Home Contact Us
Search :

Nuclear - Articles

Print Bookmark Email Facebook Subscribe
#2736, 19 November 2008
Obama-mania: Iran is Not Invited
Siddharth Ramana
MA Student, Inter-Disciplinary Center, Herzliya, Israel
e-mail: siddharth13@gmail.com

Republican President George W Bush hands over the reigns of the US administration to Democratic President-elect Barack Obama in January 2009. The electoral victory of Obama has been heralded on his campaign tagline of "time for change." Obama has in his campaign speeches spoken about a number of changes in American foreign policy and key among them would be dealing with a nuclear Iran.

President Bush initiated salvos against Iran by condemning its state sponsorship of terror and branded it in 2002 along with the Saddam Hussein-led Iraq and North Korea, as member of an axis of evil. As part of the Bush doctrine, Iraq was invaded and in the aftermath there were growing signals of Iran being the next target. The Iranian nuclear programme, which is repeatedly censured by the United Nations Security Council was used as a primary whip against the state, and the derogatory rhetoric against Israel by Iranian President Ahmadenijad further boosted arguments for a pre-emptive US strike.

Taking the threat of Iran to a higher level, the Bush Administration accused the state of regional hegemony by supporting sub-state actors such as Hezbollah in Lebanon and funding insurgency in Iraq. Despite a National Intelligence Estimate conclusion in December that Iran had stopped its weapons program in 2003, Bush continued to press for action against Iran, with a misleading statement in an interview to Radio Farda, "They've declared they want to have a nuclear weapon to destroy people - some in the Middle East. And that's unacceptable to the United States, and it's unacceptable to the world" (The Washington Post, 21 March 2008).

However, despite arguing for stronger measures on Iran, the President has himself opposed Israel from conducting a pre-emptive strike on Iran's nuclear facilities (The Guardian, 25 September 2008). Bush has tried to distance himself from his perceived hawkish image, when during his farewell tour in Europe he pointed out to a coalition of nations negotiating with Iran on its nuclear program. "I leave behind a multilateral framework to work this issue," Bush said. "You know, one country can't solve all problems. I fully agree with that. A group of countries can send a clear message to the Iranians."

Effectively Bush's statement indicates that rumors of an assault on Iran during the last days of the Bush administration would not be bearing fruit. The mantle of handling Iran has been handed over to Obama, who has made clear that he disfavours military action against Iran. Outlining a position of engaging with Iran's leaders, he offers economic inducements and a possible promise not to seek "regime change," if Iran stopped meddling in Iraq and cooperated on terrorism and nuclear issues.

Obama compared the Iranian threat to the Soviet threat and argued that the Americans had negotiated with it and therefore, could do the same with Iran (CNN, 19 May 2008). Obama's victory therefore, has been celebrated with much fanfare in Tehran, with President Ahmadenijad even writing a congratulatory letter to him. Iran's Majlis (Parliament) First Vice-Speaker, Mohammad-Hassan Aboutorabi-Fard expressed Iranian sentiments, describing the victory as a failure of Bush's policies (Xinhua, 6 November 2008).

Obama's peacenik stance would find takers in the Pentagon. According to a British intelligence source, opposition to a military strike on Iran was so high that a number of generals were prepared to resign their posts in protest. It is this reason which is attributed to Defense Secretary, Robert Gates' opposition to a military strike (Sunday Times, 25 February 2007). Even Obama's running mate Senator Joseph Biden is perceived to be sympathetic to Iran. According to a paper published by Michael Rubin, a lecturer at the US Naval Postgraduate School, Biden's attitude to Iran for the past decade is considered soft and conciliatory (Haaretz, 31 August 2008).

Although Obama favours diplomacy, he has not ruled out the option of militarily dealing with Iran. In August 2008, he reiterated that a nuclear-armed Iran would be a "game-changer for the region," and argued for American action "before Israel feels like its back is to the wall" (Jerusalem Post, 25 August 2008). Even Biden responding to the allegations of being soft on Iran has cited his pro-Israeli credentials and argued that a nuclear Iran is not acceptable (Jerusalem Post, 1 September 2008).

Obama's first staff appointment post election is seen to be a message to Iran. By nominating Rahm Emmanuel to be the chief of staff, the President-elect also calmed ruffled nerves in the pro-Israeli lobby in America, who have consistently argued for a hawkish stance on Iran. The appointment's significance was elucidated by Emmanuel's father who said "Of course he will influence the president to be pro-Israeli" (The Australian, 10 November 2008).

The new administration also faces opposition from European allies in its quest for an unconditional dialogue with Iran. Sidelining Security Council resolutions against Iran would be another example of American unreliability in the eyes its European allies (The Washington Post, 22 June 2008). It is therefore not surprising that Obama chose to downplay the letter from Tehran and reiterated the American position against Iranian activities in the region.

Print Bookmark Email Facebook Subscribe
IPCS Columnists
Af-Pak Diary

D Suba Chandran
Across the Durand Line: Who is in Control Now? Will That Change?
Taliban Talks and the Four Horsemen: Between Peace and Apocalypse
Pakistan: Talks about Talks with the Taliban, Again
Dateline Islamabad

Salma Malik
Pakistan and TTP: Dialogue or Military Action?
The Musharraf Trial & Beyond

Dateline Kabul

Mariam Safi
Afghanistan, US and the Peace Process: A Deal with the Taliban in 2014?
Dhaka Discourse

Prof Delwar Hossain
Bangladesh: Domestic Politics and External Actors
Bangladesh Post Elections 2014: Redefining Domestic Politics?

Eagle Eye

Prof Chintamani Mahapatra
US in Asia: A 'Non-Alignment' Strategy?
Indo-US Strategic Partnership Post Khobragade: The Long Shadow
East Asia Compass

Dr Sandip Mishra
North Korean Peace Gestures and Inter-Korea Relations
Japan: Implications of Indiscriminate Assertiveness
China, Japan, Korea and the US: Region at Crossroads

Himalayan Frontier

Pramod Jaiswal
Chinese Inroads to Nepal
Constituent Assembly-II: Rifts Emerging
Nepal: The Crisis over Proportional Representation and the RPP Divide
Maritime Matters

Vijay Sakhuja
Increasing Maritime Competition: IORA, IONS, Milan and the Indian Ocean Networks
China in the Indian Ocean: Deep Sea Forays
Iran Navy: Developing Long Sea Legs

Middle Kingdom

DS Rajan
China in the Indian Ocean: Competing Priorities
China-Japan Friction: How can India Respond?
Nuke Street

Amb Sheelkant Sharma
Nuclear Security Summit 2014 and the NTI Index
Nuclear Power: An Annual Report Card

Red Affairs

Bibhu Prasad
Maoists in the Northeast: Reality and Myth-Making
Surrender of Gudsa Usendi: Ominous beginning for the Naxals?
South Asian Dialectic

PR Chari
Federalism: Centre as Coordinator and Adjudicator
Limits of Federalism

Spotlight West Asia

Amb Ranjit Gupta
Saudi Arabia-US Estrangement: Implications for the Indian Subcontinent
Syria Today: Is Regime Change the Answer?
The Arab World: Trying Times Ahead
Strategic Space

Manpreet Sethi
US, China and the South Asian Nuclear Construct
Responding to Pakistan’s Tactical Nuclear Weapons: A Strategy for India

The Strategist

Vice Admiral Vijay Shankar
Strategic Non-Nuclear Weapons: An Essential Consort to a Doctrine of No First Use

OTHER REGULAR contributors
Gurmeet Kanwal
Harun ur Rashid
N Manoharan
Wasbir Hussain
Rana Banerji
N Manoharan

Ruhee Neog
Teshu Singh
Aparupa Bhattacherjee
Roomana Hukil
Aparupa Bhattacherjee


Browse by Publications

Issue Briefs 
Special Reports 
Research Papers 
Seminar Reports 
Conference Reports 

Browse by Region/Countries

East Asia 
South Asia 
Southeast Asia 
US & South Asia 

Browse by Issues

India & the world  
Naxalite Violence 
Suicide Terrorism 
Peace & Conflict Database 
Article by same Author
Nuclear Security Summit 2012: The Challenges Ahead

Debate: Is a Nuclear Iran good for India?

On Indo-African Nuclear Trade Facilitation

Does Myanmar have Nuclear Ambitions?

After Osama - IV: What are the Global Implications?

Revisiting the CTBT: the US' Conundrum

Sino-Pak Nuclear Engagement-IV: What Can India Do?

WikiWrecks: An Analysis of Terrorism Financing

Sarkozyís India Visit: The Nuclear Dimension

The Role of Human Intelligence in Counter-Terrorism

Iranís Role in the Taliban Negotiations: Q&A

Af-Pak: Iranís Endgame

Iran-Turkey-Brazil Nuclear Agreement

Attacks in Lahore: Buildup to secession?

Nuclear Weapons Free Middle East: Utopia or Reality?

The Iranian Nuclear Conference

Nuclear Security Review: A Must for India

Airline Terror Plots: Lessons for India

China and Pakistan: Relationship in a Bottle

Need for an Indian Response in Somali Waters

Nuclear Iran: Anathema for India

Pakistan: External Mis-dealings

Unending Drama in Pakistan

Q&A: Attack on Indian Embassy in Kabul

Q&A: Pakistan's Nuclear Bogeyman

Y! MyWeb
Print Bookmark Email Facebook Subscribe
Year 2014
 January  February  March  April  May  June  July  August
 2013  2012  2011  2010  2009  2008  2007  2006
 2005  2004  2003  2002  2001  2000  1999  1998

The Institute of Peace and Conflict Studies (IPCS) is the premier South Asian think tank which conducts independent research on and provides an in depth analysis of conventional and non-conventional issues related to national and South Asian security including nuclear issues, disarmament, non-proliferation, weapons of mass destruction, the war on terrorism, counter terrorism , strategies security sector reforms, and armed conflict and peace processes in the region.

For those in South Asia and elsewhere, the IPCS website provides a comprehensive analysis of the happenings within India with a special focus on Jammu and Kashmir and Naxalite Violence. Our research promotes greater understanding of India's foreign policy especially India-China relations, India's relations with SAARC countries and South East Asia.

Through close interaction with leading strategic thinkers, former members of the Indian Administrative Service, the Foreign Service and the three wings of the Armed Forces - the Indian Army, Indian Navy, and Indian Air Force, - the academic community as well as the media, the IPCS has contributed considerably to the strategic discourse in India.

Subscribe to Newswire | Site Map | IPCS Email
B 7/3 Lower Ground Floor, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi 110029, INDIA.
Tel: 91-11-4100 1900, 4165 2556, 4165 2557, 4165 2558, 4165 2559 Fax: (91-11) 41652560
© Copyright 2014, Institute of Peace and Conflict Studies.
        Web Design by http://www.indiainternets.com