Blogs and Stories
Your Move, Mr. Ahmadinejad
AP Photos
Obama was branded as naïve on Iran, but James Carroll says last week’s soaring rhetoric put him back on track—and in a position to push Tehran closer to checkmate in tomorrow’s nuclear talks.
On Thursday, when the United States confronts Iran over its hidden nuclear facility, one move will be as obvious as a jump in a game of checkers—the threat of tougher sanctions to force open the mountain bunker near Qum to international inspectors, combined with a demand for access to blueprints and personnel. The message will be clear: Tehran will not be allowed to weaponize its nuclear operations.
Obama is being derided for naïveté, as if he expected Iran to roll over and take orders just because a young American president gives great speeches. “Obama should temper his rhetoric,” Jim Hoagland wrote in The Washington Post the other day, “and avoid adding atomic abolition to the growing list of subjects that he oversells.” Iran’s duplicity was revealed just as Obama was basking in the world spotlight at the U.N., rhetoric and all. As I observed last week, his resurrection of the word “disarmament” before the Security Council was historic. But was it just rhetoric?
The U.S. is getting serious about nuclear disarmament. Far from being the move of a naïve idealist, this is the essence of realism today.
Obama is no dope. Actions and words must be twinned, and he showed that the next day, since, of course, it was Obama who blew the whistle on the facility near Qum, a carefully timed exposure of intelligence that the United States had long possessed. When Obama flipped on the klieg lights to expose damning evidence that Iran’s nuclear project is not what Tehran claims, he proved the point that he had just made before the world at the U.N.: Proliferation is a real and present danger. In other words, he orchestrated the challenge to Iran, right up to this week’s confrontation. Obama is playing chess, not checkers.
Unlike the bevy of “realists” who disdain him, Obama knows that the sanctions threat, no matter how tough or universally enforced, is not enough to get Iran to surrender its nuclear ambition. The idealist-president, it may turn out, has the hardest nose of all. The principle is obvious: Nuclear weapons give a nation superpower clout in the international arena (and permanently deter others from attempting a regime-change intervention.) The only way a country like Iran will yield on such ambition is if this pillar of global power begins to be removed, and that means the nuclear-haves must get serious about the negotiations toward a nuclear abolition treaty they are already bound to by Article VI of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty—a requirement that has been all but ignored for almost the entire 39 years of the treaty’s existence. The only U.S. president who seriously tried to abolish nuclear weapons was the arch-realist Ronald Reagan, coming within a hair’s breadth of an agreement with Mikhail Gorbachev in 1986 to empty the arsenals of the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. by 2000.
• Michael Adler: Why Iran Hard-Liners Are StrengthenedThe nuclear radicalism that animated Reagan, the abolitionist, plays in a lower key with Obama, but it defines the other move that he will make on Thursday. In effect, it is the carrot that will be quietly dangled before Iran: The U.S. is getting serious about nuclear disarmament. Far from being the move of a naïve idealist, this is the essence of realism today. Chess, not checkers. Obama has one eye on Iran, but another eye on the dozen other nations that are waiting to see whether Iran will win this match. Tehran with the Bomb will promptly bring Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and other Mideast states into the nuclear arms race, with countries like Brazil, Venezuela, and Argentina approaching the starting line.
Iran is the proliferation firewall. The spread of nukes has to stop here. Obama, far from being ambushed, has been setting up this confrontation at least since Cairo, when he began to change the terms of the entire nuclear discussion. (And where he acknowledged America’s role in sparking Iran’s anti-U.S. hostility with the 1953 coup.)
Don’t be surprised if the Thursday confrontation ends inconclusively. Chess games take time. Having been making his moves since last spring, Obama is setting up moves two and three in advance, aware ultimately of next spring. That is when the long-scheduled NPT Review Conference will be held in New York, with most signatory nations gathered under the same banner: No non-proliferation for the many without disarmament by the few. Between now and then, Obama will have restored the structure of nuclear arms reduction with Russia. Other nuclear haves will be feeling unwelcome pressure of their own, for they, too, have to play by these rules. The problem of Iran looks different when viewed in the larger context. The solution to that problem will follow when the world understands the United States as leading in a new direction. Ironically, Iran is serving the invaluable function of forcing the issue—big time. And no, it has not taken Obama by surprise.
James Carroll's recent book is Practicing Catholic, a story of American belief. He is a columnist for the Boston Globe and Distinguished-Scholar-in-Residence at Suffolk University. His other books include An American Requiem, which won the National Book Award, House of War, winner of the PEN-Galbraith Award, and Constantine's Sword, now an acclaimed documentary.
For inquiries, please contact The Daily Beast at editorial@thedailybeast.com.
How Rich People Smoke Pot
Paul Schrodt is a writer living in New York City. He has contributed to New York magazine, Radar, and Esquire.com.
Justice Clinton?
As vice chairman of Public Strategies and president of Maverick Media, Mark McKinnon has helped meet strategic challenges for candidates, corporations and causes, including George W. Bush, John McCain, Governor Ann Richards, Charlie Wilson, Lance Armstrong, and Bono. McKinnon is co-chair of Arts & Labs, a collaboration between technology and creative communities that have embraced today's rich Internet environment to deliver innovative and creative digital products to consumers.
How to Spot an Islamophobe
James Carroll's recent book is Practicing Catholic, a story of American belief. He is a columnist for the Boston Globe and Distinguished-Scholar-in-Residence at Suffolk University. His other books include An American Requiem, which won the National Book Award, House of War, winner of the PEN-Galbraith Award, and Constantine's Sword, now an acclaimed documentary.
Misogynist Massachusetts
James Carroll's recent book is Practicing Catholic, a story of American belief. He is a columnist for the Boston Globe and Distinguished-Scholar-in-Residence at Suffolk University. His other books include An American Requiem, which won the National Book Award, House of War, winner of the PEN-Galbraith Award, and Constantine's Sword, now an acclaimed documentary.
The Christian Anti-Gay Campaign
James Carroll's recent book is Practicing Catholic, a story of American belief. He is a columnist for the Boston Globe and Distinguished-Scholar-in-Residence at Suffolk University. His other books include An American Requiem, which won the National Book Award, House of War, winner of the PEN-Galbraith Award, and Constantine's Sword, now an acclaimed documentary.
bcaldwell
The only chess game being played is by the Russians in this deal. Nothing that happens can happen without Rusia and unless Putin sees it in his best overall interests to have a non nuclear Iran, we will have nuclear Iran.
Please stop trying to prop this amateur up on the world stage. Stop trying to portray him as some sort of realistic genius-he's not and he's being played , he knows it and he won't admit it. he's been outflanked by Ahmadinejad and he faces another move by Russia who still has the its best peices on the board. Come on....this is new . Is it new that the Iranians have been working on nuclear weapons/technology? The only thing that is new is the proof of the facility at Qom and so what? The iranians have been playing rope a dope.
You have to get the Russians in this game , they are the big players and so long as they don't go along with sanctions to any large degree, you will see Iran with many nuclear weapons in the next three years. Hell, they are the ones providing the technical assistance.
sophia5
bcaldwell
Not to worry.
Obama is going to solve the World's ills with his self absorbed Aura.
But not until he's done campaigning in Copenhagen with Oprah,
because we all know nothing is more pressing than getting Chicago the Olympics.
oakely
Tony Blair personally campaigned for (and won) the London Olympics. He, too, had other pressing matters.
The presidency is a round-the-clock job, even on vacations just like Bush did. He was always on vacation, remember? A president is a multi-tasking job, and Obama spending four hours in Copenhagen won't keep him away from various other issues........he'll be working on the plane going and returning.
gak001
You've just further supported Obama's position in the chess game - the change to the missile defense shield program made it more effective AND pleased Russia since it isn't encroaching on Russia's backyard. They're more likely to play ball now that Obama found a win-win solution to that political hot button issue. With Russia and a sympathetic China on the US's side, an effective solution is looking more and more likely.
devilsadvocate
Russia is already leaning toward backing away from some of the promises it made to get rid of the missile shield. The Russians don't appear to want to play ball on this. It will be near impossible without their support.
gak001
It would be difficult, but Russia just accepted the majority of Iran's current Uranium stock and is refining it to medical grade for them. Iran is being relatively open and cooperative, there are IAEA inspectors on the ground, and the country is morally opposed to first-strikes. The Iranian threat is more or less manufactured.
Garvagh
bcaldwell: Are you aware that Putin, and Russia for that matter, oppose any Iranian nuclear weapons program?
NorCalGladiator
It must be very hard for these readers above me to have any faith that a guy who has a "big stick" is willing to use words instead of the former to win over a culture that isn't won over by guys with "big sticks." We are not going to bully the have-nots with some big gun they know we wont use. The last 50 years the nations we've had a problem with we've faught instead of working on solving our differences. Maybe it's time to take notes from someone wih a lot higher IQ than someone who can't get the big stick out of their head.
Ruckus
I agree totally. But if that doesn't work, Obama better kickhim in the balls.
clearthinker
yeah, because "words" are power....right right right. Liberal rule #1: always talk, never act.
ShutUpAndThink
As opposed to Republican rule #1: Act, while lying about the reason you're acting, therefore alienating yourself from both your constituents and the world.
gak001
That was Bush's problem: it's great to speak softly and carry a big stick, but Bush was yelling and slamming down the stick in Iraq and Afghanistan. Others realized that there wasn't enough stick to go around, so the threat of military action is severely diminished.
We use diplomacy to prevent the need for action. It's far preferable to achieve our ends through peaceful means. Even if action becomes inevitable, at least we will have the moral high ground for having exhausted all other options first.
Garvagh
NorCalGladiator: Surely you agree the US and the Soviet Union avoided going to war with each other, dispite significant differences of opinion on various matters.
Prince-O
Bcaldwell and Sophia5,
Stop Nit picking and dont be so Short-Sighted... This is Chess not Checkers. This is a game for the Intellectuals :)
P.S- I have a problem with him going to Copenhagen also and putting his nose in everything, but the Man choose a path to do everything he can wherever he can for America. So Blame he for just that and nothing else.
sonofloud
Beware politically motivated hype. While on the surface, Obama's dramatic intervention seemed sound, the devil is always in the details. The "rules" Iran is accused of breaking are not vague, but rather spelled out in clear terms. In accordance with Article 42 of Iran's Safeguards Agreement, and Code 3.1 of the General Part of the Subsidiary Arrangements (also known as the "additional protocol") to that agreement, Iran is obliged to inform the IAEA of any decision to construct a facility which would house operational centrifuges, and to provide preliminary design information about that facility, even if nuclear material had not been introduced. This would initiate a process of complementary access and design verification inspections by the IAEA.
This agreement was signed by Iran in December 2004. However, since the "additional protocol" has not been ratified by the Iranian parliament, and as such is not legally binding, Iran had viewed its implementation as being voluntary, and as such agreed to comply with these new measures as a confidence building measure more so than a mandated obligation.
In March 2007, Iran suspended the implementation of the modified text of Code 3.1 of the Subsidiary Arrangements General Part concerning the early provisions of design information. As such, Iran was reverting back to its legally-binding requirements of the original safeguards agreement, which did not require early declaration of nuclear-capable facilities prior to the introduction of nuclear material.
While this action is understandably vexing for the IAEA and those member states who are desirous of full transparency on the part of Iran, one cannot speak in absolute terms about Iran violating its obligations under the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. So when Obama announced that "Iran is breaking rules that all nations must follow", he is technically and legally wrong.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2009/sep/25/iran-secr et-nuclear-plant-inspections
devilsadvocate
I've arlready got a problem with this piece, starting with the first sentence. "Obama was branded as naïve on Iran"??? Simply not true. Who branded him naïve? I haven't heard about this, and I widely read from many news outlets.
clearthinker
the articles you were reading said he was simply stupid, right?
devilsadvocate
Nope. None said that either. I'm simply asking who ever said he was naive?
oakely
McCain and everybody on the Right said he was naive. Even Hillary Clinton and some Democrats called him naive. Where have you been and what have you been reading?
reardongalt
According to Jack Kelly of the Pittsburg Post-Gazette, who has contacts with Sarkozy of France:
"Sarkozy thinks that President Obama is incredibly naive and grossly egotistical - so egotistical that no one can dent his naiveté."
The Frenchman thinks so little of Obama, in fact, that he fears for the free world: "he's very worried about what that means for the West because the president of the United States is the leader of the free world. And if the president of the United States isn't going to lead the free world, it isn't going to be led."
No this is not from Bizarro World of Superman comic books, it's real. Imagine being lectured by the leader of France? How far we've fallen.
jamesindentontx
Sarkozy is in no postion to call anyone egotistical. Jack Kelly has a clear Republican agenda. It's not so real after all.
Tiddlywinks
Who branded him naive? That french guy Sorkozy for one. You know you need a course correction when the french think you are a wuss.
ShutUpAndThink
Wow, I look forward to the day when Obama will be celebrated for the things he'll have accomplished. Open your mind, folks!! Give the guy a chance. He's YOUR president, too, and he's not going anywhere for at least 3 1/2 years. He might not be THAT bad...
oakely
They are afraid he might succeed, hence the non-stop attacks and road-blocking.
jmbreland
Obama's potential success we all should fear: What does Obama's "success" consist of? The death of private enterprise. Bureaucratic micromanagement of healthcare. Abdication of world leadership. The dismantling of tradititional American civil society. The marginalization of Constitutional rule of law. The subservience of American sovereignty to global governance. The forcible silencing of political opposition. These ends (and that's just a start) amount to "success" in Obama's world. Americans would do well to fear his "success" and do everything possible to thwart it.
jamesindentontx
jmbreland , your country is lost, Glenn Beck is waiting for you with a box of Kleenex.
ErnieBanks
Me too. What will be on that list? So far: Doubling the national debt. Nationalizing the auto industry, Socializing medicine. Still to come: Abandoning Afghanistan. Letting Iran get the bomb. Raising taxes during a recession. Creating a huge carbon regulation agency. Enabling Republicans to retake the House in 2010.
ShutUpAndThink is right. We should celebrate these things! It is the change we believed in!
AbdulKhadher
And you are already celebrating him without him not having done anything. In fact you were celebrating him before he even became president. By the way, I have a bridge to sell you in Arizona.....
jamesindentontx
I have a pipeline to sell you in Alaska. Obama has not nationalized or Socialized anything, in spite of the wide abuse of that word. If we are going to stop Iran from getting the bomb, we need the help of other nations, a military option has always been considerd too messy in Iran, as it has a huge population, and extensive influence in the region. If he raises your taxes, it's because you are in the top 5%, and you probably shouldn't be complaining, because you voted for Bush, instead of the guy who wanted to put the surplus into something good. Remember the surplus? Probably not. Remember when we had a miltary option? I guess you are also in favor of continuing to destroy the environment for present day conveniences, and equate that with freedom and liberty. I'm not sure if you stand for anything other than making argument.
jamesindentontx
Sorry I was replyin to you and ErnieBanks at the same time. You are proabably holding hands anyway.
ShutUpAndThink
Excellent article.
Housebird
We have been marched into a War on Islam with Iraq and now the beat of war drums is heard for Iran.
This time it may not be Obama that is giving the strongest push but President Emanuel , the Israeli Lobby and the Crusading Christian neocons.
Iran has no nuclear weapons! ----- Iran must enrich uranium for fuel for it's nuclear reactor and the neocons have to stop enrichment before weapons grade uranium is reached.
Why did Iran build a second enrichment site ?????
Other sites were bombed in Iraq, Libya, Syria so Iran is permanently under the gun for an attack therefore backup was needed.
If Muslim nations had Nuclear weapons, the advantage would be gone for Israel who might have to think again about the horrors they have put the Palestinians through for over 60 years..
mjprocko
housebird has flew the coop.... get back on your meds.
shevas01
ok...now I am a flaming liberal and I'm all for diplomacy but if there is a need to act militarily then we need to act. Fortunately, this time around I trust the President to make the right calls and do the right thing. Emanuel has power but ultimately the call belongs to the President
dminnich
"The only U.S. president who seriously tried to abolish nuclear weapons was the arch-realist Ronald Reagan, coming within a hair's breadth of an agreement with Mikhail Gorbachev in 1986 to empty the arsenals of the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. by 2000."
Nonsense - Iceland meeting was an obvious ploy by Gorbachev to stop SDI, which Reagan wisely refused. There never has been a time, or ever will be, when nuclear weapons are eliminated from the world. Only liberals think that signing pieces of paper leads to disarming enemies.
mjprocko
I could have written this article much faster...
How 0bama is checkmating Ahmadinejad:
the end.
Copywrangler
Nowhere in this article is how Obama achieves checkmate. What is the author talking about? Who or what is going to stop Tehran.
This is just more of the Church of Obama is Smart theology. He is smart. Therefore, what he is doing is smart.
How is Iran actually stopped? No answer here. Not a clue.
seattler0cks
The solution to that problem will follow when the world understands the United States as leading in a new direction. Ironically, Iran is serving the invaluable function of forcing the issue-big time. And no, it has not taken Obama by surprise.
--------------
This has to be one of the dopiest discussions on the subject of preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons I've read in a long time. Obama may or may not be naive. In the case of Mr. Carrol, however, I don't think there's any doubt.
MSLSD-
This piece by Mr. Carroll was written as satire, right?
jon3425
It's a Boston Globe writer.
Nuff said.
idgafkurt
So let me get this straight: Obama is super smart and therefore he is going stop the Iranian nuclear program by trying to get other unwilling nations, along w/ the US, to eliminate their nuclear weapons? That is the type of deep thought it requires to pen for the Daily Beast? How do I apply for a job here? If I was a tyrant dictator and the US and others eliminated their nukes I'm pretty sure I would then develop my own and have all the leverage in the world, literally. But what do I know.
This might be the most naive, pointless, unrealistic article I've read. Russia uses it's support of Iran to leverage the West into doing what it wants (i.e. see the elimination of East Europe missle shield) and will not give this up (the Russians are the true chess players in the world, they've played everyone for the last 80 years). China has billions invested in Iranian oil fields and will never sanction them. The people w/ the most at stake that are willing at act are Israel, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Iraq and other Sunni Mid-Eastern nations. The only way to stop Iran is to blockade the straight, stop delievery of gasoline into Iran, support Iranian oppostion with money and weapons and bomb their nuclear facilities. The results will be high oil prices, massive collateral damage and human loss and another war in the mid-East, more generally between Iran and Hezbollah vs Israel. Because the only realistic action has such horrendous results world leaders do nothing but talk while Iran builds a bomb. Essentially the world has already decided that a nuclear Iran is a better option then the results of true action. Only time will tell how this turns out...
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.