I think the Iran election presents a revealing look at the as yet un-defined and un-packaged foreign policy, and I find myself thinking that there is some logic and--dare I say it--Hope--to be found in it.
Here's why--I describe myself most often as a foreign policy "realist"; power politics continues to dominate the world scene, and nations continue to act in what they consider their "interests".
Obama and his team are taking a cold, hard look at what is going on in Iran. While they aren't terribly upset that the mullahs have a problem on their hands, they realize that what we are seeing is a "proto-movement", something that may have actual impact in ten or twenty years, but which for now is really not a serious threat to the authority of the regime--a regime with whom they have to contend. As long as Khamenei is in power, it doesn't matter who the civilian henchman is. The challenger in this election believes many if not all of the same things that the winner did. It may very well be in our interest for Ahmadinejad to stay in power--his rantings, his looniness--do a great deal of harm internationally to the reputation of Iran, and it is in that undermining that our long term opportunity exists.
Now--here comes what my conservative audience has been waiting for...the rest of the story. This kind of foreign policy realism makes sense to me if and only if it is practiced consistently. We act when necessary to defend and advance our interests. If the Obama Administration comes to settle into this paradigm, I'll be a happy camper. But it MUST be practiced consistently, and that's where the problems come up. A "realist" sees no national interest in intervening in ANY way in Darfur. A "realist" will look at many horrible tragedies across the world and recognize the inhumanity--but do nothing. A "realist" understands that our interests are limited and worth fighting for, and that much of what is left simply doesn't rise to that level.
Does a realist back away from the world? No. He encourages those with "dogs in the fight" to manage things. He catalyzes responses. He leads--but he doesn't always "do".
I simply don't have any faith that the Obama Administration will be able to follow through consistently with a realist foreign policy. Domestic pressures will drive them to selectively pick and choose, and it is in that inconsistency that mischief will arise.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe streets of Iran are filled with people protesting for and against the sitting government.
ReplyDeletePeople are being beaten and shot. The Mullahs are preaching to the masses.
The President of the United States presiding over a failing economy with rising unemployment does not want to get too involved and sends out conflicting signals that embolden the hard-liners.
Today? under the administration of President Barak Obama? No. It was thirty years ago last January during the administration of President Jimmy Carter that my wife, son and I were forced to flee the Iranian Islamic revolution on a Pan American Airlines charter flight back to the United States.
It seems like déjà vu all over again.