Is Obama seeking an opening to Iran the way Richard Nixon did with China?

Reuters

Secretary of State John Kerry (shakes hands with Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif after a ceremony at the United Nations in Geneva Nov. 24, 2013.

Article Highlights

  • Do Obama and Kerry really believe that we share a common interest with the mullahs’ Iran?

    Tweet This

  • Unlike Obama on Iran, Nixon and Kissinger did not rely on some internal reformer to turn China around.

    Tweet This

  • There are big differences between Nixon and Kissinger’s opening to China and Obama and Kerry on Iran today.

    Tweet This

Is President Obama trying to shift alliances in the Middle East away from traditional allies and toward Iran? Robert Kaplan, author and geopolitical analyst for the Stratfor consulting firm, thinks so.

In a realclearworld.com article, Kaplan argues that the Obama administration sees the recently elected Iranian President Hassan Rouhani “as a potential Iranian Deng Xiaoping, someone from within the ideological solidarity system who can, measure-by-stealthy-measure, lead his country away from ideology and toward internal reform.”

Such a development, he goes on, is “something that could, in turn, result in an understanding with the West.”

That, of course, is not what the president and Secretary of State John Kerry say they're up to. They say they're trying to get Iran to agree to stop its nuclear weapons development. No talk of a new alliance.

But Kaplan’s view provides a more convincing explanation of what they’ve actually been doing. It helps explain why Obama and Kerry remain equable in the face of Iranian officials’ public statements that they have not given up their nuclear program.

It also helps explain their adamant opposition to the sanctions bill supported by 59 senators and a large majority in the House. That bill would apply enhanced sanctions if and only if the administration did not achieve in its stated goals at the end of the six-month negotiating period agreed to in November and that took effect, after resolution of “technical” issues, in January.

Obama spokesmen say the sanctions legislation might torpedo the negotiations and even lead to war. The Iranians, brought to the table by sanctions, would walk out if more sanctions are threatened.

That makes little sense. Particularly because in his State of the Union message, Obama said that he would be the first to insist on more sanctions if negotiations failed. Why oppose legislation that would make his own threat more credible?

It would make sense, however, if Obama is trying to construct, in Kaplan’s words, “a concert of powers that would include America, Iran, Russia and Europe,” all opposed to Sunni al Qaeda terrorists.

Kaplan compares Obama and Kerry on Iran with Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger on China, attempting to reconcile with a long-shunned adversary based on shared common interests.

But there are significant differences between Nixon and Kissinger’s opening to China and what Kaplan says Obama and Kerry are doing today.

The first is that Nixon and Kissinger waited until they had strong concrete evidence that China’s leaders had interests consistent with America’s.

As a candidate, Nixon wrote a 1967 Foreign Affairs article saying, “we cannot simply afford to leave China forever outside the family of nations.” But he called that a long-run goal, dependent on China “accepting the basic rules of international civility.”

In office, Nixon and Kissinger listened to Chinese officials’ denunciations of the Soviets and Soviet diplomats’ alarm over China. But only after they observed a Soviet arms buildup and armed clashes on the China-Soviet border did they actively pursue communications with China through intermediaries.

Iran’s mullah regime has been sponsoring armed attacks on Americans for 35 years. Its assaults on al Qaeda-type terrorists have been limited, so far as the record shows, to a bit of help in Afghanistan a decade ago.

The second difference between Iran now and China then is that Obama and Kerry, in Kaplan’s account, place much stock in Rouhani as a change agent who will modify the character of a regime hostile to the U.S. for 35 years.

Previous administrations have seen earlier Iranian presidents as change agents too. Former Defense Secretary Robert Gates in his book Duty notes that every president since Jimmy Carter has tried to reach out to Iranian leaders, “and every one of them has failed to elicit any meaningful response.”

The reason is that the firmly anti-American supreme leaders — Ayatollahs Khomeini and Khamenei — hold the real power, not the occasional smiling front-man president.

Nixon and Kissinger did not rely on some internal reformer to turn China around. Deng Xiaoping's economic reforms started four years after Nixon resigned and his name does not appear in Kissinger's memoir The White House Years.

The Nixon-Kissinger opening did not rely on regime change — Kissinger’s account portrays them as puzzled by internal Chinese politics — but on a demonstrated common interest in cabining in the Soviet Union.

Do Obama and Kerry really believe that we share such a common interest with the mullahs’ Iran?

Michael Barone is a senior political columnist for the Washington Examiner. This column is reprinted with permission from washingtonexmainer.com.

Also Visit
AEIdeas Blog The American Magazine
About the Author

 

Michael
Barone
  • Michael Barone, a political analyst and journalist, studies politics, American government, and campaigns and elections. The principal coauthor of the annual Almanac of American Politics (National Journal Group), he has written many books on American politics and history. Barone is also a senior political analyst for the Washington Examiner.

    Follow Michael Barone on Twitter.


  • Phone: 202-862-7174
    Email: michael.barone@aei.org
  • Assistant Info

    Name: Andrew Rugg
    Phone: 202-862-5917
    Email: andrew.rugg@aei.org

What's new on AEI

image The money in banking: Comparing salaries of bank and bank regulatory employees
image What Obama should say about China in Japan
image A key to college success: Involved dads
image China takes the fight to space
AEI on Facebook
Events Calendar
  • 21
    MON
  • 22
    TUE
  • 23
    WED
  • 24
    THU
  • 25
    FRI
Wednesday, April 23, 2014 | 12:00 p.m. – 1:30 p.m.
Graduation day: How dads’ involvement impacts higher education success

Join a diverse group of panelists — including sociologists, education experts, and students — for a discussion of how public policy and culture can help families lay a firmer foundation for their children’s educational success, and of how the effects of paternal involvement vary by socioeconomic background.

Event Registration is Closed
Thursday, April 24, 2014 | 12:00 p.m. – 1:30 p.m.
Getting it right: A better strategy to defeat al Qaeda

This event will coincide with the release of a new report by AEI’s Mary Habeck, which analyzes why current national security policy is failing to stop the advancement of al Qaeda and its affiliates and what the US can do to develop a successful strategy to defeat this enemy.

Friday, April 25, 2014 | 9:15 a.m. – 1:15 p.m.
Obamacare’s rocky start and uncertain future

During this event, experts with many different views on the ACA will offer their predictions for the future.   

No events scheduled this day.
No events scheduled this day.
No events scheduled this day.
No events scheduled this day.
No events scheduled this day.