This is the second time in as many weeks that the State Department has, for reasons that are largely unfathomable, unilaterally taken an anti-Iran option off the table. Two Wednesdays ago Clinton told Al-Arabiya that military action wasn't even a consideration, which had the predictable effect of emboldening the mullahs. Now comes this announcement, which basically tells Tehran they don't have anything to fear from sanctions. Wonderful.
Remember during the election, when Obama's surrogates wouldn't shut up about "strong sticks and strong carrots"? The original liberal tagline was actually "real sticks and real carrots" but apparently "strong" focused better than "real" so that's what we got. Dennis Ross was even dispatched to reassure Jewish voters that the era of "weak sticks and weak carrots" was over. Then after the election Clinton went to the Hill and - trying to reassure Congresspeople who were nervous about Obama's appeasement - she explicitly promised to mobilize "crippling" international sanctions if outreach failed.
The United States said on Thursday it does not aim to impose crippling sanctions on Iran but rather to pressure the Iranian government to change course on its nuclear program while protecting ordinary people. "It is not our intent to have crippling sanctions that have... a significant impact on the Iranian people,"State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley told reporters. "Our actual intent is... to find ways to pressure the government while protecting the people."
On the plus side, this is more honest than the last few months' of spin. Obama doesn't have the means to establish a robust international sanctions regime, even if he wanted to. The Iranians knew that and bragged about it. The pretense of credible sticks was meant for American audiences, the better to buy Obama breathing room for ever more engagement. Just because previous efforts had drawn humiliating responses didn't mean the approach was misguided. It was just that Iran's "unsettled political situation" was getting in the way!
But that only takes you so far. Eventually you need new excuses for why a crippling sanctions regime has failed to materialize. Giving up on the whole idea - that's certainly one excuse.
The other option was to continue unblinkingly asserting that Iran was still open for talks, no matter how many previous deadlines they had brazenly ignored. Again - remember "Obama says he wants progress with Iran by year's end?" If 2009 ended without a deal - the President intoned - then sanctions would be used "to ensure that Iran understands we are serious." Believable!
References and related after the jump...
References:
* US has no plan for military action against Iran: Clinton [AFP]
* In responding to Iran, a litany of bad options [Michael Young]
* Iran Shaping Up As Key Foreign-Policy Challenge For Obama [RFE/RL]
* POLICY OPTIONS FOR IRAQ - HEARINGS BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS UNITED STATES SENATE ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION - JULY 18, 19, AND 20, 2005 [GPO]
* Why I support Barack Obama [Ross / Jewish Journal]
* Hillary Clinton: US will organise 'crippling' Iran sanctions if diplomacy fails [Times Online]
* U.S. says does not seek crippling sanctions on Iran [WaPo]
* Clenched But - Of Course - China's Still Against Sanctions [IIFSC]
* Clenched With Exactly Zero Fear Of Sanctions [IIFSC]
* Obama's Foreign-Policy Naivete Is Making War More Likely [Commentary]
* Obama: We're Giving Iran More Time Because Of Their "Unsettled Political Situation" [MR]
* Clinton: Of Course We're Going To Let Iran Pull Our Chain Indefinitely [MR]
* Of Course: Obama WH Pushing Back Iran Sanctions Deadline Again [MR]
* Obama says he wants progress with Iran by year's end [Reuters]
