Plan B Forum

Obama Speaks to President of Iran in First Talk Since 1979

WASHINGTON — The long fractured relationship between the United States and Iran took a significant turn on Friday when President Obama and President Hassan Rouhani became the first leaders of their countries to speak since the Tehran hostage crisis more than three decades ago.

In a hurriedly arranged telephone call, Mr. Obama reached Mr. Rouhani as he was being driven to the airport to return to Iran after a whirlwind news media and diplomatic blitz in New York. The two agreed to accelerate talks aimed at defusing the dispute over Iran’s nuclear program and afterward expressed optimism at the prospect of a rapprochement that would transform the Middle East.

“Resolving this issue, obviously, could also serve as a major step forward in a new relationship between the United States and the Islamic Republic of Iran, one based on mutual interests and mutual respect,” Mr. Obama, referring to Tehran’s nuclear program, told reporters at the White House after the 15-minute phone call. “It would also help facilitate a better relationship between Iran and the international community, as well as others in the region.”

On Twitter after the call, Mr. Rouhani wrote, “In regards to nuclear issue, with political will, there is a way to rapidly solve the matter.” He added that he told Mr. Obama, “We’re hopeful about what we will see from” the United States and other major powers “in coming weeks and months.”

The conversation was the first between Iranian and American leaders since 1979 when President Jimmy Carter spoke by telephone with Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi shortly before the shah left the country, according to Iran experts. The Islamic Revolution that toppled the shah’s government led to the seizure of the American Embassy and a 444-day hostage crisis that have left the two countries at odds with each other ever since.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/28/world ... .html?_r=0

A couple of years ago, this is something that I might have seen as hopeful in terms of trying to bring Iran back into the company of civilized nations, but at this point, in light of how badly the Syrian situation was bungled, I would much prefer that this administration not undertake any major foreign policy initiatives with the Iranians or any other hostile power. If we do, I'm seriously concerned they'll get taken to the cleaners with some fig leaf deal that will leave the Iranians merrily pursuing their nuclear weapons ambitions, and American security deeply imperiled.

After briefly looking like he was finally getting US Syrian policy on a proper course, he then made the bizarre decision to seek completely unneeded Congressional authorization. I have to wonder if he'd had his first term "A Team" both in the White House and in key cabinet positions, like Robert Gates (and yes, even Hillary Clinton), if there wouldn't have been somebody around with sufficient stature and sense to have been able to talk him out of that incredibly boneheaded move. (Talk about an unforced error... I wonder who came up with that foolhardy idea in the first place; Michelle? Biden?)

This was followed by an embarrassing and painful to watch two weeks of confusing and contradictory attempts to build support for the completely unnecessary authorization, (during which time popular support for action actually dropped and Congressional opposition solidified) that was then followed by grasping a straw tossed out by the Russians, (thus re-instating the Russian veto over US action that it looked like the Administration had at long last freed itself from) which then culminated in a bad joke of an agreement backed up by a toothless UN Security Council resolution. (An agreement that the Syrians will never honestly comply with, and which accomplishes absolutely nothing except to help solidify Assad's position, and earn us even more enmity with the Syrian people.)

All-in-all not a confidence inspiring performance....

What Barack Obama telegraphed to the world with that comedy of errors, is that he is at this point a man who will grasp at any straw, no matter how thin, that is offered to him in order to avoid using military force. (Except apparently for drone strikes, far away from TV cameras)

I'm certain that's the Iranian take-away from his actions, (because frankly, that's the conclusion the evidence supports) and it is not the position one should want the US government negotiating from. (Unless maybe you're Vladimir Putin or somebody else who wishes America ill.)

Whoever it was in the Administration that was providing the backbone for US foreign policy does not appear to be there anymore, and that being the case, I would just as soon they just coast out the remaining years and leave any major initiatives to the next Administration. Judging by the recent track record, any deal they cut is likely to be a bad one.

I have previously said that I consider the decision to turn over the drafting of the stimulus package to Nancy Pelosi, (which jetisoned the whole "post partisan" approach Obama had pledged to take and tanked the bipartisan support polls showed him enjoying when he took Office, setting the stage for all the intractable divisiveness that has followed.) and the decision not to embrace Simpson-Bowles when he had the votes to get it it passed, (which led to the sequester, and these endless cliff hanger budget and debt ceiling showdowns) as the worst decisions of Obama's Presidency.

I would now rank the decision to seek Congressional approval for the military strikes on Syria right along with those two. It was that bad. It has led to a sequence of events that has been as damaging and crippling for US foreign policy as the other two decisions were for domestic policy.

Jim, can you imagine the political uproar that would have occurred if Obama had gone ahead and ordered military strikes without Congressional approval? Every Republican--EVERY.SINGLE.REPUBLICAN.--would have been lining up for an impeachment vote, and given the unpopularity of the idea with the left, there might also have been a significant number of Democrats joining them. (Of course we both know that there's no way in hell that the Senate would've voted for conviction, but still...that hasn't stopped the House Republicans from voting 42 times to repeal the ACA or from attaching a defunding provision to the budget bill...) So in addition to the current budget fight and the upcoming debt ceiling fight we would also be facing an impeachment fight. It's hard to imagine Congress being even more dysfunctional than it is now, but I'm sure that's exactly what we would be experiencing.

As it turns out, Obama's earlier threat carried a lot more credibility internationally than it did here in the U.S., and it provoked the desired response from Russia, Syria, and Iran--and it got Obama what he said he wanted without firing a shot and without the mother of all domestic political battles. Of course, if you have a preconceived image of Obama as incompetent and bumbling, rather than competent and calculating, you're going to see it all differently. Only time will tell which of us is right. So far, I still trust my President.

im, can you imagine the political uproar that would have occurred if Obama had gone ahead and ordered military strikes without Congressional approval? Every Republican--EVERY.SINGLE.REPUBLICAN.--would have been lining up for an impeachment vote,

Wow Econo...

That's just so completely and totally wrong...

There was zero, ziltch, zip, nada pressure on Obama to call for a congressional vote...Boehner had come out and said in so many words that all that was expected was "consultation" (as the War Powers Act requires) not an authorization . No one in the Congressional leadership, in either Party, in either House of Congress, had asked that there be a vote. It was widely expected that he would act without congressional approval, and the consensus across the board was that he had the authority to do so. (In fact as I pointed out earlier, no President has ever sought congressional approval for so limited a military operation)

He launched a far more extensive military operation against Lybia without Congressional approval, Econo; where were all the Republicans calling for "impeachment"?

Gee I don't know where you picked up that idea from, but you really got the wrong end of the stick this time.

Lord Jim wrote:He launched a far more extensive military operation against Lybia without Congressional approval, Econo; where were all the Republicans calling for "impeachment"?

Gee I don't know where you picked up that idea from, but you really got the wrong end of the stick this time.

http://nation.foxnews.com/libya/2011/03 ... libyan-war
http://southernnationalist.com/blog/201 ... ibyan-war/
http://www.democracynow.org/2011/6/22/o ... sition_for
http://www.presstv.com/detail/185611.html
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0411/52599.html
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/arc ... ya/262299/
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/20 ... -in-libya/
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/m ... ama-warned
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/ ... and-libya/
http://theweek.com/article/index/215990 ... t-on-libya
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 ... libya.html
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/arc ... ya/240211/
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/201 ... a-on-libya
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/26 ... nley-kurtz
http://dailycaller.com/2011/03/02/senat ... -in-libya/
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/20 ... -fly-zone/
http://thatsmycongress.com/index.php/20 ... libya-war/
http://content.usatoday.com/communities ... kbYAtLv5gQ
http://www.democracynow.org/2011/6/20/g ... _impeached
http://www.truth-out.org/archive/
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/fbc39a70-96ad ... z2gC52mvvG ...etc., etc., etc.....

Of course, that was back in 2011. And then after 2012 and Obama's re-election, the GOP really went Full Metal Batshit.






P.S. BENGHAZI! BENGHAZI! BENGHAZI!!!!!

IIRC you didn't like Simpson-Bowles either. (Though at the time you had the foresight to say in future hindsight it might actually be the best we could get)

Obama is a lame duck trying to make his mark in history as being something other than the 1st AA President.

To coin something from Editec...Tick Tock

That was the best part of any of his posts

Exactly what is the difference between a "lame duck" and a "second term" presidency, other than the first sounding worse than the second? Were Eisenhower, Nixon, Reagan, Clinton, and GWBush all "lame ducks" the moment they got re-elected?

(Yeah, Nixon and Bush2 were pretty lame...but were they ducks?)

Well I guess in the truest sense of the term lame duck he's not, but I've already posted it and I ain't gonna change it

CP:

IIRC you didn't like Simpson-Bowles either. (Though at the time you had the foresight to say in future hindsight it might actually be the best we could get)

That is a fair and accurate reading of my position...

Since they first delivered their proposal, I have gone on to say a number of times that in retrospect, it was superior to anything else that has been offered by either side...

For Obama to have gotten that proposal through the Congress, (which was pending before the GOP retook control of the House in 2010) he would have had to lean on the liberals on his side of the aisle in Congress, (something he has shown a singular distaste for; going back to his acceptance of Pelosi's dictat) who were unhappy about the entitlement reforms the plan contained...

Econo:

competent and calculating

So, you believe Obama's "plan" went something like this:

"First, I'll make everyone think that I'm going to take unilateral military action under the authority I clearly have. Then, out of the blue at the last minute, I'll announce that I'm seeking completely unnecessary Congressional approval for the attacks...

"Then I and my Administration's representatives will spend the next two weeks making ambivalent, confusing and contradictory arguments to seek that approval....

"Once it becomes apparent that we've completely screwed the pooch on that one, (another part of my plan) I'll have Kerry toss out a throw a way line about the Assad regime giving up it's chemical weapons that Vladimir Putin will seize on, so we can have have a deal that includes absolutely no enforcement provisions, and will draw us in to a policy that invests the US in extending the life of the Assad regime"

If that was his Cunning Plan, I can only assume that he's made this guy his Secretary Of Cunning Plans:

Aside from the objective analysis of the facts involved, the thing that convinced me that Obama had really fucked this up to a fare-thee-well was when I saw this:

By Jimmy Carter, Published: September 10

Jimmy Carter is the 39th president of the United States.

The only way to be assured that Syrian chemical weapons will not be used in the future is not through a military strike but through a successful international effort.

Regardless of the postponed congressional vote regarding the use of military force, other actions should be taken to address the situation in Syria, including an urgent effort to convene without conditions the long-delayed peace conference the United States and Russia announced in May. A resolution in the U.N. General Assembly to condemn any further use of chemical weapons, regardless of perpetrator, would be approved overwhelmingly, and the United States should support Russia’s proposal that Syria’s chemical weapons be placed under U.N. control. A military strike by the United States is undesirable and will become unnecessary if this alternative proposal is strongly supported by the U.N. Security Council.

Some have predicted catastrophic consequences to the credibility of President Obama and our country if Congress were to reject his request for approval of military action against the Assad regime in Syria. These dire predictions are exaggerated. It is no reflection on the president that he expressed his decision clearly to our citizens and to the world, properly sought congressional concurrence and has done his utmost to implement his decision by securing necessary votes in the House and Senate.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ ... ml?hpid=z1

When you've got Lord Give Me Strength, Jimmy Carter giving you a big "thumbs up" for your strategy, you really ought to think again...

ETA:

It would be like getting an approving endorsement from Neville Chamberlain...

"Way to go dude, that's exactly the way I'd have handled it..."

History has shown the appeasement policies of Chamberlain to be wrong; it has yet to do so with the policies of Carter. Yes, the Iranian crisis was a balck eye (although I doubt any other president would have handled it differently), but I still maintain his insistence that those receiving military and economic aid from us have some recognition of human rights in their countries helped get the US more respected than the détente/enemy of my enemy policies of Nixon and Ford did, and the Camp David accords lasted far longer than other peace efforts in that region. I know you disagree, but we'll see how history bears it out.

And come on Jim, if you want to disagree with the substance of what was said, go ahead and do so; but to just dismiss it out of hand because it was written by carter is silly.

Obama's universally praised tactic of increasing sanctions and economic isolation of Iran has brought them, now that the prior president is out of office, to the point they would like to talk about it.

Good.

It is impossible to say if talking with them is good or bad or if it means nothing wither way until we see what is said by both sides.

yrs,
rubato

Plain and simple, the call makes him looks weak and uncertain, which means the U.S. looks weak and uncertain. LJ gave a good background why that is the case.

Yeah! George W. Bush had MUCH more success with Iran using his un-weak and un-uncertain approach!

Oh, wait....

ETA: The GOP has got to get over their certainty that their perception of Obama is not the same as the rest of the world's.

Econo: Have you been reading what leaders of other countries are saying about Obama? They all get he is far from the same person they all hoped he was. As Jim, noted, maybe having Gates, Panetta and HRC running things in the first few years gave some good sense to policy while Obama got to do what he does best -- look good for fawning crowds.

Econoline wrote:Yeah! George W. Bush had MUCH more success with Iran using his un-weak and un-uncertain approach!

And why is it that when Obama is criticized for something (even something he deserves and is getting round criticism for, such as Syria), his defenders say derisively that GWB would have done worse? Comparing him to one of the worst R presidents is simply confirming the point.

LOL

Touché!






(But Bush is such an inviting target...in much the way that you and Jim still, after a third of a century, apparently see Jimmy Carter as such an inviting target.)

The republicans didn't like Obama calling for a vote because they are lying cowards and didn't want to have to go on record.



Yrs,
Rubato