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.

Print Friendly

(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).


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:
http://rightweb.irc-online.org/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

Rep. Mike Pompeo (R-KS), President Trump’s nominee for secretary of state to replace Rex Tillerson, is a “tea party” Republican who previously served as director of the CIA.

Richard Goldberg is a senior adviser at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies who served as a foreign policy aide to former Sen. Mark Kirk (R-IL).

Reuel Marc Gerecht, a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, has been advocating regime change in Iran since even before 9/11.

John Hannah, Dick Cheney’s national security adviser, is now a leading advocate for regime change in both Iran and Syria based at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies.

Dennis Ross, a U.S. diplomat who served in the Obama administration, is a fellow at the “pro-Israel” Washington Institute for Near East Policy.

Sheldon Adelson is a wealthy casino magnate known for his large, influential political contributions, his efforts to impact U.S. foreign policy discourse particularly among Republicans, and his ownership and ideological direction of media outlets.

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) is known for his hawkish views on foreign policy and close ties to prominent neoconservatives.

For media inquiries,
email rightwebproject@gmail.com

From the Wires

Print Friendly

North Korea and Iran both understand the lesson of Libya: Muammar Qaddafi, a horrifyingly brutal dictator, gave up his nuclear weapons, was eventually ousted from power with large-scale US assistance, and was killed. However, while Iran has a long and bitter history with the United States, North Korea’s outlook is shaped by its near-total destruction by forces led by the United States in the Korean War.

Print Friendly

Europe loathes having to choose between Tehran and Washington, and thus it will spare no efforts to avoid the choice. It might therefore opt for a middle road, trying to please both parties by persuading Trump to retain the accord and Iran to limit missile ballistic programs and regional activities.

Print Friendly

Key members of Trump’s cabinet should recognize the realism behind encouraging a Saudi- and Iranian-backed regional security agreement because the success of such an agreement would not only serve long-term U.S. interests, it could also have a positive impact on numerous conflicts in the Middle East.

Print Friendly

Given that Israel failed to defeat Hezbollah in its war in Lebanon in 2006, it’s difficult to imagine Israel succeeding in a war against both Hezbollah and its newfound regional network of Shiite allies. And at the same time not only is Hezbollah’s missile arsenal a lot larger and more dangerous than it was in 2006, but it has also gained vast experience alongside its allies in offensive operations against IS and similar groups.

Print Friendly

Donald Trump should never be excused of responsibility for tearing down the respect for truth, but a foundation for his flagrant falsifying is the fact that many people would rather be entertained, no matter how false is the source of their entertainment, than to confront truth that is boring or unsatisfying or that requires effort to understand.

Print Friendly

It would be a welcome change in twenty-first-century America if the reckless decision to throw yet more unbelievable sums of money at a Pentagon already vastly overfunded sparked a serious discussion about America’s hyper-militarized foreign policy.

Print Friendly

President Trump and his advisers ought to ask themselves whether it is in the U.S. interest to run the risk of Iranian withdrawal from the nuclear agreement. Seen from the other side of the Atlantic, running that risk looks dumb.