I want to make an observation related to the extraordinary (and ominous) allegation by the Obama administration of an alleged plot in which Iran’s vaunted Quds Force was trying to enlist a used-car salesman and a Mexican drug gang in a plan to kill Saudi Arabia’s U.S. ambassador as he dined at a Washington restaurant.
My point is not that, as David Ignatius of the Washington Post has said, this marks a significant escalation for Iran to conduct terror operations inside the United States (though it is). Nor is it that Iran trying to establish a terrorist beachhead in the North American continent is a dangerous turn of events (though it is). Nor is it that Iran’s actions are the result, at least in part, of weakness shown by the president (though it probably is).
I simply want to point out how Obama’s failures vis-à-vis Iran – from its escalating sponsorship of terrorism, to its efforts to destabilize Iraq, Afghanistan and other nations, to its pursuit of nuclear weapons — stand out particularly in light of how easy he once thought relations with that regime would be.
To take just one example: during the 2008 campaign, Obama argued the way to bring stability to Iraq was not by winning the war but rather by striking a “new compact in the region”—one that would include all of Iraq’s neighbors, including Syria and Iran. Such a compact, he said, will “secure Iraq’s borders, keep neighbors from meddling, isolate al-Qaeda, and support Iraq’s unity.”
Never mind that Syria and Iran had spent the previous years doing everything in their power to violate Iraq’s borders, meddle in its affairs, arm and support the factions that had been killing Iraqis and American troops alike, and fracture its unity. To Obama, all this murderous activity was but the understandable reaction of frustrated governments to the policies of George W. Bush. By contrast, if he himself were elected president, both Iran and Syria would utterly reverse direction.
It hasn’t quite turned out that way, has it?
Obama’s unlimited faith in diplomacy as a means of resolving deep-seated differences among nation-states was not exclusive to the Middle East. When asked, during the first year of his presidency, if he would meet individually and without precondition with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba, and North Korea, Obama replied: “I would. And the reason is this, that the notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them . . . is ridiculous.” So enamored was he of this pledge that he re-stated it regularly in the course of the campaign. Whenever he was asked how he would address a thorny foreign-policy issue, he invoked the need for diplomacy — first, last, and always.
Charles Krauthammer once characterized this disposition as the “broken-telephone theory of international conflict” – that is, the belief that if nations fail to get along, the fault is to be found in some misunderstanding, some misperception, some problem of communication that can be cleared up by “talking.” In Obama’s case, the syndrome was compounded by unfeigned confidence in the power of his own personal charm to bridge whatever differences may separate us from those who hate us.
Thus, when it came to Iran and others, he refused even to entertain the possibility diplomacy might fail, or to consider what steps would be necessary should that in fact happen.
But happen it has.
I have some sympathy for the president and his advisers. The world always seems tidier and easier to influence when you’re on the outside looking in. It’s simpler offering opinions on “The Chris Matthews Show” than it is to reverse the effects of a nasty recession or to bring peace to the Middle East. This point also applies to those running for office versus those bearing the duties of governing. Everyone who works at a high level in government, including in the White House, finds events are not as easy to shape as hot wax. There are layers of complexity one can hardly imagine. So assuming things will be easier than they are isn’t an unforgivable sin; it’s a common human trait.
Nevertheless, I do think it’s fair to say Obama and his team were more imperious than most others who win the presidency. They seemed to believe their own rhetoric. They would transform the nation and remake the world with a snap of their talented fingers; those who came before them were either knaves or fools. To make matter worse, Obama’s performance in his first term has been marked by unusual ineptitude. Judged by his own administration’s standards – from promising unemployment would not rise to above 8 percent to the various “recovery summers” we were told to expect to health care costs going down to reducing the deficit in half to Guantanamo Bay being closed to so much else – the president has failed and failed again. The gap between his promises and his performance, between his words and his deeds, is therefore a good deal wider than is usually the case. Even if one believes my judgment on Obama’s tenure is uncharitable, there isn’t any question his faith in his abilities far exceeded what was warranted.
The man who said his election would lead to a nation healed, a world repaired, and an America that believes again has proved unable to bend events and the world to his will and his ways. We are seeing an ancient truth being vindicated: a haughty spirit often precedes a fall.
