The Obama administration’s lack of diplomatic seriousness goes beyond clumsy tactics; it reflects an inadequate understanding of the strategic necessity of constructive American-Iranian relations. If an American president believed that such a relationship was profoundly in our national interests — as President Richard Nixon judged a diplomatic opening to China — he would demonstrate acceptance of the Islamic Republic, even as problematic Iranian behavior continued in the near term.
After taking office in 1969, Nixon directed the C.I.A. to stop covert operations in Tibet and ordered the Navy to stop its regular patrols of the Taiwan Strait even while China was supplying weapons to kill American soldiers in Vietnam. President Obama has had several opportunities to send analogous signals to Tehran — such as ending Bush-era covert programs against Iran — but has punted.
First of all, the reason only Nixon could reach out to China was that nobody could accuse Nixon of being weak-kneed over communist China given his history. Are these authors seriously contending that President Obama has the same record--or any record of note at all--regarding opposition to Iran's ambitions? Obama is no Nixon in foreign policy.
Second, the reason Nixon went to China was to gain a strategic asset against a far more dangerous enemy--the Soviet Union. China was ripe for an opening following their break with Moscow. We had a shared enemy in the Soviet Union and it made sense for America and China to cooperate to oppose our common enemy.
What greater common enemy do America and Iran share that could submerge Iran's hostility toward us? (Well, other than Israel according to some whackjobs here) And make no mistake, it is Iran's hostility and not ours that causes the problem. We'd be happy with an Iran that threatened nobody.
The notion that President Obama's outreach to the mad mullahs of Iran is comparable in intent, possibilities, and our national interest to President Nixon's outreach to communist China is ludicrous.
