OPINION: 'Isolating' Iran isn't exactly working out
Charles Krauthammer is a syndicated columnist for The Washington Post.
In announcing the passage of a UN Security Council resolution imposing sanctions on Iran, President Barack Obama stressed not once but twice Iran's increasing "isolation" from the world.
This claim is not surprising considering that after 16 months of an "extended hand" policy, in which Iran responded by actually accelerating its nuclear program - more centrifuges, enrichment sites and higher enrichment levels - Iranian "isolation" is about the only achievement to which the administration can even plausibly lay claim.
"Isolation" may have failed to deflect Iran's nuclear ambitions, but it does enjoy incessant repetition by the administration. In his State of the Union address, Obama declared that "the Islamic Republic of Iran is more isolated." Two months later, Vice President Joe Biden asserted, "I would point out that Iran is more isolated - internally, externally - has fewer friends in the world."
At the signing of April's START Treaty, Obama declared that "those nations that refuse to meet their obligations [to the Non-Proliferation Treaty, i.e., Iran] will be isolated."
Really? On Tuesday, right before the president touted a surpassingly weak UN resolution and declared Iran yet more isolated, the leaders of Russia, Turkey and Iran gathered at a security summit in Istanbul "in a display of regional power that appeared to be calculated to test the United States," as The New York Times stated. And, I would add, to demonstrate the hollowness of U.S. claims of Iranian isolation, to flaunt Iran's growing ties with Russia and quasi-alliance with Turkey, a NATO member no less.
Apart from the fact that isolation is hardly a solution and is pointless if Iran continues rushing headlong to become a nuclear power, the very claim of Iran's isolation is increasingly implausible. Just last month, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad hosted an ostentatious love-fest in Tehran with the leaders of Turkey and Brazil. The three raised hands and announced a uranium transfer deal designed to torpedo U.S. attempts to impose UN sanctions.
Six weeks ago, Iran was elected to the UN Commission on the Status of Women, a grotesque choice that mocked Obama's attempt to further isolate Iran from the very international institutions he treasures.
Increasing isolation? In the past year alone, Ahmadinejad has been welcomed in Kabul, Istanbul, Copenhagen, Caracas, Brasilia, La Paz, Senegal, Gambia and now China.
Three Iran sanctions resolutions unanimously passed in the Bush years. But after 16 months, Obama garnered only 12 votes for his sorry sanctions, with Lebanon abstaining and Turkey and Brazil voting no.
From the beginning, the Obama strategy toward Iran and other rogue states had been to offer good will and concessions on the premise that this would lead to one of two outcomes: the other side changing policy, or the world isolating the offending state and rallying around us - now that we have demonstrated those last-mile good intentions.
Hence, nearly a year and a half of peace overtures, negotiation, concessions, two New Year's messages to the Iranian people, groveling about U.S. involvement in the 1953 coup and a disgraceful silence when the regime's very stability was threatened by peaceful demonstrators.
Iran's response? Defiance and acceleration of its nuclear program. And the world's response? Despite Obama's "resetting" of relations with Russia and kowtowing to China, these nations bargained to hollow out the sanctions' resolution. Turkey openly chose sides with the region's "strong horse" - Iran and Syria, Hezbollah and Hamas - while the United States tries to placate Syria and appease Iran while it pressures Israel and neglects Lebanon. To say nothing of Brazil. Et tu, Lula?
Wednesday's Washington Post headline understatedly captured this sentiment: "U.S. alliance against Iran is showing new signs of vulnerability."
You think?
