REPLIES TO THE CURRENT QUESTION

Our question last week was:

President Obama sent a conciliatory message to Iran last week?  What do you think will be the ultimate result of his Iran strategy, and why?

Here are your answers.  The name of a writer is included only if he or she actually placed a name at the end of the message.  Otherwise, we assume the writer wished anonymity and "name withheld" is inserted.

At the moment, the only thing clear about foreign policy in the Obama era is that for now it is a bit like a rudderless ship under full sail, all velocity and no direction.  One gets the impression that someone in the White House (or State Department), is charged with keeping a set of 3 x 5 cards with various foreign affairs activities that the president should do at one time or another. Periodically, this same unnamed someone takes the deck of activity cards, shuffles them and then throws them down the stairs from the family quarters. The President then goes down and picks up the week's activities from those that land closest to the top of the staircase.

Apparently, last week one of the top cards was, "We've got to do something about Iran, let's send a message."  

I'm not sure if it was original with him, but, when asked to describe the difference between tactics and strategy, the legendary management consultant/professor Peter Drucker, said, "Tactics is doing things right. Strategy is doing the right things."  Implicit in that remark is the notion that the decision maker knows what he is doing.  Flailing about is neither strategic nor a tactic.  So, to call what we are doing an "Iran strategy" is a seriously flawed term.  But, for the sake of this exercise, let's accept the term "strategy."

The results are actually already in.  There was a loud guffaw from Teheran followed by these ridiculing remarks on Saturday:

The mullahs' regime Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei rejected on Saturday President Barack Obama's offer for dialogue swiftly. He rebuffed the message as hollow and without deep policy changes, according to wire reports.  Khamenei set the bar impossibly high ˜ demanding an overhaul of U.S. foreign policy, including giving up "unconditional support" for Israel and halting claims that Iran is seeking nuclear arms.   "Have you released Iranian assets? Have you lifted oppressive sanctions? Have you given up mudslinging and making accusations against the great Iranian nation and its officials?" Khamenei said in a speech in the holy city of Mashhad. The crowd chanted "Death to America."  "He (Obama) insulted the Islamic Republic of Iran from the first day. If you are right that change has come, where is that change? What is the sign of that change? Make it clear for us what has changed."  Khamenei made it abundantly clear in his speech that as the ultimate power broker in the mullahs' hierarchy has no intentions of giving up his policies.

So, maybe we should re-open the embassy and send a bunch of folks over there so they can take them hostage.  Or, more constructively, we should develop an actual strategy for dealing with a group of egomaniacal religious fanatics who, incidentally, are just a few centrifuges away from a bomb. Iran with a bomb will solve the strategy problem and suggest that we use some tactics perfected by the Israelis in Iraq and Syria when despots start getting feisty about nuclear weapons.

There is a growing murmur from the liberal press and punditry that a nuclear Iran is inevitable.  They rationalize it by pointing out India and Pakistan with a sprinkling of North Korea comments and say, "It isn't such a bad thing."  It appears that this is the group that President Obama had been listening to when he picked up the card on the steps last week.  They are the same folks who Jimmy Carter listened to for four years.  That's not "strategy" either, that's a blueprint for disaster.

So, after flailing about for a few paragraphs, myself, the short answer to the question is:

Our strategy will result in more ridicule and angry comments from Iran's leaders.  It will result in the Iranians having a nuclear weapon, which they will use without even a thought about the consequences for the Iranian people, and then it will get really ugly.

Maybe we need to re-think our strategy before it's too late.

Don Newell

This question is extremely easy. Iran will not follow the proposal of
Obama. The reasons are simple: What he proposes is too small compared
to what the nuclear bomb gives. It is not a question of whether Iran
is led by Islamists, the Shah or a democratic government. It is in the
national interest of Iran to get the nuclear bomb. In the best of
scenarios, i.e. with a nice democratic government, we might get Iran
to stop terrorist activities, but the nuclear is a matter of key
importance for Iran, which lives in a dangerous neighborhood (Iraq,
Russia, Pakistan, ...). For Iran to stop pursuing nuclear projects,
it would have to be protected by a foreign power, i.e. America and
for that you need a war.

Now there is a number of misconceptions about the Iranians. They
have bazaar style of negotiating everything, but this is not primitive.
The Americans have less patience. So, Obama bungled everything by his message: He displays his weakness and already gives his offer.

Obama seems to know how to humiliate his partners.  Note the treatment inflicted on Gordon Brown.  He should do the same with the Iranians, who are tougher: Ignore them,
launch stealth attacks on their resources, shut off those resources, pressure Japan into stopping its business with Iran.

The history of Iran-West dealings is instructive: What worked was
discreet military attacks on Iranian ports during the Iran-Iraq war.
It ultimately led to the end of the war. Every dictator in the region
is afraid of America, which has very strong military capabilities.
Showing that they could be used has a very strong effect.

Every negotiation with Iran failed;  they are seen as the weak actions that
they are. Sanctions have some effect, but they are limited, and the current sanction
regime is not strong enough.

(name withheld)

About ten years ago in the Teton National Forest of the State of
Wyoming a couple driving in a car came upon a large bear sleeping on
the road. The husband got out of the car to take some pictures, and
the bear killed and ate him in front of the wife.

Having no experience with bears the husband viewed it as a pet, while
the bear viewed him as food.

Our handsome young President has been warmly received by the press and
the general public for many reasons having nothing to with himself,
but more those having to do with American history and our desire to
have a melting pot meritocracy.

For the Iranians, he's just food.

James Croak