The exchanges between the two leading democratic contenders in the US presidential race are becoming more direct of late. Most recently, Senators Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton clashed over their judgment call on Iran. While this topic might not appeal to the American masses as much as say healthcare or energy policy or even an Iraq exit strategy, Iran has the potential to turn into another Iraq if certain decisions are made by whoever makes it in the White House.
Most recently, presidential hopeful and Illinois senator Barack Obama (whose name was mistakenly used two days ago by a Republican presidential candidate trying to refer to Osama Bin Laden!) made his views on Iran heard in a recent op-ed he wrote. Obama contended, "The first and most important avenue to contain Iranian aggression" should be "direct diplomacy", which of course his rival New York Senator Hillary Clinton had once described as "naïve" and "irresponsible".
Obama also condemned a Senate resolution that urged the Bush administration to designate Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) as a foreign terrorist organisation. He rightly argued that the resolution "opened the door to an extension and escalation of the ongoing war in Iraq to include military action against Iran". On the other hand, Hillary was the only Democratic candidate who voted for that resolution.
It is best to hold off on who will be chosen by the American voters as the Democratic candidate - although Hillary seems to be the frontrunner - but one thing must be pointed out: direct diplomacy towards Iran should be the way forward for any acting US president.
Obama is right in contending that an American president should meet with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Where is the harm in that? And why does Bush completely and unequivocally refuse to meet with leaders of the Islamic Republic? Instead, he is content with sending them warnings through the media.
As Obama points out, "strong countries and strong presidents shouldn't be afraid to talk directly to [our] adversaries to tell them where America stands".
Understandable
In an odd way, it is understandable that the thought of Bush meeting Ahmadinejad for Americans is "ludicrous" since American media has made him out to be a holocaust-denier and an advocate of Israel's destruction.
Currently, US Vice-President Dick Cheney is lamenting that the US and other nations cannot "stand by as a terror-supporting state [Iran] fulfils its most aggressive ambitions" referring to Iran's peaceful nuclear programme. Lest we forget, Cheney currently stands alone and unchallenged in the US Cabinet. He has regained the upper hand over calmer heads in the administration including Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Defence Secretary Robert Gates, who both prefer diplomacy and sanctions to war. Last week, Bush warned that a nuclear Iran could lead to another world war.
The question is, what would an American (or an American-led) attack on Iran achieve? First and foremost, it would strengthen the Iranian president in his homeland at a time when his internal popularity is relatively weak. (For some time now, Ahmadinejad's political rivals have been gaining some strength as Iranians have been disappointed with the economy's deteriorating status.) Throughout history, war has always caused a dramatic increase in the popularity of any acting president, regardless of where or when.
Not only this; Iranian nationalism would most likely cut in and the people would rally behind their current government.
The best way forward would be for the two nations to start some meaningful dialogue and for Bush to stop taking advice from his vice-president who seems to believe that attacking Iran is not an option but a must. The US foreign policy team should know better than to advocate a bombing campaign against the Islamic Republic. They have plenty of past experiences to draw from.
Conventional
Obama rightly points out that conventional Washington thinking says that the US can "only talk to people who agree" with them. Others with varying opinions either get the cold shoulder treatment or face threats (Syria, Iran, Cuba, Venezuela, North Korea etc...).
Yes Obama, indeed it is time to "turn the page on a failed foreign policy" by the US leadership. And yes, it is time for strong diplomacy backed by "commonsense" measures instead of thoughtless invasions.
There needs to be a clear shift from the current dysfunctional Middle East policy which Hillary seems to embrace.
Perhaps as the only female candidate, Hillary feels the need to "man-up" on Iran. But she will do herself a favour if she starts approaching Iran more pragmatically, instead of exposing herself as being nothing but a "tough" player.
Your comments
The USA, as admitted by various media reports, made initial blunders by taking a harsher than required stand against Iran and not realising that Iran has made tremendous progress in military might since the Iraq-Iran war. It has selected softer US targets in the region and can cause havoc for the US forces in the neighbouring countries. What Bush is now trying to do is to use extremism in demonstrating his utmost hatred, believing that somehow Iran will give in. To me, this is his last desperate attempt to somehow get the world involved into a united front. So far, the results are not very good and the USA looks more isolated than Iran.
Mahmood
London,UK
Posted: October 26, 2007, 13:38
Two disastrous wars, and steadily worsening with no end in sight. Most thought lessons would have been learned with the war mongers in the White House. Guess not. Sane people in such a situation will try to damp down tensions, not decide it's a great time to start another war.
Frances
Sharjah,UAE
Posted: October 26, 2007, 09:17
Send us your comments
TERMS AND CONDITIONS
Gulf News may edit comments for length and clarity but will not change the tone of the message. Comments will only be accepted all if fields (including name) are filled correctly and the message isn't abusive, defamatory or offensive. The Gulf News website will only print your first name along with your comment. Please state in the message if you wish to remain anonymous. All comments sent may be forwarded for use in the Gulf News newspaper.
