Robert Kagan: Obama strategy on Iran — between realism and democracy
Robert Kagan — rightly described by the Economist last November as one of America’s cleverest foreign policy analysts — writes a superbly thought provoking piece about the dilemmas faced by Barack Obama over Iran. Many of us have been surprised, not to say shocked, about how muted Obama has been in recent days: no clear statements of support for the democratic opposition; little more than low key diplomatic calls for calm and an avoidance of violence.
Of course, supporters of the administration have argued that vocal support for the demonstrators could backfire by giving the regime precisely the excuse it needs to portray its opponents as agents of “imperialism”. Since they are doing that anyway, however, the argument seems specious. America should be galvanising international condemnation of a regime which has shown itself contemptuous of basic democratic principles. In more than 30 electoral districts turnout was greater than 100 percent of eligible voters!
Kagan provides an analysis of Obama’s real motivations here, placing his strategy inside the broader picture of a grand debate between realism and idealism in US foreign policy making. Obama, he says, is unlikely to be happy about the demonstrations in Iran. He may not wish the demonstrators well.
Says Kagan: “…Obama never meant to spark political upheaval in Iran, much less encourage the Iranian people to take to the streets. That they are doing so is not good news for the president but, rather, an unwelcome complication in his strategy of engaging and seeking rapprochement with the Iranian government on nuclear issues.”
For the full article, click here:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2009/jun/17/obama-iran-realism-diplomacy