Obama vs. Bush: The Great Mideast Debate

If Obama is trying to distinguish himself from other American leaders on the Middle East, he's doing a great job. His published views today on Iran are smart, measured and statesmanlike, in contrast, for example, to Bush's speech on terrorism last night, in which the president once again raised the specter of Muslim hordes crashing across our borders to destroy the American way of life. Take a look:

Obama on Iran, from today's New York Times:

In an hourlong interview on Wednesday, Mr. Obama made clear that forging a new relationship with Iran would be a major element of a broad effort to stabilize Iraq as he executed a speedy timetable for the withdrawal of American combat troops...

Making clear that he planned to talk to Iran without preconditions, Mr. Obama emphasized further that “changes in behavior” by Iran could possibly be rewarded with membership in the World Trade Organization, other economic benefits and security guarantees.

"We are willing to talk about certain assurances in the context of them showing some good faith,” he said in the interview at his campaign headquarters here. “I think it is important for us to send a signal that we are not hellbent on regime change, just for the sake of regime change, but expect changes in behavior. And there are both carrots and there are sticks available to them for those changes in behavior."

Bush speaking to the Heritage Foundation:

...on September the 11th, 2001...our nation was attacked by a brutal enemy that despises freedom, that rejects tolerance, that kills the innocent in the pursuit of a dark vision. These folks believe that it's okay to subjugate women and indoctrinate children and murder those who oppose their harsh rule. They have stated clearly they want to impose this ideology on millions. They're at war with America because they hate what they stand for -- and they understand we stand in their way.

We must take the words of the enemy seriously. The terrorists have stated their objectives. They intend to build a totalitarian Islamic empire -- encompassing all current and former Muslim lands, stretching from Europe to North Africa, the Middle East and Southeast Asia. In pursuit of their imperial aims, these extremists say there can be no compromise or dialog with those they call infidels -- a category that includes America, the world's free nation [sic], Jews, and all Muslims who reject their extreme vision of Islam. They reject the possibility of peaceful coexistence with the free world. Again, hear the words of Osama bin Laden last year: "Death is better than living on this Earth with the unbelievers among us."

Given the nature of the enemy and the words of its leaders, politicians who deny that we are at war are either being disingenuous or naive. Either way, it is dangerous for our country. We are at war -- and we cannot win this war by wishing it away or pretending it does not exist.

Take notice: on Iran, at least, Obama is speaking a new kind of language for mainstream American politics. For nearly 30 years since the Iranian revolution kicked out a shah who had been installed by the CIA, American leaders have been too timid to engage in a constructive dialogue with Iran. That includes Hillary's husband, whose curiosity was aroused by the moderate Khatami but failed to rise to the challenge of how to achieve a diplomatic opening for the good of both countries. Now Obama says he's willing to go to Iran to talk without preconditions, reward Iran with positive changes in behavior and demonstrate that the U.S. is not hellbent on regime change.

Contrast that with the Bush administration's approach, which, by the way, is getting a loud echo in the campaign of Republican frontrunner Rudy Giuliani. First, on terrorism, the subject of his latest speech. Bush speaks as if Bin Laden is the Sultan of Islam--he cited Bin Laden by name four times in one speech--with the world's billion Muslims on the verge of strapping on suicide vests for his final onslaught against Judeo-Christian civilization. Ten years after Al Qaeda burst on to the scene, there is no sign that Bin Laden has been able to build a popular political movement, even among supporters of Islamic fundamentalist organizations. The vast majority of Muslims reject Bin Laden's ideology, his methods and his leadership. When opinion polls show some sympathy for Bin Laden, it is almost entirely because those people see him, rightly or wrongly, as a lone Muslim ranger standing up to the West's onslaught against Islam. From the time that Bin Laden declared his jihad in 1996 until Bush invaded Iraq, Bin Laden and his sympathizers had managed to pull off a handful of suicide operations. The invasion of Iraq has seen an unprecedented wave of suicide bombings, numbering more than 700 in four years. Historians will have to decide whether it was Bin Laden who created the bombers, Bush's invasion or a combination of both.

Getting back to Iran, Condi Rice launched a small breakthrough by offering Iran negotiations and economic incentives if Iran suspended its uranium enrichment program--a program to which Iran is legally entitled as a signatory of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. At the same time, Cheney offers the opposite, saying that the Iranian regime is a despicable one whose demise America eagerly awaits--meaning, in effect, that the Bush administration's policy is really about the use of force with the objective of triumphing over Iran, one way or the other. You can't expect Iran to take Rice's conciliatory offer seriously if it is withdrawn in the next breath of bravado that Cheney takes. It's called setting up Rice's olive branch to fail. The Cheney/Bush approach would have a wee more credibility if U.S. pressure on Iran for three decades had had the least impact, and if America's increasing projection of power in the Middle East was achieving positive rather than negative results. It seems to me that in most of the Middle East's contests of the last 30 years, Iran has won most of them and America has won very few. Obama's approach thus makes more sense: it's coherent, it's humble, it's realistic, it might produce important results, and it strengthens America's moral authority and political standing if it proposes tough action against a recklessly recalcitrant Iran down the line.

From Cairo, of course, I have scant insight as to whether Obama's frank, realistic--and I would even say politically courageous--step toward Iran is in step with the mood of the American people. But certainly Americans now are getting a starker choice in the ways to approach the Middle East.

Let the debates continue!

--By Scott MacLeod/Cairo