Right Web

Tracking militarists’ efforts to influence U.S. foreign policy

From "Axis of Evil" to "Happy New Year"

President Obama issued well wishes to Iran on that country’s New Years celebration last Friday, striking a dramatically different tone to that adopted by his predecessor.

(Inter Press Service)

In an unprecedented move, President Barack Obama reached out to both the people and the government of Iran—a leading U.S. adversary—to wish them well in their Norouz, or New Year, holidays, last Friday.

The move stands in sharp contrast to the rhetoric of former U.S. President George W. Bush, who labeled Iran as part of an "Axis of Evil," and other Western and Mideast leaders who take a hard line against the Iranian government.

"[O]n the occasion of your New Year," Obama said in a video released on the official White House website, "I want you, the people and leaders of Iran, to understand the future that we seek."

"It’s a future with renewed exchanges among our people, and greater opportunities for partnership and commerce," he said. "It’s a future where the old divisions are overcome, where you and all of your neighbors and the wider world can live in greater security and greater peace."

Obama may have also tacitly recognized that Iran has a major role to play in the region and in the larger international community.

"The United States wants the Islamic Republic of Iran to take its rightful place in the community of nations," he said.

The "old divisions" Obama referred to are the three decades of ebbing and flowing—but lately, mostly flowing—tensions between the U.S. and the Islamic Republic since the 1979 Revolution that removed the U.S.-backed Shah from power.

An official review of U.S. policy ordered by the administration is due to be completed next week. The review is reportedly being chaired by the State Department’s special advisor for the Gulf and Southwest Asia, Dennis Ross, and William Burns, the under-secretary of state for political affairs.

Ross’ appointment was seen as controversial, and, unlike other major advisory and envoy rolls, announced in a simple press release without much pomp and circumstance. His title also does not mention Iran by name, though he is widely seen as a top advisor for setting Iran policy.

The nuclear issue is seen as the most contentious in dealing with the Islamic Republic. Despite Iran’s insistence that its program is meant for civilian energy—as the December 2007 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), a consensus opinion of the 16 intelligence agencies in the U.S., concluded—hardliners and hawks in the U.S. and their allies in Israel insist that the goal is nuclear weapons.

But while those hawks and hard-liners have at times over the past decade pushed for military action against Iran, Obama was weary of such a tack during his Norouz message.

"This process will not be advanced by threats," said Obama.

"This is the closest anyone has come to ruling out the military option regarding Iran," wrote University of Hawaii professor and Iran expert Farideh Farhi on the Informed Comment: Global Affairs blog. "His commitment was clearly to ‘diplomacy that addresses the full range of issues’ as well as ‘constructive ties’ between the two countries."

Obama campaigned largely on a new brand of foreign policy  based on diplomacy rather than force and the threat of force, particularly towards nations with hostility to the U.S., like Iran. Since he took office, he has reiterated this pledge, but never so directly to all Iranians—including the government and leadership of Iran—as in his Friday Norouz message.

In contrast to Obama’s message to Iranians of all stripes and positions, Israeli President Shimon Peres released a statement that sounded more like Bush, who was prone to bellicose rhetoric towards the government of Iran, though he sometimes spoke directly to the country’s people in a bid to distance them from their leaders.

"I think the Iranian nation will topple these leaders—leaders that do not serve the people," said Peres, calling the heads of Iranian government "religious fanatics."

Obama, on the other hand, took a savvy line by appealing to a common Iranian cultural love of poetry: "There are those who insist that we be defined by our differences. But let us remember the words that were written by the poet Saadi, so many years ago: ‘The children of Adam are limbs to each other, having been created of one essence.’"

Farhi lauded the distinction: "No more ‘we love the people of Iran but hate their government’ taunt repeatedly brandished by the Bush administration."

In Congress, Senate Foreign Relations committee chairman John Kerry, however, adopted some of Peres’ and Bush’s talk of driving a wedge between Iranians and their government.

"The regime in Tehran faces rising discontent from its own people," said Kerry, saying that Obama’s message offered the "regime a real choice" between a "path of real change" and "confrontation."

But Obama, notably, never used the word regime in his address, even referring to the Islamic Republic, the moniker the country took after the ousting of the Shah.

"This is huge," Trita Parsi, president of the National Iranian American Council (NIAC), told Laura Rozen’s The Cable blog on the Foreign Policy magazine website. "At one point he talks about the Islamic Republic. He’s signaling he’s not looking for regime change; he’s recognizing Iran’s system."

"You always heard [former Bush Secretary of State Condoleezza] Rice and Bush say ‘Iranian regime,’" said Parsi. "It’s a big difference."

In addition to the full video, released today, the White House website also carried transcripts of the message in English and Farsi, and a version of the video with Farsi subtitles.

At the end of his video address, however, there was no need for a translation. Obama spoke in Farsi, telling all Iranians "Eid-eh Shoma Mobarak," meaning, “Happy holidays to you.”

Ali Gharib writes for the Inter Press Service and for PRA’s Right Web (www.rightweb.irc-online.org).

Citations

By Ali Gharib, 'From "Axis of Evil" to "Happy New Year"' Right Web with permission from Inter Press Service (Somerville, MA: PRA, 2009). Web location:
/rw/4992.html Production Information:
Author(s): Right Web
Editor(s): Right Web
Production: Political Research Associates   IRC logo 1310 Broadway, #201, Somerville, MA   02144 | pra@publiceye.org

Share RightWeb

Featured Profiles

Update was slow, but still no lag in the editor window, and footnotes are intact.     This has been updated – Bernard Lewis, who passed away in May 2018, was a renowned British-American historian of Islam and the Middle East. A former British intelligence officer, Foreign Office staffer, and Princeton University professor, Lewis was…


Bernard Lewis was a renowned historian of Islam and the Middle East who stirred controversy with his often chauvinistic attitude towards the Muslim world and his associations with high-profile neoconservatives and foreign policy hawks.


John Bolton, the controversial former U.S. ambassador to the UN and dyed-in the-wool foreign policy hawk, is President Trump’s National Security Adviser McMaster, reflecting a sharp move to the hawkish extreme by the administration.


Michael Joyce, who passed away in 2006, was once described by neoconservative guru Irving Kristol as the “godfather of modern philanthropy.”


Mike Pompeo, the Trump administration’s second secretary of state, is a long time foreign policy hawk and has led the public charge for an aggressive policy toward Iran.


Max Boot, neoconservative military historian at the Council on Foreign Relations, on Trump and Russia: “At every turn Trump is undercutting the ‘get tough on Russia’ message because he just can’t help himself, he just loves Putin too much.”


Michael Flynn is a former Trump administration National Security Advisor who was forced to step down only weeks on the job because of his controversial contacts with Russian officials before Trump took office.


For media inquiries,
email rightwebproject@gmail.com

From the Wires

Trump is not the problem. Think of him instead as a summons to address the real problem, which in a nation ostensibly of, by, and for the people is the collective responsibility of the people themselves. For Americans to shirk that responsibility further will almost surely pave the way for more Trumps — or someone worse — to come.


The United Nations has once again turn into a battleground between the United States and Iran, which are experiencing one of the darkest moments in their bilateral relations.


In many ways, Donald Trump’s bellicosity, his militarism, his hectoring cant about American exceptionalism and national greatness, his bullying of allies—all of it makes him not an opponent of neoconservatism but its apotheosis. Trump is a logical culmination of the Bush era as consolidated by Obama.


For the past few decades the vast majority of private security companies like Blackwater and DynCorp operating internationally have come from a relatively small number of countries: the United States, Great Britain and other European countries, and Russia. But that seeming monopoly is opening up to new players, like DeWe Group, China Security and Protection Group, and Huaxin Zhongan Group. What they all have in common is that they are from China.


The Trump administration’s massive sales of tanks, helicopters, and fighter aircraft are indeed a grim wonder of the modern world and never receive the attention they truly deserve. However, a potentially deadlier aspect of the U.S. weapons trade receives even less attention than the sale of big-ticket items: the export of firearms, ammunition, and related equipment.


Soon after a Saudi-led coalition strike on a bus killed 40 children on August 9, a CENTCOM spokesperson stated to Vox, “We may never know if the munition [used] was one that the U.S. sold to them.”


The West has dominated the post-war narrative with its doctrine of liberal values, arguing that not only were they right in themselves but that economic success itself depended on their application. Two developments have challenged those claims. The first was the West’s own betrayal of its principles: on too many occasions the self interest of the powerful, and disdain for the victims of collateral damage, has showed through. The second dates from more recently: the growth of Chinese capitalism owes nothing to a democratic system of government, let alone liberal values.


RightWeb
share