Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.


 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate

Subscribe!
Subscribe





On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.
___________

Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Obama and Iran: the Clinton dilemma

By Emma White - posted Monday, 19 January 2009


In Global Trends 2025, a new report written by the US National Intelligence Council, Iran’s nuclear program is identified as a key security threat to maintaining stability in the Middle East.

“A nuclear-armed Iran spawning a nuclear arms race in the greater Middle East will bring new security challenges to an already conflict-prone region”, the report said.

Just how Obama deals with Iran’s nuclear ambitions will be a critical test of his presidency. Will he keep his campaign promise to shift policy away from the failed Bush approach of threats and containment and negotiate with Iranian leaders to resolve this nuclear security dilemma?

Advertisement

One complication which could frustrate Obama’s vision is Hillary Clinton. While Obama represents a new approach, his new Secretary of State, Clinton must subordinate her previously stated ideas on Iran. There is the danger that fundamental policy differences between the two may result in a lack of coherence in US foreign policy towards Iran.

Clinton and Obama clashed over this issue during their bitter campaign for the 2008 Democratic Primary votes. Obama clearly outlined his preferred approach of engagement, telling reporters that he was willing to meet Iranian leaders to discuss issues of overlapping interest with Washington including nuclear proliferation, terrorism, stability in Iraq and the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Clinton, in contrast, ridiculed Obama for wanting to sit-down and negotiate directly with Iranian leaders without preconditions. “I thought that was irresponsible and frankly naïve”, she said.

Detractors of Clinton’s appointment see her 2007 Senate vote in favour of declaring Iran's 125,000 strong Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organisation as proof that as Secretary of State she will maintain an aggressive stance towards Iran.

According to Dr Trita Parsi of the National Iranian American Council, the impact of this vote led to a “further entrenching of US-Iran relations in a paradigm of enmity”. “Without negotiations,” Parsi declares, “the two countries will gravitate toward conflict”.

Washington seems to have lost its appetite for launching targeted military strikes against Iranian nuclear facilities. However, Clinton’s comments during the Democratic Primaries campaign that as president she was willing to “totally obliterate” Iran has its leaders understandably worried and leads to the obvious question: has Obama taken too big a political risk in appointing a Secretary of State whose political ambitions and aggressive Iranian stance are well known?

Advertisement

Perception is important in international relations. US leaders in particular must carefully choose candidates for the top diplomatic job. Experience cannot be the only consideration. What an appointment signals to the international community about new government foreign policy intentions is just as vital.

Hillary Clinton’s appointment as Secretary of State is problematic. Her appointment sends the message that hope of a more moderate and imaginative Middle East policy from Washington is just that - hope.

Iranians have not forgotten that after a period of relative harmony under President George Bush Snr - a reward for Tehran’s neutrality in the first Gulf war - it was Bill Clinton who, in 1996, reinstated tough economic sanctions against Iran by signing the Iran-Libya Sanctions Act. In 2002 US-Iran relations further deteriorated when the current Bush administration accused Iran of being in an “axis of evil” along with Iraq and North Korea.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. All


Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

13 posts so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with del.icio.us Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

Emma White is a researcher in the Department of Social Sciences and International Studies at the University of New South Wales. She holds a Masters of International Studies from UNSW. Emma speaks fluent French and has spent many years working and travelling abroad and has resided both in the United States and France.

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Photo of Emma White
Article Tools
Comment 13 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy