Obama and the Rogues
Tweet
President Obama took office loudly promising to be the anti-George W. Bush of foreign policy, vowing to “extend a hand” to adversaries “willing to unclench” their fists. What he has received instead is an education in the reality of global rogues, and how he responds has become a major test of his Presidency.
Ayatollah Ali Khamenei delivers a sermon in front of a picture of the late Ayatollah Khomeini in Tehran on Friday.
The immediate challenges are North Korea and Iran, governments that the American left claimed were “evil” only because Mr. Bush had declared them so. Perhaps Mr. Obama believed this too, though five months later he has learned otherwise. North Korea has rejected his every overture and is now defying the U.N. to press its nuclear and proliferation ambitions. As for Iran, the mullahs are attempting to crush a popular uprising after a stolen election while also showing disdain for Mr. Obama’s diplomatic entreaties.
The question is whether Mr. Obama will now adapt his policies to meet challenges he clearly didn’t expect. Jimmy Carter took office with similar illusions about the Soviet Union, promising to cure our “inordinate fear of Communism.” Our enemies pushed back at what they perceived to be U.S. weakness, and Mr. Carter and his NSC adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski never recovered. We’ll soon learn if Mr. Obama is made of sterner stuff.
On North Korea, for example, the President has vowed that “words matter” and that renegade missile and A-bomb tests must have “consequences.” The U.S. has rallied the U.N. to pass sanctions against Pyongyang, albeit no tougher than those the U.N. issued in 2006. Those sanctions include a Security Council “call” to intercept North Korean attempts to sell or spread weapons and delivery systems of mass destruction. The issue is whether those sanctions will be enforced.
As it happens, a U.S. Navy destroyer is currently tailing a North Korean ship suspected of carrying illicit weapons toward Burma via Singapore. The cargo ship Kang Nam left a North Korea port last Wednesday, and a South Korean intelligence report said it is believed to carry missiles and other parts. This would violate U.N. sanctions, and the U.S. has every legal right to board the ship. Alternatively, the USS John S. McCain (named for the Senator’s father and grandfather) could steer the Kang Nam to Singapore and inspect her there.
Either action carries risks because North Korea has said it will consider such an inspection to be an act of war. No one knows how the North would respond, though its leaders must know that any attack on South Korea would guarantee the end of their rule. It’s also possible the entire North Korean crew could defect if promised asylum.
The risks of doing nothing are even more serious because it would show the North — and the world — that the U.N. sanctions once again mean nothing. The threat of a North Korean attack on the South is small, but the danger of nuclear proliferation to the U.S. and its allies is clear and present. We know Pyongyang has proliferated to Iran and Syria in the recent past. Senator John McCain said yesterday the U.S. should board the Kang Nam, a sign that Mr. Obama could count on domestic political support. Will the President let Kim Jong Il make a mockery of U.N. condemnations?
Regarding Iran, Mr. Obama will also have to rethink his hopes for a grand nuclear bargain with Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. This diplomatic desire explains the President’s cautious refusal last week to take sides in the post-election standoff — or, as a Washington Post headline put it, quoting Administration sources, “Obama Seeks Way to Acknowledge Protesters Without Alienating Ayatollah.” It’s impossible to imagine the Reagan Administration whispering something similar about Soviet dissidents and the Politburo.
The Supreme Leader gave his reply by endorsing the election results, arresting opponents and unleashing security forces to beat the demonstrators. Like the Shah in 1979, the government is now firing on its own people chanting “death to the dictator.” Even if the mullahs succeed in stopping the immediate unrest, their legitimacy will never be the same. As Iranian journalist and Journal contributor Amir Taheri notes, the “republic” half of the Islamic Republic of Iran has been exposed as a fraud.
Mr. Obama finally stiffened his rhetoric on Saturday, calling “on the Iranian government to stop all violent and unjust actions against its own people. The universal rights to assembly and free speech must be respected, and the United States stands with all who seek to exercise those rights.” This is an improvement, though he said this only after both houses of Congress condemned Iran’s crackdown on Friday.
Going forward, Mr. Obama will have to consider that any negotiations with the current government will lend it legitimacy at the expense of the Iranian people. That would be precisely the kind of “meddling” in Iran’s politics that Mr. Obama says he wants to avoid. Opposition leader Mir Hussein Mousavi might not take any less a hard line on Iran’s nuclear program than the current government, but he does now represent the aspirations of millions of Iranians. And there is even less chance that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Ayatollah Khamenei will bend on nukes now that nationalism and thuggish power are their main claims to legitimacy.
Focused as he is on domestic matters, Mr. Obama no doubt wishes he could return to his campaign illusions about the powers of diplomacy. But the world’s rogues have other priorities, and stopping them will take more than an extended handshake.
 |
|