Elliott Abrams

Pressure Points

Abrams gives his take on U.S. foreign policy, with special focus on the Middle East and democracy and human rights issues.

Print Print Email Email Share Share Cite Cite
Style: MLA APA Chicago Close

loading...

The President Undermines His Iran Policy

by Elliott Abrams
December 8, 2011

U.S. President Barack Obama speaks on the extension of the payroll tax cut and the Republican obstruction of Richard Cordray's nomination to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) in the briefing room of the White House in Washington December 8, 2011. (Courtesy REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque)

 

At his news conference today the president was asked about the Iranian nuclear program.

Here is a key part of his reply (after omitting his usual, inaccurate, and apparently inescapable dig at the Bush Administration):

No options off the table means I’m considering all options….Now, Iran understands that they have a choice:  They can break that isolation by acting responsibly and foreswearing the development of nuclear weapons, which would still allow them to pursue peaceful nuclear power, like every other country that’s a member of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, or they can continue to operate in a fashion that isolates them from the entire world.  And if they are pursuing nuclear weapons, then I have said very clearly, that is contrary to the national security interests of the United States; it’s contrary to the national security interests of our allies, including Israel; and we are going to work with the world community to prevent that.

What’s wrong with that statement? American promises to keep “all options on the table” have no credibility in the Middle East. The president used that phrase–all options on the table–not once, about Iran, but twice in his press conference. He said “I will not take any options off the table when it comes to getting Richard Cordray in as director of the Consumer Finance Protection Board.” Inasmuch as a military strike on the U.S. Senate to get Mr. Cordray confirmed is unlikely, applying the phrase about “all options” to that situation is likely to make the ayatollahs feel less, not more, threatened. The phrase has come to mean “I am really mad about this” and nothing more.

Mr. Obama might have said very clearly “I will not permit Iran to get a nuclear weapon.” Instead what he said, as noted, was “we are going to work with the world community to prevent that.” The Iranian regime knows as well as we do that there is no “world community” and knows as well as we do that the real question is the president’s willingness to use force, as a very last resort, to prevent them from acquiring nuclear weapons. If he seeks the approval of the “world community” to do so, he won’t get it–something else the ayatollahs know. So the actual impact of his statement is to weaken our position, not strengthen it, just as Secretary of Defense Panetta weakened it last week when he groaned at the Brookings Institution about the horrible things that might happen if there were a strike on Iran.

Mr. Obama’s chosen path of sanctions might work (though I am a skeptic)–if the sanctions are tough enough AND if Iran believes that, in the end, he is absolutely resolute in his determination to prevent them from getting a bomb and will use force to stop them. So when he and his defense secretary make statements that undermine Iran’s fear of such a strike, they undermine the chances of success of their own policy.

Post a Comment 7 Comments

  • Posted by Garrard Glenn

    I continue to be mystified by both the President, and by the press with regards to this issue. Does any member of the press ever ask the President whether he agrees with President Sarkozy’s call to sanction Iran’s Bank, and block their oil exports? Those actions would comprise the first serious responses to Iran’s drive toward nuclear weapons. Ever. George Bush never did a thing. Neither has his predecessor. It is most distressing to see the press do absolutely nothing to challenge the president on this vital issue. Distressing, but not surprising.

    I wish Bob Woodward would show up at a few of these press conferences. He’s about the only guy who could draw the president out on these issues, and not sit politely like a lap dog, taking notes.

  • Posted by Winston

    Obama undermines the Iranian freedom movement by appeasing the regime.

  • Posted by fereydoun barkeshli

    United States has applied a policy of stick and stick against Iran for the last three decades.Iran is a country that leaves in a dangerous neighborhood.The country has 15 neighbors most of whom with centuries old hostolities towards non-Arab Iran.In fact Israel and Iran are the only non-Arab nations in the Middle East.Both nations have common threats and common interests.Id wisdom prevails,the U.S. adminstration needs to concentrate on Iran-Israel peace even prior to the Arab-Israeli or Palestinean relationship.Iran and Israel can guarantee long term interests of the United States.However,Iran needs a security guarantee from the U.S.This security guarantee is currentlty partially obtained from Russia.In fact Washington’s policies towards Tehran has pushed Iran towards Russia in a way never seen during the last one century of relationship between U.S. and Iran.

  • Posted by Dean Smallwood

    How many different words are there in the English language for “coward” ?

  • Posted by Dan Friedman

    “So when he and his defense secretary make statements that undermine Iran’s fear of such a strike, they undermine the chances of success of their own policy.”

    Any chance that he and his defense secretary want it that way?

  • Posted by Patrick Burke

    I am no expert. My take on this is that the president knows more about the situation and it’s potential danger than is apparent.

  • Posted by asaf

    theres only one thing that scares me more than irans drive to a nuclear showdown in the middle east. Its the possibility of obama being reelected and using his last term to squeeze israel into existentially threatening concessions on palestine and to subjugate israels officials on accepting conditions relating to iran that will only isolate them for standing as the moral minority

Post a Comment

CFR seeks to foster civil and informed discussion of foreign policy issues. Opinions expressed on CFR blogs are solely those of the author or commenter, not of CFR, which takes no institutional positions. All comments must abide by CFR's guidelines and will be moderated prior to posting.

* Required

Pingbacks