Far from “appeasing” Iran, did Barack Obama give up on diplomacy too soon?

[Beet]

While Republicans accuse him of appeasing Iran, Mr Obama faces critics from the opposite direction who say his biggest mistake was to withdraw his outstretched hand too soon. In a thorough new history of the president’s engagement with Iran (“A Single Roll of the Dice”), Trita Parsi, the founder of the National Iranian American Council in Washington, DC, regrets Mr Obama’s failure to accept the proposal from Brazil and Turkey. Having chosen to pursue diplomacy and pressure simultaneously, he bet all the diplomacy on a single roll of the dice, and when that got nowhere was left only with the pressure—which may in time also fail. If diplomacy is ever to succeed, Mr Parsi says, America must not retreat at the first sign of Iranian intransigence or congressional opposition, both of which are inevitable. The trouble, he concludes, is that the 30-year enmity between Iran and America is no longer a phenomenon, “it is an institution”.

Inside both countries, accusations of appeasement have become part of the institution. Mr Obama has not yet “failed” on Iran: Iran grew stronger on George Bush’s watch and has grown more isolated on his. Among all the options supposedly still on the table might be another go at diplomacy. But time is short, and this week’s Republican ruckus from New Hampshire will make it hard to try again until America’s election season is over.

http://www.economist.com/node/21542805

[Stranger in a strange land]

Basically, no matter what Obama does on Iran, the Republicans will accuse him of "appeasement" because the term focus-groups well with the base

[The Mikado]

After the regime went hardline again following the failure of the 2009 revolution, approaching Iran became pretty much off the table.  That said, if Assad is overthrown, eliminating Iran's one ally in the region might make them a bit desperate to come in from the cold.

[dead0man]

After the regime went hardline again following the failure of the 2009 revolution, approaching Iran became pretty much off the table.  That said, if Assad is overthrown, eliminating Iran's one ally in the region might make them a bit desperate to come in from the cold.

Or back the rat further into a corner.

[Beet]

The 2009 revolution just frustrates me because the protesters should have just made reform itself as the subject of the revolution, not some stupid red herring of 'electoral fraud' for which they had no freekin evidence. I loathe the Iranian regime and wanted the revolution to succeed, but even I had trouble getting behind the whole electoral accusations. I'm not saying there wasn't fraud, only that the best evidence for it was some statistics about the likelihood of certain digits appearing, published in British and American websites-- in other words, a joke. Even some established Western polls had Ahmadinejehad solidly ahead. It's quite possible that the "country bumpkins" just genuinely liked the guy cause he was an economic populist. A protest that was about plain ole' democracy (since the Presidency has no powers anyway) would have worked a lot better, IMO.

With all that being said, you have to realize that what's happened has happened and the regime is what it is-- diplomacy on a purely realist basis is still necessary.

[The Mikado]

With all that being said, you have to realize that what's happened has happened and the regime is what it is-- diplomacy on a purely realist basis is still necessary.

Beet, my point was after the 2009 failed revolution, diplomacy with Iran became politically unfeasible at home.  When the regime is butchering its people in the streets, it would've looked really bad for Obama at home to take anything other than a hard line.

[Beet]

True, I think it was worth a cool-down period of six-to-twelve months. Not for the rest of his term.   Diplomacy can be remarkably low-key, too.

[Beet]

White House says diplomacy can still work

WASHINGTON, Feb 21 (Reuters) - The White House said on Tuesday there is still enough time for diplomacy with Iran to work and prevent Tehran from acquiring a nuclear weapon.

"Israel and the United States share the same objective, which is to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon," White House spokesman Jay Carney said when asked about a weekend visit to Israel by National Security Advisor Tom Donilon.

"There is time and space for diplomacy to work, for the effect of sanctions to result in a change of Iranian behavior," Carney told reporters, saying this was "the context of the discussions" that Donilon had with Israeli officials. (Reporting By Laura MacInnis and Missy Ryan; Editing by Sandra Maler)

Also, India isn't coming along for the ride if Israel strikes. They won't be joining the sanctions.

[Sbane]

Also, India isn't coming along for the ride if Israel strikes. They won't be joining the sanctions.

India needs oil and the Congress party needs to win the UP state elections.