial liars and cheaters — even if you believed all that, this still would be the right thing to do. It would still be the best option for us to protect ourselves. In fact, you could argue that if they are implacably opposed to us, all the more reason for us to want to have a deal in which we know what they’re doing and that, for a long period of time, we can prevent them from having a nuclear weapon.”
There are several very sensitive points in the framework agreement that are not clear to me, and I asked the president for his interpretation. For instance, if we suspect that Iran is cheating, is harboring a covert nuclear program outside of the declared nuclear facilities covered in this deal — say, at a military base in southeastern Iran — do we have the right to insist on that facility being examined by international inspectors?
“In the first instance, what we have agreed to is that we will be able to inspect and verify what’s happening along the entire nuclear chain from the uranium mines all the way through to the final facilities like Natanz,” the president said. “What that means is that we’re not just going to have a bunch of folks posted at two or three or five sites. We are going to be able to see what they’re doing across the board, and in fact, if they now wanted to initiate a covert program that was designed to produce a nuclear weapon, they’d have to create a whole different supply chain. That’s point number one. Point number two, we’re actually going to be setting up a procurement committee that examines what they’re importing, what they’re bringing in that they might claim as dual-use, to determine whether or not what they’re using is something that would be appropriate for a peaceful nuclear program versus a weapons program. And number three, what we’re going to be doing is setting up a mechanism whereby, yes, I.A.E.A. [International Atomic Energy Agency] inspectors can go anyplace.”
Anywhere in Iran? I asked.
“That we suspect,” the president answered. “Obviously, a request will have to be made. Iran could object, but what we have done is to try to design a mechanism whereby once those objections are heard, that it is not a final veto that Iran has, but in fact some sort of international mechanism will be in place that makes a fair assessment as to whether there should be an inspection, and if they determine it should be, that’s the tiebreaker, not Iran saying, ‘No, you can’t come here.’ So over all, what we’re seeing is not just the additional protocols that I.A.E.A. has imposed on countries that are suspected of in the past having had problematic nuclear programs, we’re going even beyond that, and Iran will be subject to the kinds of inspections and verification mechanisms that have never been put in place before.”
A lot of people, myself included, will want to see the fine print on that. Another issue that doesn’t seem to have been resolved yet is: When exactly do the economic sanctions on Iran get lifted? When the implementation begins? When Iran has been deemed to be complying fully?
“There are still details to be worked out,” the president said, “but I think that the basic framework calls for Iran to take the steps that it needs to around [the Fordow enrichment facility], the centrifuges, and so forth. At that point, then, the U.N. sanctions are suspended; although the sanctions related to proliferation, the sanctions related to ballistic missiles, there’s a set of sanctions that remain in place. At that point, then, we preserve the ability to snap back those sanctions, if there is a violation. If not, though, Iran, outside of the proliferation and ballistic missile issues that stay in place, they’re able to get out from under the sanctions, understanding that this constant monitoring will potentially trigger some sort of action if they’re in violation.”
There are still United States sanctions that are related to Iran’s behavior in terrorism and human rights abuse, though, the president added: “There are certain sanctions that we have that would remain in place because they’re not related to Iran’s nuclear program, and this, I think, gets to a central point that we’ve made consistently. If in fact we are able to finalize the nuclear deal, and if Iran abides by it, that’s a big piece of business that we’ve gotten done, but it does not end our problems with Iran, and we are still going to be aggressively working with our allies and friends to reduce — and hopefully at some point stop — the destabilizing activities that Iran has engaged in, the sponsorship of terrorist organizations. And that may take some time. But it’s our belief, it’s my belief, that we will be in a stronger position to do so if the nuclear issue has been put in a box. And if we can do that, it’s possible that Iran, seeing the benefits of sanctions relief, starts focusing more on the economy and its people. And investment starts coming in, and the country starts opening up. If we’ve done a good job in bolstering the sense of security and defense cooperation between us and the Sunni states, if we have made even more certain that the Israeli people are absolutely protected not just by their own capacities, but also by our commitments, then what’s possible is you start seeing an equilibrium in the region, and Sunni and Shia, Saudi and Iran start saying, ‘Maybe we should lower tensions and focus on the extremists like [ISIS] that would burn down this entire region if they could.’ ”
Regarding America’s Sunni Arab allies, Obama reiterated that while he is prepared to help increase their military capabilities they also need to increase their willingness to commit their ground troops to solving regional problems.
“The conversations I want to have with the Gulf countries is, first and foremost, how do they build more effective defense capabilities,” the president said. “I think when you look at what happens in Syria, for example, there’s been a great desire for the United States to get in there and do something. But the question is: Why is it that we can’t have Arabs fighting [against] the terrible human rights abuses that have been perpetrated, or fighting against what Assad has done? I also think that I can send a message to them about the U.S.’s commitments to work with them and ensure that they are not invaded from the outside, and that perhaps will ease some of their concerns and allow them to have a more fruitful conversation with the Iranians. What I can’t do, though, is commit to dealing with some of these internal issues that they have without them making some changes that are more responsive to their people.”
One way to think about it, Obama continued, “is [that] when it comes to external aggression, I think we’re going to be there for our [Arab] friends — and I want to see how we can formalize that a little bit more than we currently have, and also help build their capacity so that they feel more confident about their ability to protect themselves from external aggression.” But, he repeated, “The biggest threats that they face may not be coming from Iran invading. It’s going to be from dissatisfaction inside their own countries. Now disentangling that from real terrorist activity inside their country, how we sort that out, how we engage in the counterterrorism cooperation that’s been so important to our own security — without automatically legitimizing or validating whatever repressive tactics they may employ — I think that’s a tough conversation to have, but it’s one that we have to have.”
It feels lately like some traditional boundaries between the executive and legislative branches, when it comes to the conduct of American foreign policy, have been breached. For instance, there was the letter from 47 Republican senators to Iran’s supreme leader cautioning him on striking any deal with Obama not endorsed by them — coming in the wake of Prime Minister Netanyahu being invited by the speaker of the House, John Boehner, to address a joint session of Congress — without consulting the White House. How is Obama taking this?
“I do worry that some traditional boundaries in how we think about foreign policy have been crossed,” the president said. “I felt the letter that was sent to the supreme leader was inappropriate. I think that you will recall there were some deep disagreements with President Bush about the Iraq war, but the notion that you would have had a whole bunch of Democrats sending letters to leaders in the region or to European leaders … trying to undermine the president’s policies I think is troubling.
“The bottom line,” he added, “is that we’re going to have serious debates, serious disagreements, and I welcome those because that’s how our democracy is supposed to work, and in today’s international environment, whatever arguments we have here, other people are hearing and reading about it. It’s not a secret that the Republicans may feel more affinity with Prime Minister Netanyahu’s views of the Iran issue than they do with mine. But [we need to be] keeping that within some formal boundaries, so that the executive branch, when it goes overseas, when it’s communicating with foreign leaders, is understood to be speaking on behalf of the United States of America, not a divided United States of America, making sure that whether that president is a Democrat or a Republican that once the debates have been had here, that he or she is the spokesperson on behalf of U.S. foreign policy. And that’s clear to every leader around the world. That’s important because without that, what you start getting is multiple foreign policies, confusion among foreign powers as to who speaks for who, and that ends up being a very dangerous — circumstances that could be exploited by our enemies and could deeply disturb our friends.”
As for the Obama doctrine — “we will engage, but we preserve all our capabilities” — the president concluded: “I’ve been very clear that Iran will not get a nuclear weapon on my watch, and I think they should understand that we mean it. But I say that hoping that we can conclude this diplomatic arrangement — and that it ushers a new era in U.S.-Iranian relations — and, just as importantly, over time, a new era in Iranian relations with its neighbors.”
Whatever happened in the past, he said, “at this point, the U.S.’s core interests in the region are not oil, are not territorial. … Our core interests are that everybody is living in peace, that it is orderly, that our allies are not being attacked, that children are not having barrel bombs dropped on them, that massive displacements aren’t taking place. Our interests in this sense are really just making sure that the region is working. And if it’s working well, then we’ll do fine. And that’s going to be a big project, given what’s taken place, but I think this [Iran framework deal] is at least one place to start.”