Obama's Iran Fantasy

During an interview, President Obama stated that recent events in Iran – which include a rigged election and violent, deadly crackdown against the pro-democratic demonstrations that followed – hadn’t affected his willingness to engage the mullahs.

One of the most common claims regarding President Barack Obama is that he is a realist in international affairs – that he constructs foreign policy on the basis of cold national interests, not ideology. Yesterday, however, this claim was exposed as mythical. During an interview with CNN’s Ed Henry, Obama stated that recent events in Iran – which include a rigged election and violent, deadly crackdown against the pro-democratic demonstrations that followed – hadn’t affected his willingness to engage the mullahs:

Our theory has consistently been to present a door of opportunity for Iran – to have its sovereignty respected, to join the community of nations more fully.

Apparently, the self-proclaimed realist won’t let reality interfere with policymaking. Indeed, Obama refuses to acknowledge the real connection between the way a regime treats its own citizens and its credibility as a negotiating partner. Well, perhaps Obama would be well-served listening to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s less conciliatory “theory.” As Basij militiamen were attacking protesters in the streets a few weeks ago, Ahmadinejad defiantly declared:

The means and results of the June 12th elections caused the defeat of American democratic liberalism, which is used as an instrument of hegemony. So, at the present time, the Islamic Iranian regime is a model for the world.

Indeed, Ahmadinejad resists true democracy – which would force him to accede to the wishes of his own people – on the absurd grounds that it is an American imposition. Can Obama really expect the Iranian leader to accede to actual American demands that will arise during negotiations regarding Tehran’s nuclear program? Bottom line: the longer Obama refuses to understand the implications of recent events in Iran for the prospect of U.S.-Iranian dialogue, the more his foreign policy resembles a detached fantasy of Carteresque proportions.