The Obama Effect?
Iran's
election result proves the US formula in the Middle East is not
working
by Michael Rubin
New
York Daily News
June 14, 2009
http://www.meforum.org/2161/iran-election-obama-effect
On June 4, President Barack Obama declared, "I've come here
to Cairo to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims
around the world." Awed by Obama's rhetoric, many commentators -- blogger
Juan Cole and MSNBC anchor Keith Olbermann, for example -- suggested that
an "Obama Effect" could usher in a new era of hope and change in the
Middle East, and a pro-American outcome in Lebanese elections earlier this
month seemed to cooperate with the theory.
After Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's reelection in Iran, we can now
say with confidence: There is an Obama Effect, but it has less to do with
reform and more to do with American arrogance and the triumph of advocacy
over analysis.
Look carefully at how things unfolded in Tehran. Outreach to
the Islamic Republic is Obama's signature foreign policy issue. A week
into his presidency, Obama extended an olive branch to Tehran, asking the
regime to unclench its fist. Two months later, Obama broadcast a message
to Iran, for the first time recognizing the ayatollahs as the legitimate
representatives of the Iranian people. Last month, Obama acknowledged the
Islamic Republic's right to enrich uranium and, in Cairo, the he
acknowledged CIA involvement in the overthrow of an Iranian government
more than a half-century ago.
Rhetoric, concession and apology, however, are not enough to
alter reality. On Friday, millions of Iranians cast votes in hotly
contested presidential elections, and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the
Holocaust-denying president who defies nuclear safeguards and mocks U.S.
weakness, won a second term.
Many journalists and diplomats believe the election was
fixed. Perhaps it was. But this is Iran, where the word of the Supreme
Leader trumps everything.
Obama, embracing what might be called born again diplomacy,
believes he can reset all bilateral relations with the press of a button.
But the failure of engagement with rogue regimes has less to do with his
predecessors and more to do with the nature of the enemy. If the Islamic
Republic blatantly throws an election, why should the White House believe
they will honor diplomatic commitments?
Obama's partisans misunderstand Lebanon as well. The
victorious coalition coalesced in anger to the Syria-sponsored
assassination of Lebanon's former prime minister. George W. Bush responded
by isolating Damascus diplomatically to force Syria's withdrawal from
Lebanon. Rather than maintain pressure on the Syrian regime, Obama has
reversed Syria's isolation. Recognizing that it will not be held to
account, Syria will simply accelerate its provision of weaponry to
Hezbollah so it can achieve through guns what it has not at the ballot
box.
Both Iranians and Lebanese deserve praise for engaging
enthusiastically in the democratic process. Both peoples are courageous in
the face of oppression. But Obama has no magic wand. The more his policy
rests on rhetoric alone and ignores reality, the greater the ultimate risk
of conflict.
Michael
Rubin, a senior editor of the Middle East Quarterly, is a
resident scholar at the American
Enterprise Institute and a senior lecturer at the Naval Postgraduate
School.
Related Topics: Iran, US policy Michael
Rubin | 
Send
RSS
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment