Reading White House Tea Leaves on Iran Getting Difficult
Yesterday evening, I chaired a dinner featuring Austan Goolsbee, the charismatic economic guru of Barack Obama's presidential campaign and a key adviser to the President in the White House. The meeting was off the record -- fascinating and insightful, but off the record. Just keep in mind that there are 6-8 million vacant homes out there. Not good.
What wasn't off the record at the dinner was my conversation with Wall Street Journal White House correspondent Jonathan Weisman who, like me, has been frustrated with senior White House officials apparently sending inconsistent messages about some important policy questions.
Weisman made the point that listening to Barack Obama, he seemed to be saying that America's relations with Iran would be bounded by questions about what international norms Iran chose to abide by or ignore. In other words, Weisman was reading the Obama tea leaves and heard that America was going to reinstitute "conditionality" in the terms of its engagement with Iran.
Shortly before I chatted with Jonathan Weisman, I heard David Axelrod's exchange with Wolf Blitzer on CNN's The Situation Room who while at first appropriately saying that Iran's domestic turmoil was about a key struggle within Iran over its soul and direction and not about the United Sates, then said:
AXELROD: Well, I will just repeat what the president said today. All of this is now in the hands of the Iranians. They can choose to isolate themselves from the world through their behavior, or they can try and develop relationships. And we will await -- we will wait and see what they do.
This sounds like conditionality on our engagement with Iran to me -- but perhaps I am working too hard at trying to understand what the real meaning of David Axelrod's statement is.
Jonathan Weisman called a senior national security adviser close to Barack Obama who allegedly said that there is no change in America's course to engage Iran. No change in policy. No conditionality.
If the senior White House adviser knows the definitive truth of the situation, I am glad -- because I agree with that policy position.
But one has to admit that David Axelrod's comments -- and even those of the President at a minimum flirt with the "conditionality" issue of future US talks with Iran -- and that if we did take such a course, we will miss any opportunity to engineer a strategic shift in America's relations with Iran, which happens to be right up near the top of America's strategic priorities right now.
-- Steve Clemons publishes the popular political blog, The Washington Note
Steve: Obama lives in the real world. If the media keeps running the lie that the Islamic Repbublic is a Persian Third Reich, it will be hard for Obama to engage.
Gee, I wonder who benefits from that scenario?
June 24, 2009 12:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
I couldn't agree more. What the fuck do you want from this man. He's already said too much and the Iranians are doing exactly what he said they would do if he made too many comments?
June 24, 2009 1:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Using terror to maintain control does bear a certain resemblance to certain tactics of the Reich.
The Supreme Leader wildly damaged his credibility when they tried that absurd theory about a BBC camera man shooting a demonstrator. Nacht und Nebel.
In part we judge how a country will treat others on the basis of how it treats its own.
June 24, 2009 3:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Then you must hate the Israeli government for how badly it treats its Arab citizens.
June 24, 2009 6:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah Steve, maybe you are making too much of it, and as much as I respect you, you are just like the rest of the press, needing to know every detail and trying to read into it what you want.
June 24, 2009 1:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Steve, I had the same reaction to Obama's statement: conditionality. Very sad to hear it.
June 24, 2009 4:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
June 25, 2009 2:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, by all means: Barack Obama had best hie himself over to The Project for a New American Century and get himself re-educated on how "real men" operate in situations such as this. Then he can call Dick Cheney to the White House for a heart-to-heart about how he (Obama) is mishandling the situation and take notes on what Dick Cheney Would Do.
You betcha. Steve, here's a hint: 56% of the voting public did not vote for Barack Obama because we wanted more Cheney/PNAC. Just the reverse in fact.
sPh
June 25, 2009 7:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, our lack of a relationship with the democratically elected Hamas has not exactly been productive.
June 25, 2009 8:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obviously, the approach of those in power in Iran to open dialogue with us is a factor or "condition" of such dialogue, and the outcome of the current crisis decisively shapes what that approach will be. And whatever dialogue there is would obviously be ludicrous if it simply ignored blood flowing in the streets of the cities of Iran.
As for Hamas, I haven't seen Obama exactly singing the praises of or encouraging operation cast-lead type actions. The fact that there are other evils in the region, including the horrifically marginalized issue of Darfur, should not be used to (as some of my Left colleagues have done) trivialize what is happening in Iran. It deserves no less attention than progressives paid to a similar point in developments under the shah and his dreaded Savak.
June 25, 2009 12:02 PM | Reply | Permalink