Misusing History
"...We were willing to talk to the Soviet Union at a time when they were saying 'we're going to wipe you off the planet.' "
Senator Barack Obama in Pendleton, Oregon, May 18, 2008 (Assoc. Press)
The President of the United States has much more power over foreign and military policy than over domestic issues. Moreover, Congress can act as a restraining influence on a President whose actions are considered too aggressive and militaristic, but can do nothing when the President is too timid and accomodating toward hostile powers. For these reasons, statements such as that quoted above by Senator Obama are troubling, especially to those who usually support the Democratic presidential nominee.
First, I do not believe that any Soviet top leader ever made a public threat to "wipe you (US) off the planet." Even Premier Nikita Khrushchev's famous prophecy that "we will bury you" pales in comparison, and was meant (according to Khrushchev) economically, not militarily.
Although we know that the Soviet nuclear arsenal was developed and deployed for potential use against the United States, it is significant that Soviet rhetoric was far more restrained than Obama would have us believe. This is important because US-Soviet diplomacy was conducted in a more civil context than the relationship between this country and Iran, with whom Obama intends to confer.
Between the time that President Franklin Roosevelt established diplomatic relations with the USSR and its collapse the American Embassy in Moscow was never taken over, nor were US diplomats ever taken hostage or otherwise harmed. (1) Even during the Cuban Missile Crisis, the most dangerous time of the Cold War, both formal and informal contacts between the great powers continued, and they led to a peaceful resolution of the crisis.
Obama uses the historical precedent of diplomatic contact with the Soviet Union to support his willingness to meet with leaders of Iran and other "rogue nations." If he believes that he can personally persuade Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to moderate his policies, the Illinois senator vastly overestimates his persuasive powers. Although frequently noting the willingness of Presidents Kennedy and Reagan to meet Soviet leaders, he never mentions that of British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain to meet Adolph Hitler in Munich, where Chamberlain not only failed to influence Hitler, but seriously misread the Fuehrer's intentions. Similarly the Kennedy-Khrushchev summit in Vienna in 1961 was a disaster, as the Soviet leader perceived Kennedy as weak.
Our history with Iran since the 1978 Islamic Revolution is far more relevant to the question of how to deal with the nation than any stretched historical analogy. The fact is that the Iranian regime permitted a gang of thugs to invade the US Embassy in 1979 and hold its staff hostage for more than a year. Despite being branded as "The Great Satan, " the United States initiated contacts with Iran under the leadership of President Ronald Reagan, and even sold Hawk missiles to the Islamic Republic. (2)
The US has held low-level talks with Iran (about Afghanistan and Iraq), even in the absence of diplomatic relations, until Iran broke off these contacts in March. In this context, an offer by the President of the United States to meet with the President of Iran might not even be accepted. Worse yet, if such a meeting did take place, it would boost the standing of Ahmadinejad with his own people and make his re-election in 2009 more likely. (The best hope for peace in the Middle East is that he is replaced with a more reasonable man.)
In dealing with an adversary, such as Iran, diplomacy has its value if (and only if) it is backed-up by the credible prospect of military action. The blockade of Cuba by President Kennedy in 1962 was an example of this. Senator Lloyd Bentsen once remarked that Dan Quayle was "no John F Kennedy." Unfortunately, neither is Barack Obama.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) The KGB did, however, bug the US Embassy in Moscow.
(2) Although a great fan of former President Reagan, Senator John McCain never mentions "The Gipper's" sale of weapons to Iran, which none of the current presidential candidates favors today.
Senator Barack Obama in Pendleton, Oregon, May 18, 2008 (Assoc. Press)
The President of the United States has much more power over foreign and military policy than over domestic issues. Moreover, Congress can act as a restraining influence on a President whose actions are considered too aggressive and militaristic, but can do nothing when the President is too timid and accomodating toward hostile powers. For these reasons, statements such as that quoted above by Senator Obama are troubling, especially to those who usually support the Democratic presidential nominee.
First, I do not believe that any Soviet top leader ever made a public threat to "wipe you (US) off the planet." Even Premier Nikita Khrushchev's famous prophecy that "we will bury you" pales in comparison, and was meant (according to Khrushchev) economically, not militarily.
Although we know that the Soviet nuclear arsenal was developed and deployed for potential use against the United States, it is significant that Soviet rhetoric was far more restrained than Obama would have us believe. This is important because US-Soviet diplomacy was conducted in a more civil context than the relationship between this country and Iran, with whom Obama intends to confer.
Between the time that President Franklin Roosevelt established diplomatic relations with the USSR and its collapse the American Embassy in Moscow was never taken over, nor were US diplomats ever taken hostage or otherwise harmed. (1) Even during the Cuban Missile Crisis, the most dangerous time of the Cold War, both formal and informal contacts between the great powers continued, and they led to a peaceful resolution of the crisis.
Obama uses the historical precedent of diplomatic contact with the Soviet Union to support his willingness to meet with leaders of Iran and other "rogue nations." If he believes that he can personally persuade Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to moderate his policies, the Illinois senator vastly overestimates his persuasive powers. Although frequently noting the willingness of Presidents Kennedy and Reagan to meet Soviet leaders, he never mentions that of British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain to meet Adolph Hitler in Munich, where Chamberlain not only failed to influence Hitler, but seriously misread the Fuehrer's intentions. Similarly the Kennedy-Khrushchev summit in Vienna in 1961 was a disaster, as the Soviet leader perceived Kennedy as weak.
Our history with Iran since the 1978 Islamic Revolution is far more relevant to the question of how to deal with the nation than any stretched historical analogy. The fact is that the Iranian regime permitted a gang of thugs to invade the US Embassy in 1979 and hold its staff hostage for more than a year. Despite being branded as "The Great Satan, " the United States initiated contacts with Iran under the leadership of President Ronald Reagan, and even sold Hawk missiles to the Islamic Republic. (2)
The US has held low-level talks with Iran (about Afghanistan and Iraq), even in the absence of diplomatic relations, until Iran broke off these contacts in March. In this context, an offer by the President of the United States to meet with the President of Iran might not even be accepted. Worse yet, if such a meeting did take place, it would boost the standing of Ahmadinejad with his own people and make his re-election in 2009 more likely. (The best hope for peace in the Middle East is that he is replaced with a more reasonable man.)
In dealing with an adversary, such as Iran, diplomacy has its value if (and only if) it is backed-up by the credible prospect of military action. The blockade of Cuba by President Kennedy in 1962 was an example of this. Senator Lloyd Bentsen once remarked that Dan Quayle was "no John F Kennedy." Unfortunately, neither is Barack Obama.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) The KGB did, however, bug the US Embassy in Moscow.
(2) Although a great fan of former President Reagan, Senator John McCain never mentions "The Gipper's" sale of weapons to Iran, which none of the current presidential candidates favors today.
Labels: Iran, Kennedy, Obama, Soviet Union
posted by Gerald S Glazer at 8:51 AM
15 comments
