Blogs and Stories

Reza Aslan

Obama's Nuclear Problem

BS Top - Aslan Obama Iran 174 Iranian President's Office / AP Photo In his interview with the Arabic news network, Obama hinted at a grim reality facing his new administration: Thanks to Bush’s policies, Iran's nuclear program is here to stay—and regime change isn't an option.

At the end of President Obama’s historic interview with the Arabic news network al-Arabiya—the first he has granted as President of the United States—Hisham Melham, the satellite channel’s Washington Bureau Chief, asked how far an Obama administration would be willing to go to stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons. The president answered the question as one would expect of him, by speaking about his admiration for Persian civilization, about how far he would be willing to go to reach out the Iranian people, about how committed he was to pursuing direct diplomacy with the Iranian regime. “As I said during my inauguration speech,” Obama stated coolly, “if countries like Iran are willing to unclench their fist, they will find an extended hand from us.”

The Bush administration, by refusing to talk to the Iranian regime while the centrifuges were spinning, allowed Iran almost a decade of uninterrupted enrichment activity.

And with that, the interview ended. Not a hint of there being a “military option” in dealing with Iran. Not even an apathetic “all options are on the table,” George W. Bush’s familiar mantra.

There is, of course, a simple reason for the omission. When it comes to Iran, there is no “military option.” Even Bush understood this. Indeed, there is no longer much that the United States—or any country, for that matter—can do to keep Iran from continuing its nuclear program. The days of waiting for Iran to halt its uranium enrichment as a precondition for negotiations have long since past, precisely because the Bush administration, by refusing to talk to the Iranian regime while the centrifuges were spinning, allowed Iran almost a decade of uninterrupted enrichment activity. As far as most Iranians are concerned, there is no going back.

The principle error in the Bush team’s approach to Iran was that it could never decide whether its goal should be to stop Iran from enriching uranium, or to keep it from developing nuclear weapons. Those are vastly different objectives, requiring vastly different approaches.

Now that the first option—halting Iran’s uranium enrichment—is no longer viable, President Obama can focus his efforts on the far more urgent matter of ensuring that Iran’s nuclear tinkering does not evolve into a full-fledged weapons program. To achieve this objective, Obama must return to a campaign promise he made back in 2007, when he was still a candidate for the Democratic Party nomination, and publicly, loudly, unconditionally declare that regime change in Iran—the focus of three decades of American foreign policy toward the Islamic Republic—is no longer “on the table.”

It may be difficult for most Americans to fathom, considering the confident blustering of Iran’s leaders, but the regime is in a state of utter panic over its national security. When I was in Iran a couple of years ago, people were staring at the sky, waiting for American or Israeli bombs (in Iran, they are one and the same) to drop on them at any moment. Although the regime’s paranoia has somewhat subsided with the election of Obama, Iran still has reason to feel threatened. After all, this is a country that is literally encircled by American forces— the US maintains a military presence in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Turkmenistan, Turkey, Iraq, Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain, Oman, and the United Arab Emirates. Iran’s as-yet nonexistent nukes may pose an existential threat to Israel, but Israeli’s very real nuclear missiles are currently pointed directly at Tehran. Every action that Iran takes—from its support of Hizbullah and Hamas to its pursuit of nuclear technology—must be viewed through the prism of the country’s all-encompassing sense of threat. If Iran has learned anything from its fellow axis of evil members, it is this: the country without nuclear weapons (Iraq) was destroyed and forcefully occupied; the country with nuclear weapons (North Korea) is being bribed into giving them up.

Back to Top
January 28, 2009 | 7:57am
Facebook
|
Twitter
|
Digg
|
|
Emails
|
print
Comments ()

This user is no longer registered.

|
|
Reply
9:19 am, Jan 28, 2009

wildcard7

I don't think it's too early to know Obama's position regarding Iran. He has spoken throughout the campaign of meeting without all the preconditions of the Bush years. Also many rumors have surrounded his choosing of Dennis Ross to be a special envoy for Iran issues. If you have read any of Amb. Ross's books it is clear he is absolutely against Iran developing nuclear weapons, as it would trigger several other Middle East countries to follow suit. Although Obama will obviously make the final decisions, Amb. Ross has been one of his close foreign policy advisors on Iran and the language Obama used throughout his campaign concerning Iran largely came from Ross's works. I agree that the Obama administration will probably end up accepting the Iranian right to enrich uranium but I think it's relatively clear it will not stand for a nuclear Iran.
Additionally, in conventional warcraft, Iran maintains a superior position in comparison to many of its neighbors. With a low likelihood of the US using military force, it would not make much sense for Iran to set off an arms race in the middle east. This would effectively level the playing field whereas currently they enjoy a dominant position.
Lastly I have to doubt that the majority of Iranians are waiting for an Israeli bomb to hit at any second. With Iran having the 2nd largest Jewish population in the Middle East (Israel being 1st), I've always felt like Iranian hardliners have intentionally overplayed the treat. Not to say the threat isn't there, but I think each side's bark is worse than its bite concerning the Israel-Iran relationship.

|
|
Reply
10:45 am, Jan 28, 2009

tomfarr

It is really irresponsible to print plain lies, such as saying the Bush administration refused to talk to the Iranian regime. There was plenty of communication on many matters, including Al Quaeda, but it was done behind the scenes, not by Bush and sitting down for a cup of tea with them in front of photographers.

|
|
Reply
12:27 pm, Jan 28, 2009

xbainx

Thank God. A president who doesn't think he's in a western. Peace negotiations? Bring em' on.

|
|
Reply
4:10 pm, Jan 28, 2009

troutcor

Again, the Israel double standard.
When they bomb 1,000 civilians, it's self-defense. When the Palestinians bomb 5, it's terrorism.
The Israelis build a nuke, it's not even discussed. The Iranians merely enrich, and it's a grave threat to regional security that will prompt other nations to follow suit.
If you don't like Iran, and you want to say they can't have a nuclear program while Israel has the bomb, fine. Just don't kid yourself that you want real change in the Middle East. The Iranians, who have launched no wars, are not going to see things as do people in the U.S. and Israel, who have launched them.

|
|
Reply
5:18 pm, Jan 28, 2009
Leave a comment

Thank you.
As a first time user, your comment has been submitted for review. It can take anywhere from a few hours to a day or two for your comment to be reviewed, depending on the time of week and the volume of comments we receive.

View Comments

Obama's Nuclear Problem

Emails
|
print
Single Page
|
text
-
+
Facebook
 | 
Twitter
 | 
Digg
 |