Redstate

Posted at 12:26am on May 23, 2008 Bursting The Bubble

By Pejman Yousefzadeh

Mirabile dictu, it would seem that more and more people are asking about Barack Obama's policy concerning negotiations with other countries:

In a Democratic presidential debate last summer, Obama was asked if he'd meet the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba, and North Korea without precondition and during his first year in office.

"I would," Obama said.

Since then he has frequently reiterated his belief that no preconditions should be set.

"When you say preconditions, what you're really saying is, 'I'm not going to talk to you until you agree to do exactly what I want you to do,'" Obama said. "Well, that's not how negotiations take place."

Challenged by Clinton in multiple debates, Obama allowed that while he would not set preconditions, he would have "preparations" and would not rush to see certain leaders right away.

The precise difference between preconditions and preparations has not been spelled out. What's clear is that low-level talks would precede any summit, as happens now.

Clinton called him naive. She said she would not risk the prestige of the presidency by negotiating directly with countries such as Iran until they had agreed to change their ways.

Obama called that a case of old Washington thinking.

The new thinking, however, appears not to have been thought all the way through.

Indeed it hasn't. And the press should not stop asking questions until it is. Even afterwards, the press should ask why it was that the new thinking was not completely thought through until people started challenging Barack Obama on it.

Posted in 2008 | Barack Obama's Foreign Policy Platform — Comments (7)/ Email this page » / Read More »

Posted at 1:05am on May 22, 2008 Once Upon A Time, Barack Obama Pledged To Meet Unconditionally With Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

By Pejman Yousefzadeh

Now . . . things are somehow different:

Barack Obama's original answer seemed crystal clear: last July, asked whether he would meet with the "leaders" of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba, and North Korea "without precondition," during his first year as president, he quickly answered yes.

"I would," Obama, D-Ill., said at the CNN/YouTube debate. "And the reason is this: that the notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them -- which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this administration -- is ridiculous."

Obama has not renounced his commitment to meet directly with the leaders of rogue nations, including Iran. But in recent weeks, his top aides and advisers have sought to add caveats to his promise, as Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., has made Obama's debate answer a central campaign issue.

The Obama campaign is now offering a more nuanced approach that would not necessarily include a presidential meeting with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad -- and that stresses diplomatic work that would take place before any such meetings take place.

Asked about Obama's original statement Tuesday morning on CNN, former Sen. Tom Daschle, D-S.D., a top Obama adviser and supporter, said top-level meetings would not be immediate -- and would not happen without preliminary extensive diplomatic work.

"I would not say that we would meet unconditionally," said Daschle. "Of course, there are conditions that we [would] involve in preparation in getting ready for the diplomacy. ... 'Without precondition' simply means we wouldn't put obstacles in the way of discussing the differences between us. That's really what they're saying, what Barack is saying."

Susan Rice, a top Obama foreign policy adviser, said Monday that Obama's meetings with Iranian leaders might not include Ahmadinejad.

"He said he'd meet with the appropriate Iranian leaders. He hasn't named who that leader will be," Rice said on CNN. "It would be the appropriate Iranian leadership at the appropriate time -- not necessarily Ahmadinejad."

Uh-huh. To be sure, this is a much more responsible approach than the one that Obama initially took. But it is not at all the same approach and it will be most amusing to watch and listen to Obamaphiles who praised Obama's initial unconditionality now claim that his newfound caution is what should really garner hosannas.

Someone should call Obama on all of this. Why is it that he backed away from unconditional talks? What is this business about talking to "the appropriate Iranian leadership at the appropriate time"? And if Obama really believes that strong nations are willing to talk to their adversaries, why is he suddenly less willing to do so?

Posted in 2008 | Barack Obama's Foreign Policy Platform — Comments (37)/ Email this page » / Read More »