November 10, 2014 | The Weekly Standard
Obama’s Weak Diplomacy with Iran
The Wall Street Journal’s Jay Solomon and Carol E. Lee published an important scoop yesterday. President Obama “secretly wrote to Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei in the middle of last month and described a shared interest in fighting Islamic State militants in Iraq and Syria.” The “letter appeared aimed both at buttressing the campaign against [the] Islamic State and nudging Iran’s religious leader closer to a nuclear deal.”
Well before he was elected president in 2008, Obama vowed to pursue “tough, direct diplomacy” with Iran. Is this it? No. There is nothing “tough,” or even “direct” about Obama’s desperate missive to Iran’s leader. And this isn’t an example of “smart power,” a buzz phrase long thrown about by administration officials, either.
This is not the first time Obama has written to Khamenei. The president has rightly concluded that Khamenei is the supreme decision maker in Iran and he needs Khamenei’s seal of approval for any proposed deal. The Wall Street Journal counts at least four occasions on which Obama has sought to engage Khamenei one-on-one. But “Khamenei never directly responded to the overtures, according to U.S. officials.”
So, six years into Obama’s presidency, there has been no “direct” diplomacy with the Iranian who matters most. Khamenei lets his minions do the talking and stalling.
What about “tough”? While Khamenei could not be bothered to respond “directly” to Obama, he has replied indirectly and publicly. And Khamenei’s answer has always been the same: No deal.
The Wall Street Journal does not say when in October, precisely, Obama sent his letter to Khamenei. It was “in the middle” of the month. We know what Khamenei was thinking around this time.
Iran’s supreme leader met with Iraqi prime minister Haider al Abadi on October 21. Here is how Khamenei’s website summarizes his remarks at that meeting (emphasis added):
The current conditions of the region – including the conditions of Iraq – are the result of policies that non-regional powers and some regional countries adopted in Syria in an irresponsible way. We believe that the people and government of Iraq – particularly the youth of this country – have the capability to defeat terrorists and insure security. We believe that there is no need for the presence of foreigners in this country.
The summary continues (emphasis added):
As we said before, we believe that the people and government of Iraq do not need foreigners and other countries in order to overcome security problems. The complex conditions of the region are such that the security of regional countries is inseparable. Besides, the Islamic Republic of Iran views the security of Iraq – as a brother to Iran and a neighboring country with which it enjoys vast interactions – as its own security.
Khamenei reiterated that the “current conditions of the region,” including those inside Iraq, are “the result of policies that non-regional powers and some regional countries adopted in Syria in an irresponsible way and we should stand up against these policies in a decisive way.”
Iran’s leader then dismissed “western claims” about fighting the Islamic State as dishonest. “We do not trust the honesty of those who made these claims and we believe that the issue of DAESH [a derogatory way of referring to the Islamic State] and terrorism should be resolved by regional countries.”
How can this be viewed as anything but a complete repudiation of Obama’s offer? This is what Khamenei had to say either contemporaneously with, or shortly after, Obama’s “secret” letter.
To recap: Khamenei said that Iraq does not need any foreigners (i.e. Americans and their Western allies), and the security situation should be resolved by “regional countries” alone (again, the West should stay out of Iraq and Syria). He blamed the U.S. and the West for the rise of the Islamic State in the first place (“irresponsible” policies in Syria), and then called the Obama administration and its Western allies dishonest (“We do not trust the honesty of…”). To top it all off, Iran views the security of Iraq “as its own security” — meaning Iraq is in Iran’s sphere of influence, not in America’s or the West’s.
Khamenei’s critique of the West’s policies in Syria and charge of Western dishonesty with respect to motives was likely the equivalent of a slap in the face. According to the Wall Street Journal’s report, Obama “sought to assuage Iran’s concerns about the future of its close ally, President Bashar al-Assad of Syria.” The letter “states that the U.S.’s military operations inside Syria aren’t targeted at Mr. Assad or his security forces.” Khamenei said he doesn’t believe the U.S. is being honest.
Khamenei has consistently dismissed the idea of cooperating with the U.S. against the Islamic State, even as American bombers have acted as a de facto air force for Iranian-backed Shiite militias battling the Islamic State’s fighters in Iraq. And his propagandists make sure that his rejection of the Obama administration’s proposals are clear enough for anyone to understand.
On Oct. 18, for example, Iran’s supreme leader (more likely, the social media team writing in his name) took to Twitter to once again troll the Obama administration. Khamenei, or one of his minions, posted tweets portraying the Islamic State as a creation of the West, which is supposedly intent on pitting Muslims against one another.
“#ISIS & Alqaeda [sic] were created by imperialists esp. wicked #British govt to fight #Iran & #IslamicAwakening & now it’s affected themselves,” one tweet reads.
Another one reads, “Fake attempts of #US&its allies to fight #ISIS are aimed at steering& increasing discord among Muslims rather than eliminating ISIS.10/13/14”
And still another tweet included an image blaming the Islamic State’s rise on the West along with this language, “Takfirism and #ISIS were created by the hands of Imperialists to pit Muslims against each another. #Iraq#Syria” The accompanying image can be seen below.
Such tweets are commonplace. The Twitter account written in Khamenei’s name routinely mocks the U.S.-led coalition battling the Islamic State, disparages the negotiations over Iran’s nuclear program, and makes it clear that Iran’s red lines for the negotiations are basically insurmountable obstacles to any meaningful deal.
It may be tempting for some to dismiss what is posted on Khamenei’s twitter feed as inconsequential. But the feed regularly relays news and pictures from Khamenei’s inner circle. Moreover, the twitter page closely tracks Khamenei’s remarks, as recounted elsewhere.
On September 15, roughly one month before Obama’s October letter, Khamenei openly dismissed the U.S.-led coalition’s efforts to fight the Islamic State as “empty” and “biased.” Khamenei explained, “I said we do not work with the Americans as they have evil intentions and stained hands. How is it possible to cooperate with Americans under such circumstances?” Iran’s supreme leader said America’s claims about fighting the Islamic State “are lies” and any successes against the group are owed due to the efforts of “the Iraqi people and Army,” not the U.S. or its foreign partners.
Khamenei’s Twitter team got to work, posting a series of tweets that reiterated his comments. The tweets accused the U.S. of “creating and spreading” terrorism, one of Khamenei’s favorite bits of moral relativism
After this embarrassing rejection, State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki felt compelled to respond on her own Twitter account:
Psaki insisted that the Islamic State (referred to as ISIL, or the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant) “presents a serious threat to #Iran as it does to ever other state in the region.” Psaki confirmed that the U.S. had discussed the possibility of some sort of anti-Islamic State partnership: “It's no secret that we have had discussions w Iran about the counter-ISIL efforts in Iraq on margins of our P5+1 talks on nuclear issue.”
“We are not and will not coordinate militarily with Iran,” Psaki claimed in another tweet. “We will be continuing talks on the nuclear issue later this week in NY.”
Psaki concluded on a slightly optimistic note, “There may be another opportunity on the margins in the future to discuss #Iraq w Iran.”
Just weeks later, Obama sent his letter to Khamenei, a move that was anything but an attempt “on the margins.”
Obama and his surrogates apparently do not believe that Khamenei means what he says. But smart, tough diplomacy requires dealing with reality: Khamenei has no intention of cooperating with the U.S. in Iraq. Iran wants the U.S. out of the region.
Thomas Joscelyn is a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies.