President Obama invited me to the Oval Office Saturday afternoon to lay out exactly how he was trying to balance these risks and opportunities in the framework accord reached with Iran last week in Switzerland. What struck me most was what Id call an Obama doctrine embedded in the presidents remarks. It emerged when I asked if there was a common denominator to his decisions to break free from longstanding United States policies isolating Burma, Cuba and now Iran. Obama said his view was that engagement, combined with meeting core strategic needs, could serve American interests vis--vis these three countries far better than endless sanctions and isolation. He added that America, with its overwhelming power, needs to have the self-confidence to take some calculated risks to open important new possibilities like trying to forge a diplomatic deal with Iran that, while permitting it to keep some of its nuclear infrastructure, forestalls its ability to build a nuclear bomb for at least a decade, if not longer.
We are powerful enough to be able to test these propositions without putting ourselves at risk. And thats the thing ... people dont seem to understand, the president said. You take a country like Cuba. For us to test the possibility that engagement leads to a better outcome for the Cuban people, there arent that many risks for us. Its a tiny little country. Its not one that threatens our core security interests, and so [theres no reason not] to test the proposition. And if it turns out that it doesnt lead to better outcomes, we can adjust our policies. The same is true with respect to Iran, a larger country, a dangerous country, one that has engaged in activities that resulted in the death of U.S. citizens, but the truth of the matter is: Irans defense budget is $30 billion. Our defense budget is closer to $600 billion. Iran understands that they cannot fight us. ... You asked about an Obama doctrine. The doctrine is: We will engage, but we preserve all our capabilities.
The notion that Iran is undeterrable its simply not the case, he added. And so for us to say, Lets try understanding that were preserving all our options, that were not nave but if in fact we can resolve these issues diplomatically, we are more likely to be safe, more likely to be secure, in a better position to protect our allies, and who knows? Iran may change. If it doesnt, our deterrence capabilities, our military superiority stays in place. ... Were not relinquishing our capacity to defend ourselves or our allies. In that situation, why wouldnt we test it?
Obviously, Israel is in a different situation, he added. Now, what you might hear from Prime Minister [Benjamin] Netanyahu, which I respect, is the notion, Look, Israel is more vulnerable. We dont have the luxury of testing these propositions the way you do, and I completely understand that. And further, I completely understand Israels belief that given the tragic history of the Jewish people, they cant be dependent solely on us for their own security. But what I would say to them is that not only am I absolutely committed to making sure that they maintain their qualitative military edge, and that they can deter any potential future attacks, but what Im willing to do is to make the kinds of commitments that would give everybody in the neighborhood, including Iran, a clarity that if Israel were to be attacked by any state, that we would stand by them. And that, I think, should be ... sufficient to take advantage of this once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to see whether or not we can at least take the nuclear issue off the table.
He added: What I would say to the Israeli people is ... that there is no formula, there is no option, to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon that will be more effective than the diplomatic initiative and framework that we put forward and thats demonstrable.
The president gave voice, though in a more emotional and personal way than Ive ever heard to his distress at being depicted in Israel and among American Jews as somehow anti-Israel, when his views on peace are shared by many center-left Israelis and his administration has been acknowledged by Israeli officials to have been as vigorous as any in maintaining Israels strategic edge.
With huge amounts of conservative campaign money now flowing to candidates espousing pro-Israel views, which party is more supportive of Israel is becoming a wedge issue, an arms race, with Republican candidates competing over who can be the most unreservedly supportive of Israel in any disagreement with the United States, and ordinary, pro-Israel Democrats increasingly feeling sidelined.
This is an area that Ive been concerned about, the president said. Look, Israel is a robust, rowdy democracy. ... We share so much. We share blood, family. ... And part of what has always made the U.S.-Israeli relationship so special is that it has transcended party, and I think that has to be preserved. There has to be the ability for me to disagree with a policy on settlements, for example, without being viewed as ... opposing Israel. There has to be a way for Prime Minister Netanyahu to disagree with me on policy without being viewed as anti-Democrat, and I think the right way to do it is to recognize that as many commonalities as we have, there are going to be strategic differences. And I think that it is important for each side to respect the debate that takes place in the other country and not try to work just with one side. ... But this has been as hard as anything I do because of the deep affinities that I feel for the Israeli people and for the Jewish people. Its been a hard period.
You take it personally? I asked.
It has been personally difficult for me to hear ... expressions that somehow ... this administration has not done everything it could to look out for Israels interest and the suggestion that when we have very serious policy differences, that thats not in the context of a deep and abiding friendship and concern and understanding of the threats that the Jewish people have faced historically and continue to face.
As for protecting our Sunni Arab allies, like Saudi Arabia, the president said, they have some very real external threats, but they also have some internal threats populations that, in some cases, are alienated, youth that are underemployed, an ideology that is destructive and nihilistic, and in some cases, just a belief that there are no legitimate political outlets for grievances. And so part of our job is to work with these states and say, How can we build your defense capabilities against external threats, but also, how can we strengthen the body politic in these countries, so that Sunni youth feel that theyve got something other than [the Islamic State, or ISIS] to choose from. ... I think the biggest threats that they face may not be coming from Iran invading. Its going to be from dissatisfaction inside their own countries. ... Thats a tough conversation to have, but its one that we have to have.
That said, the Iran deal is far from finished. As the president cautioned: Were not done yet. There are a lot of details to be worked out, and you could see backtracking and slippage and real political difficulties, both in Iran and obviously here in the United States Congress.
On Congresss role, Obama said he insists on preserving the presidential prerogative to enter into binding agreements with foreign powers without congressional approval. However, he added, I do think that [Tennessee Republican] Senator Corker, the head of the Foreign Relations Committee, is somebody who is sincerely concerned about this issue and is a good and decent man, and my hope is that we can find something that allows Congress to express itself but does not encroach on traditional presidential prerogatives and ensures that, if in fact we get a good deal, that we can go ahead and implement it.
Since President Obama has had more direct and indirect dealings with Irans leadership including an exchange of numerous letters with Irans supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei than any of his predecessors since Irans revolution in 1979, I asked what he has learned from the back and forth.
I think that its important to recognize that Iran is a complicated country just like were a complicated country, the president said. There is no doubt that, given the history between our two countries, that there is deep mistrust that is not going to fade away immediately. The activities that they engage in, the rhetoric, both anti-American, anti-Semitic, anti-Israel, is deeply disturbing. There are deep trends in the country that are contrary to not only our own national security interests and views but those of our allies and friends in the region, and those divisions are real.
But, he added, what weve also seen is that there is a practical streak to the Iranian regime. I think they are concerned about self-preservation. I think they are responsive, to some degree, to their publics. I think the election of [President Hassan] Rouhani indicated that there was an appetite among the Iranian people for a rejoining with the international community, an emphasis on the economics and the desire to link up with a global economy. And so what weve seen over the last several years, I think, is the opportunity for those forces within Iran that want to break out of the rigid framework that they have been in for a long time to move in a different direction. Its not a radical break, but its one that I think offers us the chance for a different type of relationship, and this nuclear deal, I think, is a potential expression of that.
What about Irans supreme leader, who will be the ultimate decider there on whether or not Iran moves ahead? What have you learned about him?
Hes a pretty tough read, the president said. I havent spoken to him directly. In the letters that he sends, there [are] typically a lot of reminders of what he perceives as past grievances against Iran, but what is, I think, telling is that he did give his negotiators in this deal the leeway, the capability to make important concessions, that would allow this framework agreement to come to fruition. So what that tells me is that although he is deeply suspicious of the West [and] very insular in how he thinks about international issues as well as domestic issues, and deeply conservative he does realize that the sanctions regime that we put together was weakening Iran over the long term, and that if in fact he wanted to see Iran re-enter the community of nations, then there were going to have to be changes.
Since he has acknowledged Israels concerns, and the fact that they are widely shared there, if the president had a chance to make his case for this framework deal directly to the Israeli people, what would he say?
Well, what Id say to them is this, the president answered. You have every right to be concerned about Iran. This is a regime that at the highest levels has expressed the desire to destroy Israel, that has denied the Holocaust, that has expressed venomous anti-Semitic ideas and is a big country with a big population and has a sophisticated military. So Israel is right to be concerned about Iran, and they should be absolutely concerned that Iran doesnt get a nuclear weapon. But, he insisted, this framework initiative, if it can be implemented, can satisfy that Israeli strategic concern with more effectiveness and at less cost to Israel than any other approach. We know that a military strike or a series of military strikes can set back Irans nuclear program for a period of time but almost certainly will prompt Iran to rush towards a bomb, will provide an excuse for hard-liners inside of Iran to say, This is what happens when you dont have a nuclear weapon: America attacks.
We know that if we do nothing, other than just maintain sanctions, that they will continue with the building of their nuclear infrastructure and well have less insight into what exactly is happening, Obama added. So this may not be optimal. In a perfect world, Iran would say, We wont have any nuclear infrastructure at all, but what we know is that this has become a matter of pride and nationalism for Iran. Even those who we consider moderates and reformers are supportive of some nuclear program inside of Iran, and given that they will not capitulate completely, given that they cant meet the threshold that Prime Minister Netanyahu sets forth, there are no Iranian leaders who will do that. And given the fact that this is a country that withstood an eight-year war and a million people dead, theyve shown themselves willing, I think, to endure hardship when they considered a point of national pride or, in some cases, national survival.
The president continued: For us to examine those options and say to ourselves, You know what, if we can have vigorous inspections, unprecedented, and we know at every point along their nuclear chain exactly what theyre doing and that lasts for 20 years, and for the first 10 years their program is not just frozen but effectively rolled back to a larger degree, and we know that even if they wanted to cheat we would have at least a year, which is about three times longer than wed have right now, and we would have insights into their programs that weve never had before, in that circumstance, the notion that we wouldnt take that deal right now and that that would not be in Israels interest is simply incorrect.
Because, Obama argued, the one thing that changes the equation is when these countries get a nuclear weapon. ... Witness North Korea, which is a problem state that is rendered a lot more dangerous because of their nuclear program. If we can prevent that from happening anyplace else in the world, thats something where its worth taking some risks.
I have to respect the fears that the Israeli people have, he added, and I understand that Prime Minister Netanyahu is expressing the deep-rooted concerns that a lot of the Israeli population feel about this, but what I can say to them is: Number one, this is our best bet by far to make sure Iran doesnt get a nuclear weapon, and number two, what we will be doing even as we enter into this deal is sending a very clear message to the Iranians and to the entire region that if anybody messes with Israel, America will be there. And I think the combination of a diplomatic path that puts the nuclear issue to one side while at the same time sending a clear message to the Iranians that you have to change your behavior more broadly and that we are going to protect our allies if you continue to engage in destabilizing aggressive activity I think thats a combination that potentially at least not only assures our friends, but starts bringing down the temperature.
There is clearly a debate going on inside Iran as to whether the country should go ahead with this framework deal as well, so what would the president say to the Iranian people to persuade them that this deal is in their interest?
If their leaders really are telling the truth that Iran is not seeking a nuclear weapon, the president said, then the notion that they would want to expend so much on a symbolic program as opposed to harnessing the incredible talents and ingenuity and entrepreneurship of the Iranian people, and be part of the world economy and see their nation excel in those terms, that should be a pretty straightforward choice for them. Iran doesnt need nuclear weapons to be a powerhouse in the region. For that matter, what Id say to the Iranian people is: You dont need to be anti-Semitic or anti-Israel or anti-Sunni to be a powerhouse in the region. I mean, the truth is, Iran has all these potential assets going for it where, if it was a responsible international player, if it did not engage in aggressive rhetoric against its neighbors, if it didnt express anti-Israeli and anti-Jewish sentiment, if it maintained a military that was sufficient to protect itself, but was not engaging in a whole bunch of proxy wars around the region, by virtue of its size, its resources and its people it would be an extremely successful regional power. And so my hope is that the Iranian people begin to recognize that.
Clearly, he added, part of the psychology of Iran is rooted in past experiences, the sense that their country was undermined, that the United States or the West meddled in first their democracy and then in supporting the Shah and then in supporting Iraq and Saddam during that extremely brutal war. So part of what Ive told my team is we have to distinguish between the ideologically driven, offensive Iran and the defensive Iran that feels vulnerable and sometimes may be reacting because they perceive that as the only way that they can avoid repeats of the past. ... But if were able to get this done, then what may happen and Im not counting on it but what may happen is that those forces inside of Iran that say, We dont need to view ourselves entirely through the lens of our war machine. Lets excel in science and technology and job creation and developing our people, that those folks get stronger. ... I say that emphasizing that the nuclear deal that weve put together is not based on the idea that somehow the regime changes.
It is a good deal even if Iran doesnt change at all, Obama argued. Even for somebody who believes, as I suspect Prime Minister Netanyahu believes, that there is no difference between Rouhani and the supreme leader and theyre all adamantly anti-West and anti-Israel and perennial liars and cheaters even if you believed all that, this still would be the right thing to do. It would still be the best option for us to protect ourselves. In fact, you could argue that if they are implacably opposed to us, all the more reason for us to want to have a deal in which we know what theyre doing and that, for a long period of time, we can prevent them from having a nuclear weapon.
There are several very sensitive points in the framework agreement that are not clear to me, and I asked the president for his interpretation. For instance, if we suspect that Iran is cheating, is harboring a covert nuclear program outside of the declared nuclear facilities covered in this deal say, at a military base in southeastern Iran do we have the right to insist on that facility being examined by international inspectors?
In the first instance, what we have agreed to is that we will be able to inspect and verify whats happening along the entire nuclear chain from the uranium mines all the way through to the final facilities like Natanz, the president said. What that means is that were not just going to have a bunch of folks posted at two or three or five sites. We are going to be able to see what theyre doing across the board, and in fact, if they now wanted to initiate a covert program that was designed to produce a nuclear weapon, theyd have to create a whole different supply chain. Thats point number one. Point number two, were actually going to be setting up a procurement committee that examines what theyre importing, what theyre bringing in that they might claim as dual-use, to determine whether or not what theyre using is something that would be appropriate for a peaceful nuclear program versus a weapons program. And number three, what were going to be doing is setting up a mechanism whereby, yes, I.A.E.A. [International Atomic Energy Agency] inspectors can go anyplace.
Anywhere in Iran? I asked.
That we suspect, the president answered. Obviously, a request will have to be made. Iran could object, but what we have done is to try to design a mechanism whereby once those objections are heard, that it is not a final veto that Iran has, but in fact some sort of international mechanism will be in place that makes a fair assessment as to whether there should be an inspection, and if they determine it should be, thats the tiebreaker, not Iran saying, No, you cant come here. So over all, what were seeing is not just the additional protocols that I.A.E.A. has imposed on countries that are suspected of in the past having had problematic nuclear programs, were going even beyond that, and Iran will be subject to the kinds of inspections and verification mechanisms that have never been put in place before.
A lot of people, myself included, will want to see the fine print on that. Another issue that doesnt seem to have been resolved yet is: When exactly do the economic sanctions on Iran get lifted? When the implementation begins? When Iran has been deemed to be complying fully?
There are still details to be worked out, the president said, but I think that the basic framework calls for Iran to take the steps that it needs to around [the Fordow enrichment facility], the centrifuges, and so forth. At that point, then, the U.N. sanctions are suspended; although the sanctions related to proliferation, the sanctions related to ballistic missiles, theres a set of sanctions that remain in place. At that point, then, we preserve the ability to snap back those sanctions, if there is a violation. If not, though, Iran, outside of the proliferation and ballistic missile issues that stay in place, theyre able to get out from under the sanctions, understanding that this constant monitoring will potentially trigger some sort of action if theyre in violation.
There are still United States sanctions that are related to Irans behavior in terrorism and human rights abuse, though, the president added: There are certain sanctions that we have that would remain in place because theyre not related to Irans nuclear program, and this, I think, gets to a central point that weve made consistently. If in fact we are able to finalize the nuclear deal, and if Iran abides by it, thats a big piece of business that weve gotten done, but it does not end our problems with Iran, and we are still going to be aggressively working with our allies and friends to reduce and hopefully at some point stop the destabilizing activities that Iran has engaged in, the sponsorship of terrorist organizations. And that may take some time. But its our belief, its my belief, that we will be in a stronger position to do so if the nuclear issue has been put in a box. And if we can do that, its possible that Iran, seeing the benefits of sanctions relief, starts focusing more on the economy and its people. And investment starts coming in, and the country starts opening up. If weve done a good job in bolstering the sense of security and defense cooperation between us and the Sunni states, if we have made even more certain that the Israeli people are absolutely protected not just by their own capacities, but also by our commitments, then whats possible is you start seeing an equilibrium in the region, and Sunni and Shia, Saudi and Iran start saying, Maybe we should lower tensions and focus on the extremists like [ISIS] that would burn down this entire region if they could.
Regarding Americas Sunni Arab allies, Obama reiterated that while he is prepared to help increase their military capabilities they also need to increase their willingness to commit their ground troops to solving regional problems.
The conversations I want to have with the Gulf countries is, first and foremost, how do they build more effective defense capabilities, the president said. I think when you look at what happens in Syria, for example, theres been a great desire for the United States to get in there and do something. But the question is: Why is it that we cant have Arabs fighting [against] the terrible human rights abuses that have been perpetrated, or fighting against what Assad has done? I also think that I can send a message to them about the U.S.s commitments to work with them and ensure that they are not invaded from the outside, and that perhaps will ease some of their concerns and allow them to have a more fruitful conversation with the Iranians. What I cant do, though, is commit to dealing with some of these internal issues that they have without them making some changes that are more responsive to their people.
One way to think about it, Obama continued, is [that] when it comes to external aggression, I think were going to be there for our [Arab] friends and I want to see how we can formalize that a little bit more than we currently have, and also help build their capacity so that they feel more confident about their ability to protect themselves from external aggression. But, he repeated, The biggest threats that they face may not be coming from Iran invading. Its going to be from dissatisfaction inside their own countries. Now disentangling that from real terrorist activity inside their country, how we sort that out, how we engage in the counterterrorism cooperation thats been so important to our own security without automatically legitimizing or validating whatever repressive tactics they may employ I think thats a tough conversation to have, but its one that we have to have.
It feels lately like some traditional boundaries between the executive and legislative branches, when it comes to the conduct of American foreign policy, have been breached. For instance, there was the letter from 47 Republican senators to Irans supreme leader cautioning him on striking any deal with Obama not endorsed by them coming in the wake of Prime Minister Netanyahu being invited by the speaker of the House, John Boehner, to address a joint session of Congress without consulting the White House. How is Obama taking this?
I do worry that some traditional boundaries in how we think about foreign policy have been crossed, the president said. I felt the letter that was sent to the supreme leader was inappropriate. I think that you will recall there were some deep disagreements with President Bush about the Iraq war, but the notion that you would have had a whole bunch of Democrats sending letters to leaders in the region or to European leaders ... trying to undermine the presidents policies I think is troubling.
The bottom line, he added, is that were going to have serious debates, serious disagreements, and I welcome those because thats how our democracy is supposed to work, and in todays international environment, whatever arguments we have here, other people are hearing and reading about it. Its not a secret that the Republicans may feel more affinity with Prime Minister Netanyahus views of the Iran issue than they do with mine. But [we need to be] keeping that within some formal boundaries, so that the executive branch, when it goes overseas, when its communicating with foreign leaders, is understood to be speaking on behalf of the United States of America, not a divided United States of America, making sure that whether that president is a Democrat or a Republican that once the debates have been had here, that he or she is the spokesperson on behalf of U.S. foreign policy. And thats clear to every leader around the world. Thats important because without that, what you start getting is multiple foreign policies, confusion among foreign powers as to who speaks for who, and that ends up being a very dangerous circumstances that could be exploited by our enemies and could deeply disturb our friends.
As for the Obama doctrine we will engage, but we preserve all our capabilities the president concluded: Ive been very clear that Iran will not get a nuclear weapon on my watch, and I think they should understand that we mean it. But I say that hoping that we can conclude this diplomatic arrangement and that it ushers a new era in U.S.-Iranian relations and, just as importantly, over time, a new era in Iranian relations with its neighbors.
Whatever happened in the past, he said, at this point, the U.S.s core interests in the region are not oil, are not territorial. ... Our core interests are that everybody is living in peace, that it is orderly, that our allies are not being attacked, that children are not having barrel bombs dropped on them, that massive displacements arent taking place. Our interests in this sense are really just making sure that the region is working. And if its working well, then well do fine. And thats going to be a big project, given whats taken place, but I think this [Iran framework deal] is at least one place to start.
By The New York Times
# Tags
