Multilateralism's dead end
Of course, Obama promised that we would move onto sanctions at the end of September, at the end of December, in February, and now 'in a few months.'
Noah Pollak argues that the reason for the continual delays is that the Obama administration is in denial about the fact that Russia and China will not join any effort to impose new sanctions. Here's why:
There are two reasons, I think. The first is that acknowledging Russia and China’s unwillingness to help would strike the most powerful blow yet to Obama’s central foreign-policy message: that his personality and eagerness for engagement would open up doors for America that were slammed shut by the Bush administration’s alleged arrogance and quickness to go to war. Acknowledging that the Security Council will never allow strong sanctions would be tantamount to admitting that the very logic and premises of Obama’s foreign policy is flawed. Thus, this isn’t really about Iran. It’s about the politics of failure and Obama’s increasingly desperate attempt to shield his presidency from the hard realities of the world.
And there is a practical reason why Obama may never admit that the Security Council is a dead end: doing so would force him to move to a new strategy — and there is no new strategy. So instead of thinking seriously about a Plan B, the administration is simply burying Plan A in a process with no chance of success and no expiration date. This is passivity, and it puts Obama in the position of reacting to events instead of shaping them. That’s not a good position for the American president to be in.
What could go wrong?
Israel Matzav: Multilateralism's dead end
No comments:
Post a Comment