Obama's Prize
Life is like an arcade game. We speed from peril to peril with little time or desire to focus on the catastrophe we just avoided. The fatal automobile accident that was barely averted; the growth that turned out to be benign, such events occupy a small niche in our conscious mind. It is no different in the life of nations. Franklin Roosevelt’s persistent efforts to keep the US safe in the late 1930's resulted in most of the burden of World War II falling on our allies, but was barely noted when victory was achieved in 1945. The near nuclear war that followed the Soviets putting missiles in Cuba, scared Kennedy into seeking a different approach to the Cold War, then was quickly moved off the action agenda. The same might be said for 9-11.
The harvest of tribal hate which we reaped in 2001 left us with many questions, the most troubling of which is, how could terrorists hurt us even more? The answer: the terrorist could get their hands on a nuclear device. Having witnessed the motivation to do such harm, and imagined the means by which our enemies might do it, how could there be a more urgent action item than preventing the terrorists from attaining a nuclear device?
President Obama recognized this and his administration moved on it immediately, first to restore a healthy working relationship with Russia. Then Obama renewed Reagan’s goal of working toward a nuclear free world, as a means of demonstrating to would be nuclear nations that America is serious about atomic disarmament. Most recently, President Obama, the first US President to preside at an UN Security Council meeting, got all the permanent members, including Russia and China to join in a resolve aimed at ending nuclear proliferation.
Obama’s efforts to keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of madmen include a focus on the two most immediate problems: North Korea and Iran. One part of Obama’s plan has been strengthening the international consensus that it will take to make economic sanctions successful. The beltway mantra of the last decade that economic sanctions never work is really based on the notion that real international cooperation is not possible. No nation’s economy could succeed if cut off completely from the rest of the world. The world wide response to Wall Street’s collapse is all anyone needs to appreciate how interconnected all nations are. Obama’s efforts to increase the cooperation of Russia and China have already borne some fruit in regard to North Korea which now is burdened by much heavier economic sanctions then when Obama took office. These efforts are also showing signs of improving the Iranian situation.
In the case of Iran, Obama has simultaneously built the foundation for meaningful sanctions while pursuing a program of outreach to Muslims in general and Persians in particular. No more talk of crusades. The results of Obama’s outreach are hard to assess. They probably emboldened the campaigns against President Ahmadinejad in the recent elections and the opposition which followed the flawed vote count. In the crackdown which followed, it was widely speculated that the cause of cooperation on nuclear issues had been set back by these events, but in the last two weeks that conventional wisdom has been tested. Now it seems the Iranian regime’s reaction to the election might have two parts: one, to leave no doubt they have the power and the determination to enforce their will, and two, improving the economy and taking issues away from their opponents for the long term. This is the approach China followed after Tiananmen Square and its success may well make it the working model for Iran’s rulers.
On October 2, the United States participated for the first time in a meeting between the Iranian leadership and European diplomats. The Iranians agreed to a tentative deal, by which Iran would give up most of its enriched uranium to Russia in order for it to be converted into desperately needed material for a medical research reactor in Tehran. Iran also agreed to let international inspectors visit the newly disclosed uranium-enrichment facility in Qom within two weeks, and to attend another meeting with negotiators from the major powers by the end of the month. Secretary of State Clinton is now in Russia getting our ducks in a row and I’m sure engaging in back door communications with the Iranians. It is premature to call this a done deal. The Iranian government is capable of duplicity and self-destructive acts, but there if the tentative agreement turns into action a major world crisis may be averted.
The critics respond with what seems like a reasonable question, what if Iran has more fissile material than we know about? The answer of course is we can never be sure of what we do not know. Getting more inspectors in the country will help. The same devices that allowed us to observe the building of the latest nuclear enrichment site will have to be continued. But here is what you won’t hear in the ensuing discussion: that a bombing campaign can’t destroy fuel we don’t know about either. With regard to this one concern, the risk of the diplomatic and the military path are identical, but after that the risk benefit scales violently diverge.
Up until last week there was a growing chorus that we bomb Iran to end their nuclear program. This was to be a “surgical air strike” against those sites where we knew the Iranians were making and storing fissile material. The costs of the “military option” were not so widely discussed, but they certainly include an increase in gasoline in the US of $2.50 per gallon or more at the pump; and the risk of setting off a regional war in the Mideast . . .
Since World War II, the world has enjoyed a pax Americana built on America’s military might and a general belief that America would use its strength in concert with and for the mutual benefit of all other peaceful nations. All of this came under question during George W. Bush’s term where divinely granted American exceptionalism and unilateral decision making were at the heart of America’s approach to foreign policy.
Since Obama’s election, the world has witnessed new sanctions against the North Koreans, the potential breakthrough on the Iranian nuclear program and the agreement with Russia to further reduce our nuclear arsenals, all accomplished by a young administration as it also struggled to overcome the worst economic collapse since the great depression. These changes have been given less attention by the American media than “Obama’s failure” to get the Olympics for the United States, so it should come as no surprise that these same media know-it-alls would deride the Nobel judges for thinking these accomplishments are worth applause and encouragement.
It’s easy to understand how relieved Europeans are to see the old America back. It’s also easy to dismiss the insouciant arrogance of the US commentators, but it puts me in mind of my first potato harvest.
When I was five, my mom and dad visited relatives in Aroostook County during potato harvest. In those days, spuds were dug by hand. I was excited as we joined in. Huge fields with empty barrels for as far as I could see, and thirty people of all ages toiling to fill as many as possible before day’s end. I took my place beside one of the older men, reached into the ground and pulled out a “potato.” However, as I went to put in the barrel, the old farmer grabbed it and broke in two. Then he smiled at me revealing two lonely teeth heavily stained with tobacco which he had consumed for years in every way known to man. I’ve never forgotten the sting of his comment. “Boy, this is a petrified cow turd. If you don’t learn to tell the difference between this and a potato, your going to be eaten shit all your life.”
It seems the Nobel judges prefer Obama’s potatoes over Bush’s turds and the American media were bewildered. They prefer long grain rice over potatoes anyway.
The harvest of tribal hate which we reaped in 2001 left us with many questions, the most troubling of which is, how could terrorists hurt us even more? The answer: the terrorist could get their hands on a nuclear device. Having witnessed the motivation to do such harm, and imagined the means by which our enemies might do it, how could there be a more urgent action item than preventing the terrorists from attaining a nuclear device?
President Obama recognized this and his administration moved on it immediately, first to restore a healthy working relationship with Russia. Then Obama renewed Reagan’s goal of working toward a nuclear free world, as a means of demonstrating to would be nuclear nations that America is serious about atomic disarmament. Most recently, President Obama, the first US President to preside at an UN Security Council meeting, got all the permanent members, including Russia and China to join in a resolve aimed at ending nuclear proliferation.
Obama’s efforts to keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of madmen include a focus on the two most immediate problems: North Korea and Iran. One part of Obama’s plan has been strengthening the international consensus that it will take to make economic sanctions successful. The beltway mantra of the last decade that economic sanctions never work is really based on the notion that real international cooperation is not possible. No nation’s economy could succeed if cut off completely from the rest of the world. The world wide response to Wall Street’s collapse is all anyone needs to appreciate how interconnected all nations are. Obama’s efforts to increase the cooperation of Russia and China have already borne some fruit in regard to North Korea which now is burdened by much heavier economic sanctions then when Obama took office. These efforts are also showing signs of improving the Iranian situation.
In the case of Iran, Obama has simultaneously built the foundation for meaningful sanctions while pursuing a program of outreach to Muslims in general and Persians in particular. No more talk of crusades. The results of Obama’s outreach are hard to assess. They probably emboldened the campaigns against President Ahmadinejad in the recent elections and the opposition which followed the flawed vote count. In the crackdown which followed, it was widely speculated that the cause of cooperation on nuclear issues had been set back by these events, but in the last two weeks that conventional wisdom has been tested. Now it seems the Iranian regime’s reaction to the election might have two parts: one, to leave no doubt they have the power and the determination to enforce their will, and two, improving the economy and taking issues away from their opponents for the long term. This is the approach China followed after Tiananmen Square and its success may well make it the working model for Iran’s rulers.
On October 2, the United States participated for the first time in a meeting between the Iranian leadership and European diplomats. The Iranians agreed to a tentative deal, by which Iran would give up most of its enriched uranium to Russia in order for it to be converted into desperately needed material for a medical research reactor in Tehran. Iran also agreed to let international inspectors visit the newly disclosed uranium-enrichment facility in Qom within two weeks, and to attend another meeting with negotiators from the major powers by the end of the month. Secretary of State Clinton is now in Russia getting our ducks in a row and I’m sure engaging in back door communications with the Iranians. It is premature to call this a done deal. The Iranian government is capable of duplicity and self-destructive acts, but there if the tentative agreement turns into action a major world crisis may be averted.
The critics respond with what seems like a reasonable question, what if Iran has more fissile material than we know about? The answer of course is we can never be sure of what we do not know. Getting more inspectors in the country will help. The same devices that allowed us to observe the building of the latest nuclear enrichment site will have to be continued. But here is what you won’t hear in the ensuing discussion: that a bombing campaign can’t destroy fuel we don’t know about either. With regard to this one concern, the risk of the diplomatic and the military path are identical, but after that the risk benefit scales violently diverge.
Up until last week there was a growing chorus that we bomb Iran to end their nuclear program. This was to be a “surgical air strike” against those sites where we knew the Iranians were making and storing fissile material. The costs of the “military option” were not so widely discussed, but they certainly include an increase in gasoline in the US of $2.50 per gallon or more at the pump; and the risk of setting off a regional war in the Mideast . . .
Since World War II, the world has enjoyed a pax Americana built on America’s military might and a general belief that America would use its strength in concert with and for the mutual benefit of all other peaceful nations. All of this came under question during George W. Bush’s term where divinely granted American exceptionalism and unilateral decision making were at the heart of America’s approach to foreign policy.
Since Obama’s election, the world has witnessed new sanctions against the North Koreans, the potential breakthrough on the Iranian nuclear program and the agreement with Russia to further reduce our nuclear arsenals, all accomplished by a young administration as it also struggled to overcome the worst economic collapse since the great depression. These changes have been given less attention by the American media than “Obama’s failure” to get the Olympics for the United States, so it should come as no surprise that these same media know-it-alls would deride the Nobel judges for thinking these accomplishments are worth applause and encouragement.
It’s easy to understand how relieved Europeans are to see the old America back. It’s also easy to dismiss the insouciant arrogance of the US commentators, but it puts me in mind of my first potato harvest.
When I was five, my mom and dad visited relatives in Aroostook County during potato harvest. In those days, spuds were dug by hand. I was excited as we joined in. Huge fields with empty barrels for as far as I could see, and thirty people of all ages toiling to fill as many as possible before day’s end. I took my place beside one of the older men, reached into the ground and pulled out a “potato.” However, as I went to put in the barrel, the old farmer grabbed it and broke in two. Then he smiled at me revealing two lonely teeth heavily stained with tobacco which he had consumed for years in every way known to man. I’ve never forgotten the sting of his comment. “Boy, this is a petrified cow turd. If you don’t learn to tell the difference between this and a potato, your going to be eaten shit all your life.”
It seems the Nobel judges prefer Obama’s potatoes over Bush’s turds and the American media were bewildered. They prefer long grain rice over potatoes anyway.