The most important point in Barack Obama’s interview with Al-Arabiya televison — the first major interview he has granted anywhere, since he became President — comes towards the very end of the encounter, and has been virtually unmentioned in reports on the celebrated event:
Q: Will the United States ever live with a nuclear Iran? And if not, how far are you going in the direction of preventing it?
THE PRESIDENT: You know, I said during the campaign that it is very important for us to make sure that we are using all the tools of U.S. power, including diplomacy, in our relationship with Iran.
Now, the Iranian people are a great people, and Persian civilization is a great civilization. Iran has acted in ways that’s not conducive to peace and prosperity in the region: their threats against Israel; their pursuit of a nuclear weapon which could potentially set off an arms race in the region that would make everybody less safe; their support of terrorist organizations in the past — none of these things have been helpful.
But I do think that it is important for us to be willing to talk to Iran, to express very clearly where our differences are, but where there are potential avenues for progress. And we will over the next several months be laying out our general framework and approach. And as I said during my inauguration speech, if countries like Iran are willing to unclench their fist, they will find an extended hand from us.
So, the answer to the journalist’s question, is effectively “yes” — the US would live with a nuclear Iran under Obama, and work things out from there. And “…acted in ways that’s not conducive to peace…” is not exactly a ringing condemnation in “axis of evil” terms, and nor did Obama make any mention of the loopy and noxious holocaust denial/scepticism that Iran’s current leadership go in for. That Obama might consider a strike against Iran at some point is of course a real possibility — but it is worth considering that he thinks that Israel, with dozens of nuclear weapons of its own, can look after itself.
Most importantly, what he does here and elsewhere through the interview is to uncouple US/Middle East/Central Asia policy from any overarching narrative of freedom vs. tyranny, and reduce it to a more mundane realpolitik.
“Israel is a US ally,” he notes, and “its security remains paramount” — but there’s none of the “historically wronged people seeking refuge blah blah blah”. And almost as soon as he’s payed the obeisances, he’s talking about the way in which the whole region has to be considered as a piece.
This marks a real shift, as does Obama’s observation that, ultimately, the Isarelis and Palestinians have to sort things out for themselves. So too does the despatch of George Mitchell as special Middle East envoy. Mitchell is in many ways a corporate Democratic creature, a former friend of Big Tobacco, but he won respect from Sinn Fein/IRA in the Northern Ireland peace process as a plain dealer. Most importantly, he’s half-Arab, his mother emigrating from Lebanon at the age of 18. It is inconceivable that the Bush regime would send such a person to parlay with Israel.
Together with Obama’s decision to call Palestinian Territories head Abbas before he called Olmert, it is one of a series of small but decisive messages that Obama is sending to the Israelis that, whatever needs to be said for domestic American consumption, a half-Kenyan ex-Chicago radical knows a thing or two about colonial projects. As Uri Avnery notes, Obama’s remark during the inauguration about those “on the wrong side of history” applies as well or better to Israel as to the violent Muslim sects who are in a sense its mirror image.
Of course one wouldn’t want to do cartwheels just yet. Along with all this hoopla, Obama has appointed Richard Holbrooke as special envoy to Pakistan and Afghanistan, his blood-tracked footprints going all the way from Vietnam to the Balkans by way of East Timor. But Obama has never made any secret of Afghanistan being a war he wants to win — as much for a more radical re-orientation of regional policy in general. We watch with interest…
It is to be hoped that a more even handed approach by the US in relation to the Palestinian question may place more pressure on Israel to be more accommodating in resolving the issue of Palestinian autonomy.
The Zionists appear to believe that they can do almost anything and have US support because of the political influence of significant elements of the Jewish vote in the US.
A nuclear armed Iran could provide more pressure for political compromise and solutions rather than the relatively unconstrained and racist or expansion of Israel into the West Bank and the savage attacks on Palestinian civilians without any significant fear of retribution.
I understand that the recent incursions into Gaza had more to do with internal Israeli politics than any particular threat to Israeli independence. It is difficult to expect Hamas and Fatah to desist from the terrorist policies that were so successfully applied by the the Zionists leading up to the creation of Israel in the first place.
With massive military superiority, totally backed up by the US military if they get themselves into trouble, there is absolutely no need for any compromise on the part of the Zionists. Similarly the cycle of despair and frustration felt by the Palestinians, with no likely outcome other than continuing constraints imposed by Israel leave the Palestinians was very little choice but to support Hamas and Fatah.
Consequently it would appear that this cycle of aggressive confrontation and continuing suppression of Palestinian rights will continue until there is a more even balance of power.
It is to be hoped that if the US can engage more successfully with significant middle east powers like Iran , that this may ultimately lead to a more peaceful solution based on compromise than one could expect at present based on continuing confrontation.
You’ve got to be joking. Based on Obama’s carefully structured statement that seeks to soothe rather than inflame, Guy Rundle thinks US foreign policy regarding nuclear proliferation has been re-written. If Iran tries to build nuclear capability it will be attacked, probably by Israel but with the backing (if covert) of the US. The US will not permit Iran to go nuclear – doing so would completely change the geo-political structure of the Middle East and eastern Asia and significantly weaken the US’s already tottering world authority. The difference betweem Obama and Bush is Obama doesn’t want a fight, he’s not itching for one, and is looking for ways to warm relations with Iran so that it doesn’t feel such a strong need to go nuclear.
Prof Juan Cole & J Raimondo disagree significantly with Guy about the significance of Obama’s speech.
>http://antiwar.com/justin/
It is also an affirmation that Obama knows that in geopolitics, demographics trumps image every time. There are more Persians than there are Arabs. There are more Persians than there are Israelis. President Ahmedinijad, according to people who have met and conversed with him, is a darn sight more cogent and perceptive than most others in the region. OK, problems aplenty: but dialogue and engagement is the way to go.
but it is worth considering that he thinks that Israel, with dozens of nuclear weapons of its own, can look after itself.
really, he told you? B/c I am not reading that in this excerpt.
C’mon don’t be like Fairfax and News Ltd – link to the transcript!!