Obama’s Promised
Foreign Policy `Change’ Will Be Mostly
Cosmetic
By Mark
Weber
http://www.ihr.org/mehrinterview_dec08.html
An
interview conducted and distributed by the Mehr news
agency, and published in the Tehran
Times, a leading English-language daily in Iran, Dec.
15, 2008.
Barack
Obama has promised “change”. But his track record shows that he’s
not likely to make major changes in U.S. foreign policy, says
historian Mark Weber, director of the Institute for Historical
Review in California.
On
December 3, the Mehr News Agency conducted an interview with Mr.
Weber about the likely course of Obama’s foreign policy, especially
with regard to Iran and the Middle East. Following is the text of
the interview:
Q: What major challenges will President Obama face in
foreign policy, and how is he likely to handle
them?
A: During this year’s election campaign,
Barack Obama repeatedly promised that as President he would bring
“change.” After the deceit, disastrous wars and economic failure of
the Bush presidency, disillusioned and anxious Americans were ready
to embrace the hopeful message of a youthful leader of eloquence,
charisma and intelligence.
But the appointments that Obama has made to positions in the
new administration, along with his public statements of recent
months, show that he is unlikely to make major changes in U.S.
foreign policy. The promised “change” will be mostly cosmetic. His
foreign policy will be familiar, but conducted more prudently and
with more appealing style.
During the election campaign, Obama never called into
question the basic premise of U.S. military interventionism around
the world. His pledge to increase U.S. military forces in
Afghanistan shows that he supports the misguided “war on terror,”
and accepts an American role as a global policeman.
Obama’s appointments to high-level positions in his
administration – especially his selection of Hillary Clinton as
Secretary of State – signal a foreign policy similar to that of
President Bill Clinton. Both Clintons have records of support for
American military interventionism. As a senator, Hillary Clinton
approved the 2003 U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq. For years
she has been a fierce critic of Iran, and a fervent supporter of
Israel.
Obama’s decision to keep current Defense Secretary Robert
Gates as Pentagon chief, and his selections of Senator Joe Biden as
Vice President, and Rahm Emanuel as White House Chief of Staff,
also indicate continuity in foreign policy. Both Biden and Emanuel
are familiar “establishment” figures with records of ardent support
for Israel and its policies.
While Obama’s most pressing concern will be America’s
serious economic and financial problems, he will also face major
challenges in foreign affairs. First and foremost, he will be
expected to fulfill his election campaign pledges to quickly
withdraw U.S. military forces from Iraq, but he’ll be under great
pressure to do so without risking new dangers for Israeli and
American interests.
Obama will face longer term challenges from Russia and
China, which will act with growing confidence to rival American
power and influence. Moscow’s leaders will seek ever more boldly to
counter what they regard as intolerable interference by Washington
in Russia’s legitimate regional interests.
Q: President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad sent a
congratulatory message to Barack Obama shortly after his election
victory. What’s the significance of that message, and of Obama’s
response?
A: President Ahmadinejad’s message is
another expression of the obvious desire of Iran’s leaders for
better relations with the United States.
Although Obama promptly replied to messages of
congratulation from leaders in other countries, he dealt cautiously
with the one from President Ahmadinejad, saying that he would
“respond appropriately” at a later time. And echoing remarks he’s
made in the past, Obama also said: “Iran’s development of a nuclear
weapon I believe is unacceptable. We have to mount an international
effort to prevent that from happening.” He added “Iran’s support of
terrorist organizations, I think, is something that has to
cease.”
These remarks were consistent with anti-Iran and pro-Israel
statements he made during the election campaign. “Those who
threaten Israel threaten us,” said Obama. “I will bring to the
White House an unshakable commitment to Israel’s security. That
starts with insuring Israel’s qualitative military advantage.” He
also called Iran “a threat to all of us,” and said that he would
not give up the option of using military force against Iran. Obama
supports the $30 billion military aid package to Israel over the
next ten years, which President Bush initiated.
Q: What policies toward Iran and the Middle East is
President Obama likely to pursue?
A: Obama will doubtless avoid initiatives
as irresponsible as President Bush’s calamitous invasion of Iraq,
and he’ll refrain from rhetoric as reckless as some election
campaign remarks by John McCain and Hillary Clinton. In general,
though, he will pursue policies in the Middle East that are broadly
similar to those of Presidents Clinton and Bush, including a policy
of confrontation toward Iran.
Obama will press Tehran to abandon its nuclear energy
development program, and to end its support for the anti-Zionist
resistance in Lebanon and Palestine. He will be constrained by the
propaganda of the pro-Zionist mass media, which has fostered a
widely accepted image of Iran as dangerous menace.
In dealing with Tehran, Obama is likely to put less stress
on threats and more on economic inducements. His goal will be the
same as that of his predecessors: to pressure and persuade Iran to
accept the Zionist state and its policies of oppression and
aggression.
Obama will doubtless make an effort to “solve” the
Israel-Palestine issue, but – as with other U.S. presidents -- in a
way that consolidates the Zionist state’s position in the Middle
East, including its confiscation of Palestinian lands.
In this year’s presidential election campaign, as in the
past, the leaders of both major political parties slavishly
pandered to the powerful “Israel lobby.” The blunt reality is that
every American president is obliged to carry out a foreign policy
approved by the organized Jewish community.
Barak Obama will have less freedom to chart foreign policy
as he wishes than either George W. Bush or Bill Clinton because the
new president’s great priority concern will be the nation’s
alarming economic and budgetary problems.
Although the U.S. is still the world’s foremost military and
economic factor, its relative power and influence are declining.
This presents opportunities for other countries in their dealings
with Washington. In any case, statesman will be most effective in
dealing with the U.S. when they act on the basis of a solid
understanding of the mentality and concerns of Americans, and of
world political-economic realities.