Image 01 Image 03
Sign In or RegisterLogout

Obama Foreign Policy Tag

Posted by David Gerstman on July 29, 2015 53 Comments
In an essay for August issue of The Tower Magazine, former longtime editor of The New Republic, Martin Peretz calls on Hillary Clinton and Charles Schumer to save the Democratic Party by leading the fight against the nuclear deal with Iran otherwise known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA).
Two of the most powerful members of the Democratic Party, former and current senators from New York, now hold the fate of the putative deal with Iran in their hands. Because they alone can overturn it, this means that presumptive presidential nominee Hillary Clinton and presumptive Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer carry a heavy burden that will deeply affect their personal reputations and, most probably, the trustworthiness of the Democrats in foreign policy for at least a generation.
Clinton, for her part, has expressed support of the deal. For Peretz, opposing the JCPOA is essential for the Democrats. Noting that Iran re-opened negotiations over the conventional and ballistic arms embargoes at the last minute, Peretz urges Schumer and Hillary to force the administration to go back and re-open the deal improving some of its terms.
Obama the star negotiator has told us that the only other alternative to this treaty is to resolve the Iranian issue “through force, through war.” But, of course, there are other alternatives to war than deficient deals that damage our interests. Fortunately, America is full of talented, responsible, creative negotiators who can improve on the woefully low bar set by Obama, Biden, and Kerry in this catastrophic bargaining process.

Posted by William A. Jacobson on July 27, 2015 21 Comments
The Obama administration thinks it outsmarted opponents of the Iran deal by running to the U.N. Security Council for international approval before Congress's review period even started. It was a typical Obama F-U to his domestic opponents. Since Congress now needs a super-majority to block the deal, the outcome is uncertain. The Obama team is going all out to pressure Democrats to pledge their loyalty to Obama above all else. Loyalty to Obama is likely to win, though it's possible Congress will grow some backbone before it comes to a vote. Obama even is complaining about Israel Lobby money (hint, hint), while John Kerry for the umpteenth time makes implied threats against Israel. Kerry even is on a trip to the Middle East conspicuously not visiting Israel. Meanwhile, the Ahyatollah and his minions are laughing at Obama, Kerry and the U.S. Not just laughing, mocking and gloating, all the while renewing their vows of death to the U.S. and Israel. Since the federal goverment appears hapless and hopeless, is there anything the states can do to stop this deal? Obama Iran Nuke Deal Announcement Joel Pollak at Breitbart.com was the first, that I'm aware of, to advance a theory of how states can play a crucial role. A reader forwarded the post to me last week while I was in crazyland San Diego, SURPRISE! THE STATES CAN REJECT THE IRAN DEAL:

Posted by William A. Jacobson on July 24, 2015 6 Comments
We are told that the Obama administration, its successor and European governments will strictly enforce Iran's adherence to the nuclear deal. Put aside for the moment the problems with the deal, and focus on compliance. Put aside also that Iran has a history of cheating on nuclear issues. We have a recent example of how the West will become complicit in non-compliance. In Syria, The Wall Street Journal reports, Mission to Purge Syria of Chemical Weapons Comes Up Short (paywall):
.... One year after the West celebrated the removal of Syria’s arsenal as a foreign-policy success, U.S. intelligence agencies have concluded that the regime didn’t give up all of the chemical weapons it was supposed to. An examination of last year’s international effort to rid Syria of chemical weapons, based on interviews with many of the inspectors and U.S. and European officials who were involved, shows the extent to which the Syrian regime controlled where inspectors went, what they saw and, in turn, what they accomplished. That happened in large part because of the ground rules under which the inspectors were allowed into the country, according to the inspectors and officials.... Demanding greater access and fuller disclosures by the regime, they say, might have meant getting no cooperation at all, jeopardizing the entire removal effort.
That is a key point with Iran too -- the fear that Iran will simply back out of the agreement by claiming Western non-compliance will cause the West to back away for fear of losing all compliance. The WSJ article continues noting that control on the ground gave Syria a huge advantage, and Russia ran interference for Syria (as it will do for Iran on compliance issued):

Posted by William A. Jacobson on July 20, 2015 22 Comments
Guess the Obama administration isn't waiting for Congress. The United Nations Security Council, at around 9 a.m. (Eastern) this morning, unanimously approved the Iran nuclear deal, Resolution 2231, 15-0. https://twitter.com/AdiKhair/status/623118022337761280 [caption id="attachment_135057" align="alignnone" width="600"][U.S. Ambassador to U.N. Samantha Power, Iran Nuclear Deal Vote] [U.S. Ambassador to U.N. Samantha Power, Iran Nuclear Deal Vote][/caption]

Posted by David Gerstman on July 19, 2015 27 Comments
In his combative press conference last week to defend the P5+1 nuclear deal with Iran, President Barack Obama issued the following challenge:
So to go back to Congress, I challenge those who are objecting to this agreement, number one, to read the agreement before they comment on it; number two, to explain specifically where it is that they think this agreement does not prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, and why they’re right and people like Ernie Moniz, who is an MIT nuclear physicist and an expert in these issues, is wrong, why the rest of the world is wrong, and then present an alternative.
First off it's worth noting that Energy Secretary and MIT nuclear physicist Ernest Moniz said back in April that to be effective the deal would have to include "anytime, anywhere," inspections, so Obama's explanation about why 24 days notice is now good enough fails to convince me. I want Moniz to explain why he changed his position on this AND why 24 days is now acceptable. I would like Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes to explain why he walked back his comments on requiring "anytime, anywhere" inspections. And I want a more convincing explanation than negotiator Wendy Sherman's excuse that the term was just a "rhetorical flourish." (If that was a rhetorical flourish, I'm curious how many other administration comments about the nuclear deal were rhetorical flourishes.)

Posted by AACONS on July 17, 2015 24 Comments
It is not often that I feel compelled to defend President Obama. But in this case I will. The recent nuclear deal with Iran reveals that he is not a poor negotiator but rather an excellent one. The President has been mocked for his negotiation skills throughout his tenure by the Left and the Right - from people ranging from Paul Krugman to Bob Woodward to Donald Trump. And interestingly the reasons both sides give for their assessment are as similar as they are contrary. To the Left, Obama is simply too good to be good negotiator. He’s no mere politician, after all. He’s an ideologue! Too filled with idealism, too pure, too above the taint of politics to be talented at negotiation. The Atlantic for example wrote in its 2011 piece “Why Obama Is So Bad At Negotiations” that “The truth is, that while the president's idealism has made him a very poor negotiator, it is what attracted me and I suspect many others to him in the first place. His lack of cynicism and belief that we could tackle our problems together as one nation was unique, beautiful and stunning in our modern political system.” Similarly, the Right argues that Obama is a poor negotiator because, again, he is an ideologue. As GOP presidential candidate Carly Fiorna said on a recent appearance on Hannity “[Obama] has spent a lifetime in politics and ideology. That’s it. That’s his life. If you have no experience in negotiating you don’t negotiate very well. If you have no experience in problem-solving you don’t solve problems very well. If you have no experience in compromising you don’t compromise very well. What’s he good at? Giving a speech and sticking to his ideology.” This perception of Obama as a poor negotiator has been tested by the recently announced Iranian nuclear deal.

Posted by William A. Jacobson on July 14, 2015 29 Comments
I can't recall an event since I started this website in 2008 that has been as historically consequential as the nuclear deal the United States and five other countries just struck with Iran. It is the sweep of history. The deal is Obama's deal. He drove it, he crafted it with John Kerry as the scrivener, and he pulled the other powers along with it. The defects in the Iran nuclear deal are being exposed in great detail. Those problems are serious and real. But what has troubled me the most as I read through the varied technical analyses is the same thing that has bothered me since June 2009, when the Iranian people rose up against the Mullah regime after fraudulent elections. Obama was silent for weeks in the face of brutal regime oppression and repression, and then structured a response designed to keep the Mullahs in power. [Video of the Rooftop Revolution in Tehran, June 9, 2009] I wrote about it at the time, Negotiations Preconditioned On Mullah Rule:

Posted by David Gerstman on July 12, 2015 14 Comments
President Barack Obama has, at least since 2012, claimed that he has Israel's back regarding his engagement with Iran. But as the Iran nuke negotiations move closer to an agreement, with reports it could happen by tomorrow, it is clear that Obama's words are empty rhetoric. In May ahead of his talk at a Washington D.C. synagogue, Obama said it once again, telling Jeffrey Goldberg, "It’s because I think they recognize, having looked at my history and having seen the actions of my administration, that I’ve got Israel’s back..." Events of this past week gives lie to Obama's contention. No this deal won't make Israel safer. But let's check what Iranians are saying. Last week, for example, Iran's former president, Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, someone often called a "moderate" and an ally of current president, Hassan Rouhani, threatened to "wipe Israel off the map."
In response to a question why the Zionist regime has done its best to prevent the path for reaching a nuclear agreement between Iran and the West, Ayatollah Rafsanjani said that even Tel Aviv knows well that Iran is not after acquiring nuclear weapons.

Posted by Mike LaChance on July 10, 2015 8 Comments
General Joseph Dunford has been nominated to be chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. While testifying before congress yesterday, he made one claim that might come as news to President Obama. Phil Stewart and David Alexander of Reuters reported:
Russia is top U.S. national security threat: Gen. Dunford Russia presents the greatest threat to U.S. national security and its behavior is "nothing short of alarming," Marine General Joseph Dunford told lawmakers on Thursday as they weighed his nomination to become chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Dunford also added his voice to those Pentagon officials who have supported providing lethal arms to Ukraine to help it defend itself from Russia-backed separatists, a step that President Barack Obama has so far resisted. "My assessment today, Senator, is that Russia presents the greatest threat to our national security," said Dunford, the Marine Corps commandant, who is expected to swiftly win Senate confirmation to become the top U.S. military officer.

Posted by David Gerstman on July 06, 2015 8 Comments
Adam Kredo of the Free Beacon obtained an e-mail threatening Democratic legislators who have doubts about the nuclear deal with Iran that the administration is negotiating.
“Democrats in Congress are the only remaining obstacle to finalizing today’s historic deal,” Zack Malitz, campaign manager for CREDO, said in a statement emailed to reporters on July 2, along with a note that details of the email were not to be published until a deal was actually announced. “Every Democrat should go on the record right now in support of the deal, and pledge to defend it from attacks in Congress.” “Republicans will try to sabotage the deal and take us to war, but they can’t do it without Democratic votes,” Malitz wrote. “Progressives will hold accountable those Democrats who vote to help Republicans sabotage the deal and start a war.”
The Free Beacon cited a source who observed that this kind of political threat was consistent with the administration's mindset.
“This is exactly what you’d expect from the deal-at-any-cost lobby,” the source said. “The White House lied to Congress about what it would deliver and doesn’t have anything left than its raw political power.”
The Free Beacon report comes just after Bloomberg reported that an effort to promote a nuclear deal with Iran has been funded with millions since 2003.

Posted by David Gerstman on June 03, 2015 21 Comments
President Obama's speech a week and a half ago at Washington D.C. synagogue Adas Israel was alternatively promoted as both an opportunity to address the scourge of anti-semitism, and a chance to reach out to American Jews. The speech did nothing to advance either goal and was tone-deaf to any Jews, or Americans for that matter, who don't buy into the president's foreign policy. As far as his reaching out, the president simply rehashed all of his administration's arguments about closing off Iran's paths to a nuclear weapon. He offered nothing new. Of course, he said that the deal he's trying to make with Iran will make Israel safer. He made a point of saying that he shares the goal with Israel of preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons; but he said it with no real conviction. He was just repeating a talking point. Repeating all of his talking points isn't going to convince someone who doesn't already agree with him. Notably, he repeated his 2012 line about having Israel's back. But with Israel's political establishment - Isaac Herzog is no less skeptical of the emerging deal than Benjamin Netanyahu is - doubting the efficacy of the ongoing diplomacy, that claim hardly seems credible. He says that he welcomes debate, but the night before Benjamin Netanyahu spoke to Congress, Obama gave an interview to Reuters attempting to undercut Netanyahu's arguments.

Posted by New Neo on May 24, 2015 16 Comments
If you were looking for a monument to supreme egotism, you would have to go far to beat Obama's statement in this interview with The Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg:
“Look, 20 years from now, I’m still going to be around, God willing. If Iran has a nuclear weapon, it’s my name on this,” he said, referring to the apparently almost-finished nuclear agreement between Iran and a group of world powers led by the United States. “I think it’s fair to say that in addition to our profound national-security interests, I have a personal interest in locking this down.”
I rack my brain to think of another president in our history---or another statesman or even another prominent politician---who would think to say "trust me, because my ego is riding on this." What on earth does ego have to do with judgment? In the calculus of what are the most important considerations about any Iran deal, the most important would be "our profound national-security interests" and those of the entire world. That's what's riding on it, that's the reason to "lock it down" (odd phrase for negotiations). The state of Obama's personal reputation ought to be so low on the list of things to think about that it shouldn't even be on his radar screen at this point, much less ours. Obama says he's got a special personal interest in "locking this down." But an agreement on nuclear weapons with Iran is not merely a question of applying oneself. Obama may think there's no limits to his powers, but sizing up Iran and negotiating with a country which is essentially an aggressive, repressive, fanatical enemy isn't just a matter of trying hard enough and thinking you're the smartest guy in the room. Even if it were true that Obama wanted and even needed to negotiate a good deal for the US in order to protect his precious reputation, that doesn't mean he has a clue how to get there from here, or that it's even possible to do so.

Posted by David Gerstman on May 13, 2015 3 Comments
A couple of remarkable news reports have been broadcast in recent days about the care given Syrians wounded in the civil war across the border. One - the more dramatic one - was at the Israeli news site Ynet (affiliated with the daily Yedioth Ahronot); the other at CNN. The Ynet article written and narrated by one of the paper's top journalists, Ron Ben-Yishai told of an injured man -likely a jihadist - who was severely injured by a bullet to the stomach and shrapnel wounds. Israel has "trusted intermediaries," on the other side  of the border who communicate when there is an injured person who needs treatment in Israel. Most of the injured are woman, children and the elderly. However there are also younger men, such as the subject of the article. In this case the Israeli were told that without a hospital the man would die. Despite having contacts in Syria, the Israelis know who's on the other side of the border on the Golan Heights, so they have to take care:
At around 8 pm on the day the wounded Syrian was transferred, parties on the Syrian side announced they were approaching the fence. The Israeli ambulance and paramedics readied themselves, while Givati troops received a briefing and then headed out to the fence area. Their role is to make sure that those who sent the wounded citizens to the area had not laden them with explosives, as well as to ensure that the wounded person was not bait in a scheme designed to lure IDF troops into an ambush. Considering the information Israel has on its new neighbors across the border on the Golan Heights – these extra precautions are necessary. Half an hour later, the commander of the forces stationed near the border gave approval to send out the armored vehicle carrying the paramedics to collect the wounded citizen, who was already waiting on the Israeli side.

Posted by David Gerstman on May 10, 2015 3 Comments
Late Friday afternoon Reuters had a huge scoop. Inspectors found traces of prohibited chemical weapons at a previously undeclared site in Syria.
Samples taken by experts from the Organisation for the Prohibition and Chemical Weapons (OPCW) in December and January tested positive for chemical precursors needed to make the toxic agents, the sources told Reuters on the condition of anonymity because the information is confidential. "This is a pretty strong indication they have been lying about what they did with sarin," one diplomatic source said. "They have so far been unable to give a satisfactory explanation about this finding." ... The diplomatic sources said the sarin and VX nerve samples were taken from the Scientific Studies and Research Centre, a government agency where Western intelligence agencies say Syria developed biological and chemical weapons.
After it was established that Syria had used chemical weapons against civilians in a Damascus suburb, President Barack Obama said that he would seek Congressional authorization to use force. But in the end chose the path of diplomacy to deal with Syria's breach of international conventions by using chemical weapons. The deal, agreed to with Russia, a patron of Syria, called for Syria to declare all of its chemical weapons sites, destroy their chemical stores and destroy their means for making them. At the very least, Friday's news means that Syria did not fully comply with its obligations under the deal. At the worst it suggests that despite the hoopla about Syria destroying thousands of tons of chemical agents, Syria has an active chemical weapons program still remaining. (This is in addition to Syria's use of chlorine, which is prohibited for use as a weapon, even if chlorine is not prohibited to possess.) This wouldn't be the first time Syria has been caught cheating. In October of last year Syria admitted to having four chemical weapons facilities that it had not previously declared. Worse than that, The New York Times reported in January that the administration had informed Assad that the United States will train rebels to fight ISIS, not Syria.

Posted by David Gerstman on May 08, 2015 12 Comments
Iran released the Maersk Tigris, the cargo ship it seized at sea last week. The New York Times reports:
The Maersk Line, the Danish shipping giant, confirmed in a statement that the vessel and its 24-member crew, forced to anchor near Iran’s southern port of Bandar Abbas since its seizure on April 28, were now free and en route to the port of Jebel Ali in the United Arab Emirates. ... The Maersk Tigris is registered in the Marshall Islands. It is managed and staffed by Rickmers Shipmanagement, a subsidiary of Germany’s Rickmers Group, a maritime services company, which reported that the crew was in good condition. ... The apparent stand-down reflected what political analysts called a wish by both Iran and the United States to avert an escalation of tensions that could sabotage the nuclear talks between Iran and a group of six powers that includes the United States.
From the language of the report it appears that Maersk agreed to a settlement of the claim an Iranian company had against it. CBS offered the judgment of one of its security analysts.
The Iranian decision to board the vessel was "a reflection of the fact that tensions are running very high, and these tensions don't really have borders," explained CBS News senior national security analyst Juan Zarate. "These are conflicts that are happening on the ground, they're happening in the shipping lanes, and there are places and points of vulnerability that could... serve as flashpoints for conflict."

Posted by David Gerstman on May 07, 2015 7 Comments
Last week Iran's foreign minister and chief nuclear negotiator Mohammad Javad Zarif appeared in "a conversation" with columnist David Ignatius of The Washington Post at NYU sponsored by the New America Foundation. There were those in the media who described Zarif as "suave" and "diplomatic," but not everyone was impressed with Zarif's performance. Matthew Continetti went after the supposed moderate in The Appalling Mr. Zarif.
What made Zarif’s appearance all the more nauseating was his pretense of moral standing. He has none. His lecture to the United States took place as his regime held a container ship it had seized in international waters, and as evidence emerged of Iranian violations of U.N. sanctions. It is the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps and its proxies such as Hezbollah and the Houthis and other Shiite militias that are fomenting and exploiting sectarian conflict in Lebanon, Syria, Yemen, and Iraq. Iran’s human rights record is abysmal. Since Zarif returned to government in the administration of Hassan Rouhani, there has been a “surge” in executions in Iran. “The authorities restricted freedoms of expression, association, and assembly, arresting, detaining, and prosecuting in unfair trials minority and women’s rights activists, journalists, human rights defenders, and others who voiced dissent” say the right-wing extremists at Amnesty International, whose most recent report catalogues the torture and cruel and unusual punishments of the Iranian regime. ... At NYU Zarif said America will have to lift sanctions on Iran “whether Senator Cotton likes it or not.” The “polite” and “respectful” audience broke into laughter—at Cotton. “I couldn’t resist,” Zarif said. No troll could.
Accessibility by WAH