Blogs and Stories
Why Obama Won't Talk Tough
Jewel Samad, AFP / Getty Images; Sipa / AP Photo
The easiest way to demonize the reformers in Iran, a senior administration official tells The Daily Beast's Richard Wolffe, is for the U.S. to align with them. Inside the Obama's PR strategy.
Plus, read more insight on Iran's election from other Daily Beast writers.
Is President Obama going wobbly on Iran?
His former presidential rival John McCain declared on the Today show that “he should speak out that this is a corrupt, fraud, sham of an election.” Other conservatives and neo-cons have piled on with the condemnations of both the regime in Tehran and the one housed at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Eric Cantor, the House Minority Whip, attacked Obama’s position as “a step backward for homegrown democracy in the Middle East.” Nile Gardiner, a Heritage Foundation commentator, who once worked as a researcher for Margaret Thatcher a decade after she left Downing Street, termed the president’s policy “cowardly, lily-livered and wrong.” Them’s fightin’ words—which is precisely what the Obama White House wants to avoid in dealing with the Iranian regime and a disputed foreign election.
“We respect Senator McCain. But we saw the same philosophy on North Korea, where he badgered the Bush administration to be tougher. Now we have North Korea with enough material for several nuclear weapons.”
“We respect Senator McCain,” one senior administration official tells me. “But we saw the same philosophy on North Korea, where he badgered the Bush administration to be tougher. Now we have North Korea with enough material for several nuclear weapons. And we saw that the ‘tough’ approach on Iran employed by the Bush administration led to the Iranians now spinning a large number of centrifuges.”
Inside the Obama administration, the notion of tough talk is seen as highly counterproductive. The easiest way to marginalize and even demonize the reform movement is for the United States to align itself with the opposition. “Given the long history of the U.S. and Iran over the last 30 years, the issue is that you don’t want to insert yourself too much,” the senior official says. “Because otherwise it gives the Iranians a pretty easy excuse to paint one side as being with the U.S.”
That has left the White House with a complex problem of communications. How to express outrage at the violence without taking obvious sides and playing into the hands of a repressive regime?
“Using Obama’s moral authority—which he established very well with the Cairo speech—in a targeted, surgical way makes a lot of sense,” my well-placed source continues. “We have to be very smart as to how the president addresses this issue in the press and public statements.” Thus, in public, Obama has been careful—if not surgical—in talking about the elections, frustrating liberal friends and conservative critics alike.
“I do believe that something has happened in Iran where there is a questioning of the kinds of antagonistic postures toward the international community that have taken place in the past, and that there are people who want to see greater openness and greater debate and want to see greater democracy,” Obama told reporters in the Rose Garden on Tuesday. “How that plays out over the next several days and several weeks is something ultimately for the Iranian people to decide. But I stand strongly with the universal principle that people’s voices should be heard and not suppressed.”
Few other foreign crises suggest a template for what the White House can achieve or avoid. Tiananmen Square two decades ago seems an obvious comparison, but the history between China and the United States was hardly as fraught as the Iranian relationship. Brent Scowcroft infamously toasted the Chinese leadership six months after Tiananmen. There is zero chance that James Jones will do the same in Tehran six months from now.
The real power in national security lies with someone who reigns regardless of the votes, no matter how they are counted: supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.
So why does Obama show no greater enthusiasm for the reformers who are protesting in the streets and enduring the beatings of the regime’s henchmen?
It’s not just because he wants to avoid meddling. Among his senior advisers, there is the strong view that no matter who “wins” the election as Iranian president, the real power in national security lies with someone who reigns regardless of the votes, no matter how they are counted: supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.
While Khamenei is in power, the most troubling aspect of Iranian policy—its nuclear program—is likely to remain on its current track. “That variable remains constant,” says the senior Obama official. “And that is a key variable in the equation.”
Richard Wolffe is Daily Beast columnist and an award-winning journalist, political analyst for MSNBC, and senior strategist at Public Strategies. He covered the entire length of Barack Obama's presidential campaign for Newsweek magazine. His book, Renegade: The Making of a President, will be published by Crown in June.
Amateur Hour at the White House
Leslie H. Gelb, a former New York Times columnist and senior government official, is author of Power Rules: How Common Sense Can Rescue American Foreign Policy (HarperCollins 2009), a book that shows how to think about and use power in the 21st century. He is president emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations.
Airports From Hell
The Daily Beast is dedicated to news and commentary, culture, and entertainment. We carefully curate the web’s most essential stories and bring you original must-reads from our talented contributors.
8 New Internet Sex Fads
Rachel Kramer Bussel is the editor of Peep Show: Erotic Tales of Voyeurs and Exhibitionists, Bottoms Up and over 25 other erotica anthologies, and hosts and curates In The Flesh Reading Series.
Obama's Bad Trip
Richard Wolffe is Daily Beast columnist and an award-winning journalist, and senior strategist at Public Strategies. He covered the entire length of Barack Obama's presidential campaign for Newsweek magazine. His book, Renegade: The Making of a President, was published by Crown in June.
Bush's Rose-Colored Glasses
Richard Wolffe is Daily Beast columnist and an award-winning journalist, and senior strategist at Public Strategies. He covered the entire length of Barack Obama's presidential campaign for Newsweek magazine. His book, Renegade: The Making of a President, was published by Crown in June.
Getting Obama Back in the Game
Richard Wolffe is Daily Beast columnist and an award-winning journalist, and senior strategist at Public Strategies. He covered the entire length of Barack Obama's presidential campaign for Newsweek magazine. His book, Renegade: The Making of a President, was published by Crown in June.
The inherent problem is that in doing nothing now, when the time comes for obama to act, he just might over-react !!
The fact that he's constraining himself from doing anything now is good evidence that he won't over react when/IF the time comes.
What a childish assertion Dave1959! and how inane to assume that someone as smart as out President would be as stuid as the Neo Con Right Wing LOL He beat them at their own game in the election so I have faith he is quite a bit smarter LOLOLOLOL
he is making the right call as Ahmadinejad is just waiting to blame all of this on the devils in the US and the idiot dill weed Republicans are soooooo full of hope that they too can find something to blame on Obama ....helps divert attention away from 2 Wars and a crashed economy THEY created.
What should he do? Invade Iran? Should he invoke sanctions with the idea that they do as America says and not as it does? Did America set those 80 men, women and children on fire? How the heck can America, with it's history even in Iran, can you say Iran-Contra, drugs for weapons, tell any other Nation what to do. All these Angry White Males spitting hate for President Obama, what a twisted message we send overseas.
What do you want him to do......invade?
This comment has been removed by The Daily Beast's editors.
Obama is such a jerk.
Who cares what the GOP say especially on foreign Policy?
Who cares what they say regarding anything? THEY crashed the Economy, THEY started 2 Wars and they have behaved like small children since they lost the election. Their arrows have been so stupid that really the majority of people in this country now just laugh at them. Vitter? A Joke, Limbaugh? A Joke, Palin/McCain? A Joke and the sad little list of idiots goes on and on.
Obama's current position is that the US will not meddle in Iranian self-determination -- at least as long as the outcome is uncertain. Does anyone doubt that if the momentum for regime change reaches the point where change becomes inevitable that he will come out swinging and make sure the world knows that he really supported it all along? In fact, does anyone doubt that if change occurs that he will take full credit, based on campaign promises, a letter to Iran and a speech in Cairo, for changing the balance of power in the world?
And is anyone out there so naive as to believe that new regime and its supporters (and other similarly situated people seeking freedon) will be nearly as gullible as the rest of the free world is as to Obama's role in the whole matter?
It can be argued that Obama's policy is the right one because it maintains "optionality". But he cannot have it both ways -- nor can the free world. He cannot expect that the current diplomatic effort will send the same message to people living under oppressive regimes that we sent to the Polish people or the East Germans.
And whatever other worthwhile international objectives he may fulfill, he and his supporters will never be able to suggest that the quest for universal human rights and dignity were a part of that agenda.
well, yes, but back in the days of communist Poland, the US actually had some moral authority. It has all been squandered since then.
"well, yes, but back in the days of communist Poland, the US actually had some moral authority. "
You mean seeing as US and UK politicians pretty much abandoned Poland to Stalin; helped cover-up (or wilfully ignored) the Katyn massacre, and (in the case of the UK) treated the Polish soldiers that fought alongside the British and American (including but not limited to Monte Cassino) like crap.
Certain decisions and compromises might be defensible from a strategic or pragmatic point of view; but moral authority is simply a handy propaganda tool used to placate the average citizen.
HE has brought change already LOL The only things he has to change are the wars YOU GUYS started, Fixing the economy YOU GUYS trashed and making us a proud Nation again after BUSH ruining us all over the globe!
Deal with facts and do us all a favor misterdon, DONT reproduce since you have such a hard time with facts.
Mr. Wolffe,
You are wrong about considering the Mousavi led so called opposition, a real opposition. Mr. Mousavi is a member of the Islamic mafia ruling Iran and part of the same gang. The real opposition is in exile and the U.S. has placed them on a sham terrorist list as part of the appeasement policy towards the criminal mullahs. The U.S. administration ( President Obama's or any other) should take them off the sham list so that the real Iranians can take their country back. The mullahs' regime has to go just like the Hitler's regime had to go. The highest courts in Europe ordered the group off such lists in Europe for lack of any evidence. It is high time that the U.S. will do the same.
You are so right Meghan. Its a real sheam the "mainstream" media cannot see him for what Mousavi really is.
after 8 years of yelling and screaming ai Iran and NoKo, to no avail...only John MaCain would think it was productive and want to do it again.
Please remember that after "the axis of evil" speech, whatever was left to our relationship with Iran was gone....
Can the gran ol' party, with emphasis on OLD please STFUP
Obama won't talk tought because the road he always takes is down the middle. He tries to placate each side. The Iranians that are fighting and risking their life for freedom, needs to know that we are behind them. President Obama, this is the time to speak out--use that backbone if you have one.
Are you kidding me? Do you want to go back to the Bush - Cheney foreign policy? This is absolutely the right way to deal with Iran. We tried meddling - it doesn't work. A calm, thoughtful leader is what we need - not a cowboy. The clearest way to alienate ourselves even more from Iran is to pick a side.
This comment has been removed by The Daily Beast's editors.
Mary-
Here's hoping
That you're not in charge
Of anything important out there in the world
Because you sure don't know
How to play your cards.
I did not like George Bush, but at least we had no doubt as to where he stood on an issue. President Obama, speak up on the issue of freedom for the Iranians.
Yeah, our own house is on fire and we need to be concentrating on putting it out before we're all out in the street, but sure, go ahead and poke a stick in the wasp's nest that is Iran.
Oh, please. Do you really not know where any U. S. President would stand on this issue? Does anyone think that President Obama would not like the people in Iran to have freedom?
Now I understand why 30 percent of Americans can't grasp this President's policies.
By the way - I read Richard's book - fantastic! If you are involved at all in politics, this is a must read. In fact, I am going to read parts of it to the Constitution class I teach.
President Obama almost never speaks out on an issue at the beginning, he'll wait and see which way the "wind blows" before he takes a stand--which still leaves us wondering where he stands.
The worst thing the President could do right now is shoot off his mouth and give Iran a platform from which to accuse him of meddling in their affairs. The best thing he can do is keep his mouth shut, at least for now.
The article is spot on with the logic of the Obama administration.
Obama doesn't just plan his next move. He plans the next three of four. This isn't just about a photo op, it's about strategy.
It is highly unlikely that the regime will fold. In the end, we'll still be stuck dealing with the same problems. If as antagonize the regime we'll have even less room to maneuver. The world already knows what we think on the subject.
The same foreign policy that we've always used hasn't worked. Perhaps a new approach is necessary. What have we got to lose? Not much... (The old way only made things worse and never stopped these regimes from completing their goals regardless.)
The essence of American foreign policy has been to deal with the regimes who could "give us the most" no matter how odious the regime might be. Obama's is not a new approach. It is merely a nuanced version of what we have almost always done -- conduct our affairs with no regard whatsoever for human rights and dignity. We stand 'em up and the citizens seeking freedom and justice in these pathetic places are faced with knocking them down by themselves -- at least until our brave leaders are sure that they will not end up supporting the losing side. We dislike losers more than we dislike tyranny and injustice.
And while it is early in Obama's term, our policy pronouncements around the world to date (and lack thereof) and our engagements with regimes who are blatantly abusive of the rights and dignity of their subjects do not auger well for the notion that morality will play any part in our relations with other countries. Realpolitik -- yes. But we'd better break all of our mirrors.
BTW -- these comments are not to be construed as an apologia for Bush and the neocons for whom no apology is possible. They are simply an observation that the Obama administration has concentrated our policy to be that the "right thing" is simply always going to be "the right thing for us" without regard to the moral implications of what we do. Business as usual.
Well, you nailed it. Realpolitik. Pragmatism. Thoughtful engagement...
The fact is we don't have a magic wand or all that much influence. We like to think we are an uber-nation but in reality, we are in a severe recession are fighting two wars.
I think Obama is doing the best and all that he can do. We can ask no more.
For someone so popular, the Prez really can't win. "He's doing too much!" "He's not doing enough, get off the tv!" "Call out Iran!" "Do something about those pirates!" And its only been 5 months...
Bottom line, no matter what happens they're going to get nukes. there's no indication whatsoever that either outcome will change that. We need to prepare for what that does to the power dynamics in the Middle East and avoid doing anything about these internal events that might create new problems.
Israel will stop them or die trying I would think.
This user is no longer registered.
Mr. Wolfe your great in making things clearer to me. What the Obama administration including Sec. of State Clinton is to align with other allies especially around the middle east to make change for the reformers. We can not go in this one alone like the Iraq conundrum...I think that we have a better chance diplomatically with the middle east thanks in part of the Obama speech in Cairo to go in as a group with common values and interests and influence and help Iran in its new reform. Let us all pray for all the Iranians in succeeding in this goal.
Obama's foolish decision to not speak up for democracy has one fatal flaw.....the Mullahs are linking the opposition to the US anyway. Today the Admadinejad government accused the opposition of being in league with the "great satan" and accelerated their arrests and crackdown. Obama's silence simply gave the Iranian Islamo-fascists a green light to become more and more repressive and violent.
But now at least the rest of the world knows the US is not meddling.
The world knew we weren't meddling with the Germans when they exterminated the Jews too. We turned away a shipload of refugees destined for destruction. But we damn well didn't meddle.
Bragging about the merits of not meddling is a low, low bar. More likely to be slithered under than stepped over. But if that makes you proud of America, whatever.
There are good arguments for both camps. Neither has obvious merit over the other...
This user is no longer registered.
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.
Please log in to leave comments.