Europe is concerned about Senator Obama's Foreign Policy. Last week, Britain's Foreign Minister David Milbrand spent some time in the US with the three Presidential Candidates. But it was Obama's position on Iran that got the most scrutiny.
David Miliband has raised questions over Barack Obama’s policy on Iran, which officials in Washington and Europe fear threatens to undermine the tough stance adopted by the West towards Tehran over recent years....
British intelligence chiefs are understood to have identified Iranian nuclear proliferation as the second greatest security threat, behind Islamic terrorism but ahead of renewed aggression from Russia.
There is also deep concern about Iran’s support for Iraqi Shia militias or terrorist groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah. “The role of Iran as a source of instability in the region is undoubtedly a concern,” Mr Miliband said this week. “No one can watch armed militias coming on to the streets in defiance of UN resolutions with equanimity.”
...An aide later told The Times that the Foreign Secretary was being very careful to avoid direct criticism of any presidential candidate’s positions. But the same source added: “We know Obama wants to engage more, but we don’t know what route he will take or what he means by ‘no pre-conditions’. It has not unravelled yet and, when it does, we will be able to see where it converges or conflicts with what we’re doing.”
... Although Britain — unlike the US — maintains diplomatic relations with Iran, the West has been more or less united in seeking to isolate the Iranian leadership. The US, Britain, France and to some extent Germany have pressed for tighter sanctions against Iran, including measures directed against the country’s ruling elite, for failing to comply with UN resolutions calling for a halt to its uranium enrichment programme.
Obama justifies his position on Iran in the following manner
Obama is the only major candidate who supports tough, direct presidential diplomacy with Iran without preconditions. Now is the time to pressure Iran directly to change their troubling behavior. Obama would offer the Iranian regime a choice. If Iran abandons its nuclear program and support for terrorism, we will offer incentives like membership in the World Trade Organization, economic investments, and a move toward normal diplomatic relations. If Iran continues its troubling behavior, we will step up our economic pressure and political isolation. Seeking this kind of comprehensive settlement with Iran is our best way to make progress.
The problem with this is a) the carrot part is already on the table; put forth by the US and its European allies and b) the stick part is no good unilaterally: the US has had trade sanctions in effect against Iran for decades and it hasn't mitigated their behavior one bit. More recently, the US has continually tightened the financial screws on Iranian banks
The Bush administration has stepped up a broad effort to choke off Iran's ability to finance militant groups and acquire weapons technology by cutting off suspect banks and firms from the international banking system, U.S. officials said yesterday.
The Bush administration has blacklisted one of Iran's biggest banks, alleging that it is used to transfer money to terrorist organisations.
The Treasury Department said it had cut state-owned Bank Saderat off from the US financial system entirely.
The bank, although unable to deal directly in the US, was previously able to make transactions via a bank in another country.
But Iran is attempting to sidestep these measures with help from Venezuela according to Douglas Farah
In a little-noticed move, Venezuela and Iran are joining forces not just in petroleum-relate ventures, but in banking ventures. The move toward joint banking is likely to boost Tehran's ability to circumvent U.S.-led sanctions against its financial structure that supports international terrorism and its nuclear program.
The formation of two banks in Venezuela comes on top of the hundreds of millions of dollars in aid Iran has promised the governments in the region that support the Chavez government in Venezuela-Nicaragua, Ecuador, and Bolivia, principally.
In addition to helping Iran evade sanctions, the banks, which will be largely operating outside the normal transparency required of financial institutions, will allow Chavez several new avenues to spread money to insurgent groups on the continent, particularly his allies in the FARC in Colombia.
On March 20, the Treasury Department's Financial Crimes Enforcement Network issued a warning against using several Iranian banks, including the Banco Internacional de Desarrollo, SA (BID), a wholly-owned Iranian bank based in Caracas, Venezuela.
Of course, Chavez is yet another of our enemies that Obama said he would meet with "without preconditions"
So will he ask Chavez to stop helping Iran while in Caracas and then ask Ahmadinejad to stop helping Venezuela while in Tehran?
It seems like a tough way to negotiate. Obama has said
that his administration “will support Colombia’s right to strike terrorists who seek safe-haven across its borders” and advising that “strong sanctions” be levied against Venezuela for its support of FARC and Chavez be diplomatically “isolated.” The latter point confused ABC News reporter Jake Tapper, who wondered, after Obama expressed a willingness to engage Chavez without preconditions, if “he will meet with the leader of a country he simultaneously says should be isolated.”
But the unilateral nature of Obama's proposed Foreign Policy is going to be difficult no matter which way you cut it.
And, it seems, that he is proposing isolating the US even more than he claims it is isloated now: Our enemies will hate us, which is fine, but so will our allies...
Which is not so fine.
