The range of interpretations given by the small group of journalists invited to
United States President Barack Obama's briefing on Iran last week is truly
amazing. What comes to mind is Mona Lisa, the famous song sung in a soft
baritone voice six decades ago, before Obama was born, by another
African-American from Chicago, Nat King Cole:
Do you smile to tempt a
lover, Mona Lisa,
Or is this your way to hide a broken heart?
Many dreams have been brought to your doorstep
They just lie there and they die there.
Was there a
"mystic smile" on Obama's lips when he briefed the media? David Ignatius of the
Washington Post was certain
Obama put the issue of negotiating with Iran "firmly back on the table", but
Peter David of The Economist was equally sure Obama "unveiled no new policy".
Marc Ambinder and Jeffrey Goldberg of The Atlantic thought Obama was
grandstanding before his domestic audience about the effectiveness of his
policy of engagement joined with tightening the squeeze on Iran economically
and politically.
Prominent commentator Robert Kagan drew satisfaction that Obama signaled "there
was no new diplomatic initiative [on Iran] in the offing". On the whole, the
neo-conservatives in the US are delighted that the glove on their president's
fist hides high-quality steel.
They all are probably right in their own way. However, against the backdrop of
the upcoming US Congressional elections in November, one main purpose of the
briefing was to reassure Israel and the influential pro-Israel lobby in US
politics that the Obama presidency's Iran policy of harping on the theme of
engagement meant no real harm to the interests of the Jewish state.
The heart of the matter is that the US policy on Iran is again at a crossroads.
Obama made the case that he tried to engage Iran early in his presidency, but
Tehran failed to respond. But, in actuality, did he really try? While he made
overtures to Tehran, sections within his own administration strove for "regime
change" in Iran and undertook covert operations. Iran was given the chance to
negotiate at gunpoint.
At some stage after last year's presidential election in Iran, Washington
convinced itself about the scope for a "color revolution" in Tehran. Whereas,
the priority should have been to negotiate with President Mahmud Ahmadinejad,
who was well ensconced in power and could take tough decisions. Obama instead
tried to enter into correspondence with Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei,
forgetting entirely that he himself is but a caesar.
Second, Obama claimed as a pillar of his Iran strategy the emphasis he placed
on his nuclear non-proliferation agenda by living up to the US's own
responsibilities under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and
organizing a successful NPT conference. Yet, as the world sees it, US policies
are riddled with contradictions and in effect are shredding the treaty to
pieces.
Moscow's course correction
However, it was his "reset" with Russia that Obama presented as the third
crucial leg of the US's Iran policy. In short, Washington takes pleasure that
Moscow not only betrayed Tehran but also lent a hand to encourage China, the
European Union and Canada also to spurn Iran.
Russia dumped Iran most opportunistically. But anyone who has been
opportunistic once can do so again, and the US could already be sensing it.
Nothing else can explain the alacrity with which US Secretary of State Hillary
Clinton appealed on Wednesday to the US Senate to act favorably on the "new
START", the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty with Russia signed by Obama and his
Russian counterpart Dmitry Medvedev in April and which needs to be ratified by
the US Senate before it goes into effect.
However, Moscow, which places great store in the START treaty for Russia's
resurgence on the world stage, calculates that ratification requires 67 votes
in the US Senate, which means the Obama administration would have to mobilize
all 59 Democrats and independents and find at least another six Republicans to
get the "new START" ratified. So far the only Republican senator who has
publicly committed to support ratification is Richard Lugar from Indiana.
Moscow seems to factor in that the policy shift on Iran has gone too far
without commensurate returns and a course correction is useful. Kremlin
rhetoric has tapered off. A new ambivalence has crept into the status of
Russia's deal for supply of S-300 missiles to Iran.
Russian company Lukoil last week supplied refined petroleum products to Iran,
ignoring the US threat of retaliation - and that too, in partnership with
Chinese oil company Zhuhai Zhenrong. Moscow received the Iranian oil minister
to discuss bilateral cooperation and Russian officials have spoken of the
likely commissioning of the Bushehr nuclear power plant in Iran in August. The
diplomatic front too shows signs of stirrings. Russia has joined China to
criticize the US and the European Union's moves to impose unilateral sanctions
against Iran.
Reset of US-Russia reset?
On Monday, the Iranian ambassador in Moscow, Reza Sajjadi, visited the Russian
Foreign Ministry to have a "fruitful exchange of views" with Deputy Foreign
Minister Alexei Borodavkin regarding "themes related to the development of
mutually beneficial Russian-Iranian economic and trade cooperation". According
to the Russian Foreign Ministry, "Mutual interest was expressed in
reinvigorating bilateral collaboration in this sphere."
On Tuesday, Sajjadi was back to meet First Deputy Foreign Minister Andrey
Denisov. A Russian statement said, "The parties exchanged views on issues of
the bilateral, regional and international agenda with particular focus on
Russian-Iranian political dialogue and joint work aimed at resolving key
international and regional problems." (Emphasis added.)
The US's reset with Russia seems to be the shakiest leg in its Iran policy.
Curiously, this problematic leg also happens to be made of a mixed alloy cast
from Russian and Chinese metals.
The US's successive acts of provocation against China in the Asia-Pacific in
recent weeks could have fallout on Beijing's stance regarding the Iran issue.
Significantly, the US has put Beijing on notice publicly. US special adviser
for non-proliferation and arms control Robert Einhorn, who will proceed to
Beijing later this month amid the rising tensions in Sino-US relations, said:
We
want China to be a responsible stakeholder in the international system and that
means cooperating with UN Security Council resolutions. It means not
backfilling, not taking advantage of the responsible self-restraint of other
countries.
One concern a number of countries expressed when approached to take measures
against Iran is that "if we practice restraint, China will fill in behind,
China will take advantage of our restraint".
For Iran, the
stakes are high, too. Iran's Deputy Oil Minister Hossein Noghrehkar said last
week China had invested US$29 billion in Iran's oil sector and another $11
billion worth investment is in the pipeline, including for the setting up of
seven refineries.
To be sure, Beijing's perspective on the US-Russia reset comes into play.
Beijing seems to estimate that the US-Russia reset has not gone much beyond
Obama's "Burger Diplomacy" with Medvedev. On Monday, a Chinese commentary took
a good look at Moscow's Iran policy. It said:
As an ally of Iran with
many strategic and economic interests in the country, Russia's pro-Western
stance is unlikely to last ... Iran not only represents an important regional
ally for Russia but also a useful bargaining tool in diplomatic relations with
the West, especially the US. For now, Russia has decided its relations with the
US are more important than its relations with Iran.
Russia's pandering to Western countries has brought more negative than positive
results ... Russia has gained little from its pro-Western stance. Meanwhile,
Russians have voiced more doubts and criticism over Medvedev. Against such a
backdrop, Russia cannot afford to lose Iran. Therefore, in the near future
Russia is very likely to soften its tone toward Iran.
All in
all, Obama's "Mona Lisa smile" last week needs to be put in perspective. On the
one hand, he apparently indicated to Tehran he was leaving open a "pathway" for
a peaceful settlement of the nuclear issue and for a deal that allows the
latter to maintain its civilian nuclear program as long as "a clear set of
steps" could be negotiated that are "sufficient to show that they are not
pursuing nuclear weapons".
Meanwhile, Obama proposed a "separate track" for talks regarding Afghanistan,
given the two countries' "mutual interest" in fighting the Taliban. He said
Iran should be a "part" of the regional talks about stabilizing Afghanistan and
"could be a constructive partner".
The words were conciliatory. On the other hand, Obama insisted the US had the
upper hand, the Iranians had been diplomatically isolated and sanctions were
already "biting" and that, in this overall context, he was merely being logical
in driving home the advantage by choosing to re-engage Iran.
He also offered vaguely hawkish hints regarding the option in reserve to use
force if diplomacy fails. Nat King Cole sang, "Are you warm, are you real, Mona
Lisa?"
Ambassador M K Bhadrakumar was a career diplomat in the Indian Foreign
Service. His assignments included the Soviet Union, South Korea, Sri Lanka,
Germany, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Uzbekistan, Kuwait and Turkey.
(Copyright 2010 Asia Times Online (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved. Please
contact us about
sales, syndication and
republishing.)
Head
Office: Unit B, 16/F, Li Dong Building, No. 9 Li Yuen Street East,
Central, Hong Kong Thailand Bureau:
11/13 Petchkasem Road, Hua Hin, Prachuab Kirikhan, Thailand 77110
