"Mr. Obama has done a lot to prepare the ground. He has bolstered American credibility with his — since rebuffed — offer to engage with Iran. He signed a new arms reduction treaty with Russia, improved relations with China and is personally lobbying other United Nations Security Council members to support stronger sanctions."
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/20/opinion/20tue1.html?hp
Is the Times correct that Obama has "bolstered American credibility"? Lets have a look at the facts and begin by considering the following timeline:
“I would never take a military option off the table.” Barack Obama on Iran, throughout 2008 presidential campaign.
"We are not taking any option off the table at all.” Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, January 2009 Senate confirmation hearing, responding to question concerning the Iran military option.
"Obviously, we don't want Iran to become a nuclear weapons power, but we are not planning anything other than going for sanctions."
Hillary Clinton, Al-Arabiya television, Wednesday, February 17, 2010.
"Mr. Obama said he wanted a new United Nations sanctions resolution against Iran 'that has bite,' but he would not embrace the phrase 'crippling sanctions' once used by Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton." President Obama, New York Times interview (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/06/world/06arms.html?hp), Monday, April 5, 2010.
The above inspires credibility? Obama has backed away from every threat of punishment he has ever issued against Iran. Observe that Defense Secretary Gates felt compelled to write his now famous "wake up call" memo to Obama after Iran had ignored a 2009 deadline set by Obama to respond to offers of diplomatic engagement.
According to the Times editorial board, "None of this should let the Security Council off the hook." Really? When did Obama ever seek to make use of the Security Council? During the demonstrations that erupted throughout Iran following the sham elections in June, Obama never once dared bring the resultant imprisonment, torture and murder of Ahmadinjad's opponents to the attention of this august body. Moreover, Obama certainly has no credibility with Iran's dissidents, who chanted "Obama, Obama, either you are with us or them!" when they took to the streets. Iran's oppressed Baha'is, Kurds, Sunnis, homosexuals, women, political opponents, journalists? Obama never brought their case to the attention of the U.N. or any other international body.
According to the Times editorial board, Obama boosted American credibility by signing "a new arms reduction treaty with Russia". If that is the case, why can't Obama, as acknowledged by the editorial board ("We are skeptical that even that will be enough to get Moscow . . . to sign on to anything with real bite"), depend on Putin for sanctions? Moreover, consider Obama's credibility today with the Czech Republic and Poland: It is now some eight months since Obama humiliated Warsaw and Prague by pulling out of the agreement over Third Site missile defense installations in order to appease Russia. And if that was not enough to inspire credibility, instead of signing the condolence book at the Polish Embassy after the death of Polish President Lech Kaczynski and the Polish First Lady, Obama chose to play yet another round of golf.
According to the Times, Obama has also improved American credibility via "improved relations with China". Why then is China unwilling to support sanctions against Iran? And how was this so-called "credibility" achieved? Obama traveled to China and refused to breathe a word about Chinese human rights abuses. Moreover, in order to further appease the Chinese, when Obama finally agreed to see the Dalai Lama in February in the Map Room (not the Oval Office), there was no official welcome, the meeting was closed to the press, and only a single White House photo was released. What, if anything, has resulted from this appeasement of China?
The Times editorial mentions that Turkey is also resisting sanctions, notwithstanding Obama's trip to Istanbul during his first overseas visit as president. In order to soothe the Turks, Obama has reneged on his campaign promise to recognize Armenian Genocide, but Ankara still refuses to cooperate with the U.S. Obama obviously lacks credibility with the Turks and has also proven to Armenians that he is not to be trusted.
Obama's foreign policy has been characterized by a willingness to appease tyrannies while undermining friends. Obama's international credibility has never been lower, and there is a reason Iran titters at his idle efforts to forestall the Islamic Republic from obtaining atomic weapons, which will surely cause Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan and Turkey (all of whom could live with an Israeli nuclear capability) to seek the same.
The Times editorial asks:
"How will the world contain Iran if it actually produces a weapon? What will Washington and its allies do if Iran acquires all of the parts but decides to stop just short of that?"
I think it is fairly obvious by now what Obama will do: Nothing.
