Asked in her Senate confirmation hearing about the prospect of high-level negotiations with Iran, or whether the U.S. would send some kind of diplomatic presence to the country with which it broke off relations in 1980, Clinton said only that the policy was under review and no options had been ruled out. “We will pursue a new, perhaps different approach that will become a cornerstone of what the Obama administration believes is an attitude toward engagement that might bear fruit,” she said.
Barton says part of that new “smart power” approach advocated by Clinton could lead to a search for common ground with Iran on issues other than its nuclear power: its acceptance of Afghan refugees on its border, the interdiction of narcotics, easing Iran’s access to energy markets. But the Obama administration has also made clear that any talks about Iran’s nuclear program will require Iran to suspend nuclear enrichment. “The dialogue and diplomacy must go hand in hand with a very firm message from the United States and the international community that Iran needs to meet its obligations as defined by the Security Council,” U.S. Ambassador to the UN Susan Rice told reporters. “And its continuing refusal to do so will only cause pressure to increase.” Neither Rice nor Clinton has said whether the administration would consider offering to temporarily suspend existing sanctions against Iran in exchange for an enrichment suspension—a simultaneous halt that would allow both sides to sit down and negotiate over the future of the nuclear program.
“It’s very clear how the diplomacy is going to shape up. The obvious Iranian position is we’re happy to talk to you, and while we’re talking about all these many complicated issues—nuclear and Iraq and Afghanistan and Arab-Israeli and so forth—we’re going to keep building our centrifuge machines and expanding our enrichment capacity,” said Gary Samore, vice-president of the Council of Foreign Relations (CFR) and former director of non-proliferation for the National Security Council in the Clinton administration, at a recent CFR discussion in Washington. “I think early on the Obama administration is going to need to propose to Iran that both sides suspend their hostile actions as a way to create space for a truly comprehensive effort to resolve issues. I think we’ll actually find out pretty soon whether or not the Iranians are prepared to accept that offer.”
There is also a hope in Washington that any effort to engage Iran could also strengthen the international willingness to impose tougher sanctions if Iran does not co-operate, said Brookings scholar O’Hanlon. “You have to think several steps down the road. You negotiate with these regimes not because you think talks will work—they might, but they also set you up for the next steps that show other countries that have leverage that the fault lies squarely with one party.” But if Iran gains a nuclear weapon, he warned, Obama will wear the blame regardless of the progress Tehran made under Bush.
And of course there are other fronts, in a world in which each day brings new shifts. Russia, which was increasingly belligerent last year, has reportedly made a U-turn on its threat to deploy missiles in the Kaliningrad enclave next to Poland, while Obama reviews plans to install a missile shield in Poland and the Czech Republic. On Tuesday, Clinton spoke with her Russian counterpart about strengthening bilateral co-operation on arms control, Afghanistan and the world financial crisis.
But Russia’s recent standoff with Ukraine—now teetering on the verge of economic collapse—over natural gas has shown that Moscow is still inclined to flex its muscles. As is Turkey, the lone Muslim ally in NATO and a strategic linchpin in relations with the Muslim world. Its relationship with the West is becoming increasingly strained as its bid for EU membership stalls. On Jan. 29, Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan angrily walked out of a debate on the Middle East at the annual economic forum at Davos, Switzerland, after telling Israeli President Shimon Peres, “you are killing people.”
With envoys covering Pakistan and the Middle East, and the military still taking the lead in Iraq and Afghanistan, Clinton appears to be staking out personal turf in Asia, and is expected to make her first official trip to the region. She has talked about expanding the dialogue with China, which she said had been overly focused on economic matters under Bush. She told reporters she is also considering high-level bilateral talks with North Korea. With news that the reclusive regime is getting ready to again test a long-range missile capable of carrying a nuclear warhead, North Korea might move up Clinton’s “to do” list.
So far, the new administration’s efforts at turning the foreign policy page have captured world attention. Some of it has been negative: in an audiotape that surfaced before Obama’s inauguration, al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden pledged to fight “for seven more years, and seven more after that, and then seven more.” But Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez, who once called Bush a devil, said, “I am very happy and the world is happy that this young president has arrived. We welcome the new government and we are filled with hope.” And former Cuban leader Fidel Castro lauded Obama’s honesty and “noble intentions.”
Clinton has seemed energized by her first few days in office. She recently told reporters, “There is a great exhalation of breath going on around the world. We’ve got a lot of damage to repair.” But these are early days. Everyone is eager to give the new administration “the benefit of the doubt,” says Riedel. “But the devil is in the details and the follow-through.”
