Romney's Plan for Dealing With Iran is Great... Its Also Not His Plan

Mitt Romney recently wrote an Op-Ed in the Washington Post describing how he would handle Iran compared to Obama.  To sum up, Romney starts with a few ice breakers; Spetember 11^th was bad, terrorism is scary, and Iran wants to destroy Israel.  He then progresses to slightly more constructive content by stating that while Obama says we need to prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons, “his rhetoric has not been matched by an effective policy.”  Romney then presents how he would deal with Iran. 

“I will press for ever-tightening sanctions, acting with other countries if we can but alone if we must.  I will speak out on behalf of the cause of democracy in Iran and support Iranian dissidents who are fighting for their freedom.  I will make clear that America’s commitment to Israel’s security and survival is absolute.”  Later in the Op-Ed Romney adds that he will maintain a strong naval presence in the Persian Gulf and stresses that he is willing to use military force if necessary. 

I think that plan sounds great.  It focuses on multilateral diplomatic and economic options and makes it clear to Iranian leadership that if these options fail the United States and its allies are willing and able to resort to a military option with the goal of eliminating Iran’s nuclear program and removing them from power.  There is only one problem… Romney’s proposed plan is actually Obama’s plan, and he has been doing it for nearly his entire Presidency.

Pressing for tight, multilateral sanctions:

The following list of international organizations and countries have imposed sanctions against Iran.  These range from freezing assets to prohibiting the import of Iranian oil. 

• The United Nations
• The European Union
• Australia
• Canada
• India
• Israel
• Japan
• South Korea
• Switzerland
• United States

Most of the sanctions have been imposed in the last 6 months, and have largely been a result of American diplomacy.  These sanctions have had a crippling effect on the Iranian economy.  Over the last 6 months the exchange rate of the Iranian Rial to U.S. Dollars has increased by 67%.  Additionally Iran’s own Parliament recently grilled Ahmadinejad over his handling of the economy and foreign policy. 

 

U.S. Support for Iranian Dissidents:

Last year Secretary of State Hillary Clinton called on Iranian opposition to seek international support, “as Libya rebels did.”  In the case of Libya, the Transitional National Council asked the international community to send aid and impose a no-fly-zone over Libya to protect civilians from aircraft loyal to Gaddafi.  Openly suggesting that a group of people should request military aide in their struggle against their government is a pretty strong sign that you support them. 

American Commitment to Israel:

Romney cites this write up of a recent Oval Office meeting between Israel Prime Minister Netanyahu and President Obama as an example that Obama’s, “rhetoric has not been matched by an effective policy.” Interesting that same article goes on to quote Netanyahu as saying, “Americans know that Israel and the United States share common values, that we defend common interests, that we face common enemies. Iran’s leaders know that, too. For them, you’re the Great Satan, we’re the Little Satan. For them, we are you, and you’re us.”  The article continues to cite Obama’s address to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) as saying U.S. military aid to Israel has increased each year of his Presidency. 

Regional Naval Presence:

To say the United States doesn’t have a regional naval presence is simply ridiculous.  Not only has the U.S. Navy been conducting numerous anti-piracy operations in the Persian Gulf, but the Fifth Fleet is stationed in Bahrain, 100 miles from Iran. 

Romney’s Next Moves:

It is pretty clear that President Obama has already done everything Romney said he would do.  So do that make Romney a Democrat, Obama a Republican, or does it mean a good idea has no political alliance?

March Madness

Foreign Policy March Madness

Make Your Own Bracket.

My Bracket.

A write up of last year’s tournament is available here.  Check it out to better understand the style of my own tournament analysis. 

Matchups to Watch:

India v. Brazil:  Last year these emerging heavyweights met in a thrilling Elite 8 match-up from which Brazil’s Rousseff progressed to the Final Four to face Obama.  Both BRICS Nations are on top of their game but this year the edge goes to Singh.  India is working to become the only nation to become a permanent member of the UNSC since the inception of the United Nations; and that will carry them through this tough first round matchup. 

Obama v. Netanyahu:  President Obama was able to control the backboard and get a win over Netanyahu in a home court match up earlier this month.  That said, The Oval Office is probably the second friendliest gym for Israel play in, and at a truly neutral site Obama will win handily.

Players to Watch:

Castro Brothers: Or in this case it is, “players not to watch.”  Cuba wasn’t invited to America’s Summit… and they made THIS tourney?!?!  This is an easy win for Robert Mugabe. 

Putin: Vladi is running down hill after a decisive “victory” in the recent Russian Presidential election and some strong diplomacy regarding Syria and Iran.  He isn’t unstoppable, but this is his tournament to lose. 

Kim Jong Un: The new leader of North Korea is close to securing tons of food aid from the United States by promising to freeze its nuclear weapon program.  Lil’ Kim’s father would be proud to see his son exploiting the United States for free food while only briefly pausing North Korea’s nuclear program.  Unfortunately for Kim his road to the Final Four is through Tehran, and that is a level of crazy this young leader can’t play at yet. 

Note: North Korean defectors interviewed in April 2011 thought the tournament was a Battle Royale among foreign leaders fighting for the favor of Kim Jong Il, who once brought a knife to a gun fight and won. 

Late Tournament Action:

Game # 30, Putin v. Ahmadinejad: These two met in the semi finals last year but this will not be a repeat.  Despite a strong performance by the KGB veteran in the early rounds, Putin’s age has caught up to him.  Strong fundamentals can only make up for so much, and in this game the 20 minute half time didn’t give the Russia bear enough time for the hibernation he needed.  Ahmadinejad pulls ahead in the late third quarter and doesn’t look back as he advances to his first finals appearance.  

Finals, Obama v. Ahmadinejad: No one doubted that Obama would make it to this game.  Despite a tough Elite 8 matchup against Angela Merkel (Who has been bench pressing the European economy for training) his tried and true Hope play won in the end.  In the semi finals Obama looked casual against Singh of India as he spoke confidently and inspirationally about great things; propelling him to a second consecutive tournament championship game, the first leader to do so in the two year history of the tournament.

The Game: With a disregard for his citizens that would have made Stalin blush, Ahmadinejad refused once and for all to freeze Iran’s nuclear program.  Although he didn’t, “hesitate to use force,” Obama was beaten to the first punch by Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, who swooped down from the rafters shouting, “I will never allow my people to live in the shadow of annihilation!”  When the dust had settled the bewildered officials and President Obama beheld a triumphant Netanyahu, posed like Washington crossing the Delaware, over his vanquished advisory. 

After a lengthy discussion and numerous calls to the review booth (manned by Kofi Annan) the officials declare Netanyahu the 2012 March Madness Champion.  With reelection less than eight months away Obama humbly accepts the decision of the officials, and the financial and political support of AIPAC on account of his unprecedented support of Israel.  

A Response to Karl Rove’s, “How to Beat Obama”

Karl Rove and Ed Gillespie recently wrote an article asserting that the Republican nominee should challenge President Obama on foreign policy to expose how weak he actually is on the subject.  When I first saw this article my plan was to make this the first addition to the Election 2012 page of my blog.  However as I read it I couldn't help but formulate a response to some of Mr. Rove’s assertions and suggestions. 

My Problems with the Article:

American Exceptionalism:

The belief that because the United States has the biggest economy, strongest military, etc… it is exempt from the rules and guidelines of international conduct is flawed.  Nations should not roam the world with a ‘because I can’ attitude, taking unilateral action against the expressed will of the international community.  In an environment where no party has a monopoly on the use of force (and would therefore be responsible for enforcing law and order) the rules of international conduct are merely guidelines for determining personal action.  This means they are only as strong and respect each nation holds for them.

With regards to the role of global policeman that the United States so often plays, this work is both legitimized and enhanced by partnerships with regional organizations like the African Union and Arab League.  In the case of Libya, NATO military action was legitimized by the involvement of Arab nations like the U.A.E.  In Central Africa, President Obama sent 100 U.S. troops to Uganda, South Sudan, C.A.R. and the D.R.C.  These soldiers will work with the African Nations to defeat the Lord’s Resistance Army, which has been raping, murdering, and kidnapping for over 20 years. 

In essence, with great power comes great responsibility.  Part of that responsibility is being humble, saying thank you, and quietly going about your business of being the best.  A perfect example of this is the rescue of Iranian sailors being held captive by Somali pirates.  In the wake of each rescue the Navy has fed, clothed, and treated the sailors for any medical needs before quickly returning them to the Iranian Coast Guard.  There were never any attempts to use the sailors as leverage to influence Iranian nuclear policies, or any other disrespectful treatment of the sailors.  The only publicity these rescues have gotten is a quick story on the major news outlets and an official Navy report on the event.  By handling these events in this manner the United States portrayed itself as acting solely in the best interest of the Iranian sailors and making no attempt to exploit the situation to influence Iranian policy. As a result the United States gained the moral high ground, and with it, the support of many countries in opposing Iranian nuclear policies.    

As much as I believe American Exceptionalism is a flawed philosophy, toting it is proven help win the general election.  So Mr. Rove’s advice to the Republican Nominee is sound.  

Iran Didn’t “pose a serious threat” in 2008:

Why Mr. Rove, was it so foolish for then Senator Obama to say Iran doesn’t, “pose a serious threat to us the way the Soviet Union did.”  In 2008 Iran had zero nuclear weapons, and as we can clearly see now, Iran wasn’t even four years away from developing them.  Furthermore the USSR could have, at any moment, blanketed the entire U.S. with nuclear missiles.  Even if Iran had enough enriched uranium to make a nuclear warhead, they have no way to get it to the United States.  (No, you can’t simply smuggle a nuclear device into the U.S.) I’ll conclude this section by saying how foolish it was for the Bush Administration to think Iraq posed a serious threat to the United States in 2002. 

Radical Islamic Terrorism:

Karl Rove begins this section by asserting that the Republican nominee must make victory over, “radical Islamic terrorism” the top priority of the nation.  He then suggests that President Obama stops short of this by merely seeking to “delegitimize the use of terrorism and to isolate those who carry it out.” (pg 20) Mr. Rove is quoting Obama’s May 2010 National Security Strategy.  Interestingly after this quote the National Security Strategy makes a clear distinction that the United States is not at war with terrorism or Islam, but al-Qa’ida and its affiliates.  Mr. Rove does not make a similar distinction. 

Another shortcoming of Mr. Rove’s article is it fails to list development as a tool to counter the spread of radical terrorism.  As this study from RAND finds, “social and economic development policies can weaken local support for terrorist activities.” (pg x) In impoverished areas many terrorist organizations offer recruits and their families’ financial support which cannot be found elsewhere.  Good economic development policies serve as a peaceful and more profitable means for these young men and women to support a family. 

The example offered by the RAND study is of development projects in the southern Philippines growing asparagus and bananas.  These initiatives offered an economic alternative to communities which previously supported local terrorist groups.  As a result of these programs communities had high employment rates and were transformed into peaceful communities. 

Such development projects show the commitment of the government enacting them to the welfare of the program beneficiaries.  This serves to minimize the grievances and contempt which can cause individuals to view terrorism is a viable response. 

Conversely, President Obama’s 2010 National Security Strategy explicitly outlines the role of development programs, stating, “The Federal Government will invest in intelligence to understand this threat [radicalization] and expand community engagement and development programs to empower local communities.” (pg 19)  This policy shows the Obama Administration has a solid understanding of the root causes of terrorism.  Based on this article the same cannot be said of Mr. Rove.  

Osama bin Laden:

Karl Rove closes by predicting President Obama will repeat, “endlessly” that bin Laden was killed during his watch so much so that, “some voters will wonder whether the president himself personally delivered the kill shot.”  I’ll restrain myself from starting a tally of what the President credits to whom and simply refer readers to President Obama’s May 2nd speech to the Nation announcing that Osama bin Laden is dead.

NOTE: After writing this piece I found a response from Jermey Rosner and Stanley Greenberg to Mr. Rove’s article.  To summarize, they also assert that Karl Rove and Ed Gillespie have poor advice for the republican nominee and that not only do Americans think Obama is good on foreign policy (An assertion Mr. Rove makes), but he actually is.