Surviving Diplomacy

Though Iraq is getting most of the attention from Presidential candidates these days, I'm not afraid to once again drag out the other "talked-to-death" foreign policy issue: Iran. Given it's not the primary concern of many voters, it is unlikely that either candidate will be elected for their stance on Iran. Assuming nobody bombs it between now and January, it is unlikely it will garner enormous amounts of public attention during election and post-election season either.

However, for Obama moreso than McCain, it's going to the subject of significant scrutiny when he starts his actual diplomatic efforts. Because Obama has drawn such a stark contrast between his position and that of McCain and the past three decades of American policy, if he follows through on what he's said (and he may not, of course), then he will be under far more pressure than McCain would be. Most Americans are not expecting a breakthrough with Iran, and given the mystery behind Iran's nuclear program, might not even be sure what a breakthrough would be. If elected, I do not think many Americans will be expecting McCain to make a diplomatic one - though it would disproportionately benefit his candidacy if he did.

For Obama, or indeed, any "dovish" candidate (this could well apply to Democrat 2012 or 2016, too!), the issue is going to be getting re-elected after all this. If Obama does get "soft" on Iran, it could potentially be an election-killer if it doesn't go very well. Obama can sit down with Iran and even begin a normalization of ties with them, but, if he doesn't want to turn his Iran policy into a major negative, he'll have to keep in mind the following:

• Iran has regional interests that anger Americans which go beyond their nuclear program. For example, no matter what we do, we are not going to get Iran to keep its hands off of Iraq. It makes no diplomatic sense for the Iranians, and it would be very hard for American President to overcome this. Thusly, "solving" the Iranian nuclear issue and warming ties will likely not stop Iranian support for Hezbollah or the Shiite militias in Iraq. Americans (most likely conservative analysts and military personnel) may become very vocal about these issues not being addressed. The US President could have his staff walk away from the negotiating table, claim success on the nuclear question, and still have Hezbollah fighting in Lebanon and the Badr Brigade's Revolutionary Guard pensioned troops clashing with the government or US troops.
• Negotiations that go well do not mean negotiations that work. In North Korea and Iraq, negotiations and inspection compliance do not necessarily answer the nuclear question. If Obama is perceived as being too soft or giving in too much and does not definitively solve the nuclear issue, he had better hope no evidence of mischief appears between the time of negotiations and the 2012 elections.
• Big-mouthed Iranian Presidents. Despite the lack of definitive proof for an Iranian nuclear weapons program, belligerent statements by Iranian politicians, about Israel or otherwise, are still enough to catch media attention and anger Americans. Since Iranian politicians also have to pander to conservatives, do not count on negotiations toning this down to an insignificant amount. Israel will still be there, and it is incredibly unlikely Obama will be able to do much to warm Iranian-Israeli relations.

This is not to suggest that I think negotiations with Iran are an inherently bad thing - I just think the political risks are greater for a liberal than a conservative, and that still applies for Obama. I do not think the Middle East is "primed" for a breakthrough. The Arab press is widely skeptical about Obama, and it would not surprise me if the Iranian press were as well. Negotiating with Iran will still require diplomatic finesse rather than good intentions, and moving beyond the nuclear program to Iran's regional role to address concerns in Iraq and Lebanon will take even more. Americans should not put so much stock in diplomacy simply because it's not what we've been doing the last eight years (as I've said in so many more words earlier, the system is still going to be broken when Bush leaves), but because in many cases it does the least possible harm. I would prefer a Presidency that Obama has promised in the primaries to the one that McCain jokes about, but I have low expectations of what these negotiations will actually accomplish. Likely, Obama will stick to his clarification that he'll reserve such negotiations to times when we can definitively identify we can achieve something useful. Which, of course, does not escape the subjectivity required to identify when those times are.