EVENING POST:  JULY 20,  2008

Posted at 11:50 p.m. ET

THE CRISIS

While waiting for an excellent concert at West Point by the Jazz Knights tonight, I listened to John Bolton interviewed on the John Batchelor show.  Batchelor has one of the best interview shows on the air, but, sadly, is available right now only in New York, Los Angeles and Washington.  You can, however, listen to his show on the internet.  It's broadcast from 7 to 10 p.m. ET Sunday nights on WABC radio, and continues from 10 p.m. to 1 ET on KFI, Los Angeles.  Just go to the websites of those stations and you can hear the show live. 

Bolton, who was denied confirmation as our UN ambassador by small-minded Senate Democrats intimidated by their party's left wing, was at his brilliant best.  He essentially charged that the Bush administration's foreign policy, especially regarding Iran, has collapsed.  He noted that negotiations between Europe and Iran over Iran's nuclear program have gone on for five years, with no result.  The United States, during most of this time, has insisted that Iran suspend its enrichment of uranium, a step needed to build a nuclear weapon, before the U.S. would sit face-to-face with Iranian representatives.  Iran refused.

Now, in the last week, the U.S. has rewarded Iran's stonewalling by sending our third highest diplomat to a negotiating session, face-to-face, with Iran, having received nothing in return.  The result of the session?  More nothing.  Iran refuses to budge.

The European Union's foreign minister, Javier Solana, has given Iran two weeks to come back with a positive response to Western offers of assistance in return for enrichment suspension, or face serious consequences.  Bolton wondered whether this was a serious threat.  If it isn't, and the West backs down again, the Iranians will be laughing in their soup.  As Bolton noted, they were just sitting there in Tehran, conceding not an inch, and the Americans gave up the core of their negotiating position, the insistence on suspension in return for an American presence in talks.  Since Iran has gotten this without giving any concessions, why should they do more?  They have time to wait.  Each day brings them closer to the nuclear weapon.

Is it possible, John Batchelor asked, that Europe is now to the right of the United States on Iran?  Well, that's hard to say because we don't know fully what's in the president's mind, and what Europe is actually prepared to do if Iran continues its obstinate ways.  But it does appear that the Bush presidency has been captured by the Bush 41 crowd - Condi Rice at State, Bob Gates at Defense.  They are so-called "realists," whose realism never seems to get us anywhere. 

And waiting in the wings is Barack Obama.  If the mullahs can get concessions out of Bush, imagine what (in their minds) they can get from the most left-wing member of the U.S. Senate, if he becomes president. 

Is it all a ruse?  Is Bush pretending to make concessions just to prove that he's gone all the way with diplomacy, planning all the while to take action against Iran before his term is up?  I'd like to think that's the case, but I doubt it. 

So the big news in the next two weeks may not be Obama's American Express tour of Europe and the Mideast, but the waiting game with Iran.  A threat has been made.  How will Iran respond?  How will we respond to its response?  What will Obama say about it, and what signals will he send?

What will the Israelis do when these talks fail, as they inevitably must?

These are the critical questions in the next two weeks, not whether Barack gets the kids cheering in Berlin.

July 20, 2008.      Permalink          

SECOND AFTERNOON POST:  JULY 20,  2008

Posted at 3:06 p.m. ET

I AM HE

From today's CBS interview with Barack Obama, conducted by Lara Logan:

Logan: "Okay, last question: There is a perception that you lack experience in world affairs."

Obama: "Right."

Logan: "Is this trip partly aimed at overcoming that concern, that, you know, there are doubts among some Americans that you could lead the country at war as commander in chief from day one?"

Obama: "You know, the interesting thing is that the people who are very experienced in foreign affairs, I don't think have those thoughts. The troops that I've been meeting with over the last several days, they don't seem to have those doubts. The objective of this trip was to have substantive discussions with people like President Karzai or Prime Minister Maliki or President Sarkozy or others who I expect to be dealing with over the next eight to ten years.

"It's important for me to have a relationship with them early, that I start listening to them now, getting a sense of what their interests and concerns are, because one of the shifts in foreign policy that I want to execute as president is giving the world a clear message that America intends to continue to show leadership, but our style of leadership is going to be less unilateral, that we're going to see our role as building partnerships around the world that are of mutual interest to the parties involved. And I think this gives me a head start in that process."

Logan: "Do you have any doubts?"

Obama: "Never."

Say what?

Never?   Did he say that?  Never?

And that line about the troops not having any doubts about him - did he ask them?  How would he know otherwise?

The Obama ego has now become a legitimate matter for discussion, especially as he has no record to back it up.

A little modesty in that interview would have helped.

July 20, 2008.        Permalink          

AFTERNOON POST:  JULY 20,  2008

Posted at 2:34 p.m. ET

TRACKERS

Both trackers today show a slight gain for Obama.  Rasmussen has him up two, whereas Gallup has him up three.  Gallup's Frank Newport writes:

Obama began his highly-publicized international trip just as the last interviews in this three-day rolling average were being collected. It remains to be seen whether the intense publicity Obama will receive as a result of the trip will make a difference in overall voter preferences as the week progresses. So far this summer, it appears that not much has been able to induce substantial change in voter support for the two major party candidates. -- Frank Newport.

Obama attracts passion.  McCain does not.  And yet, the race remains frozen.  It leads to these questions:  Has Obama peaked?  Is there a racial aspect to his numbers?  Does McCain have an ultimate advantage as the steady-as-you-go candidate who will gain incrementally by showing quiet resolve and competence as the election nears?

I have no idea what the answers are.  Let's see how Obama does on his pilgrimage.  I'd be intrigued to see how Americans react when he speaks in front of a German war memorial. 

Of course, given our educational system, it's unlikely that many of his young supporters know where Germany is, or what happened there.

July 20, 2008.      Permalink          

SUNDAY:  JULY 20,  2008

Posted at 8:10 a.m. ET

GATEGATE

(See update at end of story.)

There is confusion this morning along the Obama campaign trail, which now extends to Afghanistan.  Possible scandal. Call it Gategate.

Obama had originally wanted to speak at the Brandenburg Gate during this coming week's visit to Berlin.  But many in Germany, including Chancellor Angela Merkel, considered it presumptuous, and the use of an important symbol as an electioneering tool.  A search ensued for an appropriate substitute, and a decision was reportedly made to have the speech at the Victory Column.

As this space pointed out a few days ago, the Victory Column celebrates Prussia's victories over Denmark, France and Austria in the 19th century, and that, diplomatically, that's a touch awkward, as Obama will also be setting down in France.  Apparently, this problem has now surfaced:

While the Victory Column would sidestep Mrs. Merkel’s opposition to the Brandenburg Gate, it seems like an unusual choice, given that it is a symbol of Prussian military might. The monument was originally planned to commemorate Prussia’s victory over Denmark in 1864, but with the defeats of Austria in 1866 and France in 1870-71 following in such rapid succession, it ended up celebrating those victories, and the founding of the German empire in 1871, as well.

The Victory Column was built between 1865 and 1873. It was moved to its present location by the Nazi government in 1938-39 as part of the plan supervised by the regime’s chief architect, Albert Speer, to rebuild the German capital.

Oh my, oh my.  Didn't someone in the campaign research this before the choice of the site was leaked?  Don't they have college interns?  Or Google?

Oh, but wait:

The Victory Column might appeal to a younger crowd. It is better known today as the long-time destination of the world-famous techno and other electronic music party known as the Love Parade. It was also featured in the Wim Wenders movie “Wings of Desire” in which –- Obama camp take note -– an angel gave up his wings.

Oh, I guess that's okay.  It symbolizes modesty, or love, or something.  This is about as clear as Obama's foreign policy. 

Maybe they should ask a local tour guide for some help.

UPDATE AT 10:13 A.M.:  It has now been confirmed that Obama will speak at the Victory Column.  The symbolism is awful, but he'll probably draw the crowds, which is all his campaign seems to care about.

July 20,  2008.      Permalink          

FAILURE

Back in the real world, the latest talks with Iran, featuring the high-profile presence of a State Department official, have failed.  And the nuclear centrifuges in Iran keep spinning.  The New York Times reports:

GENEVA — International talks on Iran’s nuclear ambitions ended in deadlock on Saturday, despite the Bush administration’s decision to reverse policy and send a senior American official to the table for the first time.

There is a grimness here, a recognition that nothing may work with the mullahs short of military force, or a credible threat of force.  Mr. Obama, take note.

The presence of William J. Burns, the under secretary of state for political affairs, was one of the most important encounters between Iran and the United States since relations were severed nearly three decades ago. And it was part of a rare show of unity among the six negotiating partners — the United States, France, Britain, Germany, Russia and China — who pressed Iran to accept compromise.

But Iran responded with a written document that failed to address the main issue: international demands that it stop enriching uranium. And Iranian diplomats reiterated before the talks that they considered the issue nonnegotiable.

I suppose we must go through the motions.  But how many of these "negotiating" sessions must we have before reality sets in?

“We still didn’t get the answer we were looking for,” the European Union foreign policy chief, Javier Solana, said at a news conference after several hours of talks, held in Geneva’s City Hall.

Mr. Solana said the Iranians were given two weeks to formally respond to the proposal before it would be withdrawn.

This latest failure wasn't the only thing on diplomats' tongues:

It comes as the Bush administration, in its final months, has told some of its closest allies that the United States was moving forward with a plan to establish an American diplomatic presence in Tehran for the first time since the rupture in bilateral relations.

Look, I hope this is just a propaganda ploy to hold out a carrot to Iran, to show what cooperation can bring.  But if we're serious about this plan, then the Bush administration's policy has essentially collapsed.  Why reward the mullahs with a diplomatic presence, and the danger of American diplomats being taken hostage again, unless Iran gives us something in return, the suspension of uranium enrichment?

The most interesting news in the next two weeks may not be Obama's mini-world-tour, but the actions of the Iranian government.  Will the West formally withdraw its proposal for compromise if Iran does not cooperate?  What will that mean?  Where do we go from there?

Stand by.

July 20, 2008.      Permalink