Home


Support Us

Submission Policy

Popularise CC

Join News Letter

CounterSolutions

CounterImages

CounterVideos

Editor's Picks

Press Releases

Action Alert

Feed Burner

Read CC In Your
Own Language

Bradley Manning

India Burning

Mumbai Terror

Financial Crisis

Iraq

AfPak War

Peak Oil

Globalisation

Localism

Alternative Energy

Climate Change

US Imperialism

US Elections

Palestine

Latin America

Communalism

Gender/Feminism

Dalit

Humanrights

Economy

India-pakistan

Kashmir

Environment

Book Review

Gujarat Pogrom

Kandhamal Violence

Arts/Culture

India Elections

Archives

Links

About Us

Disclaimer

Fair Use Notice

Contact Us

Subscribe To Our
News Letter

Name:
E-mail:

Search Our Archive



Our Site

Web

 

 

 

 

Obama, Shifting Style or Altering Policy?

By Amir Barati

19 September, 2013
Countercurrents.org

In his latest interview, President Barack Obama said he is “less concerned about the style points” in adopting his foreign policy. However, the question is: Hasn’t he gradually changed his promised policy? And what could this shift in his “style point” mean for the world?

When Obama and all his promises of ‘change’ was sworn into office as President of the United States of America, hope returned to the people who were craving for a more cultured diplomacy.

The devastations the warmongering policies of George W. Bush had caused were enough reason for a high voter turn-out for “change.” The tragic experiences of war on Afghanistan and Iraq as well as the bullying rhetoric used and the threats of war issued against countries like Iran had tired the American public to make a shift in their political system, to a much more refined, peaceful and diplomatic establishment away from radical policies.

Only 9 months after taking office in January 2009, Obama was honored with a Noble Peace Prize to ensure the American public and the world that he would be treading the road of peace and diplomacy.

In his June 2009 keynote speech in Egypt , the US president called for a new beginning in US relations with the Muslim world and Iran and said that instead of remaining “trapped in the past, I have made it clear to Iran’s leaders and people, that my country is prepared to move forward….I recognize it would be hard to overcome decades of mistrust but we will proceed with courage, rectitude and resolve. There will be many issues to discuss between the two countries and we are willing to move forward without preconditions on the basis of mutual respect.”

But as time went by it became clear that Mr. peaceful president was a man of many faces and that there was no change in the US approach towards Iran given that Obama repeatedly stated “all options are on the table” regarding the Islamic Republic - a statement which can only be interpreted as a threat to launch a direct military strike against a country which has not attacked another state in over 200 years.

Another issue worth mentioning is the drone wars the US has silently waged on Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Somalia. While these attacks are said to be an attempt by the US president to curb terrorism they have mostly resulted in a chilling number of civilian deaths.

According to a Guardian report, “drone strikes in Afghanistanduring a year of the protracted conflict caused 10 times more civilian casualties than strikes by manned fighter aircraft.”

The Democrat president’s war policies worsened following the rise in tensions in the Syrian conflict. With all the destructions foreign interventions had caused inside the country, ’Obama’s recent declaration of war on Syria word seeking the Congressional authorization became proof that the previously perceived peaceful persona is turning the screw.

When in his speech on August 31, Obama said “right makes might, and the other way around,” it became obvious that he, despite all his “forward” slogans, has decided to take US foreign policy back to the Bush era and is putting more weight on the idea that the US is militarily mighty and this might decides what “right” is.

It would appear that Iranian Foreign Minister Dr Javad Zarif was responding to Obama’s recent remarks when he said in hisinterview with Press TV on September 11 that “the United States seems to be living in the 19th century when the use of force was a prerogative of states. It is not.”

The rhetoric worsened in his September 15 ABC News interview when regarding relations with Iran and its nuclear issue President Obama said “my view is that if you have both a credible threat of force, combined with a rigorous diplomatic effort, that, in fact…you can strike a deal.”

It is obvious that Obama’s tone has drastically changed from his 2009 speech. The “threat of force” has replaced “mutual respect,” “courage, rectitude and resolve” have been replaced with a “rigorous diplomatic effort” and readiness to “move forward” is being replaced by “striking a deal.” The US president has completely forgotten the ‘overcoming decades of mistrust’ part of his previous speech and now believes “this new president (Hassan Rouhani) is not going to suddenly make it easy.”

Such comments resulted in the Iranian Foreign Ministry demanding the US use the “language of respect” when talking about Iran. Obama’s remarks come at a time when the new Iranian President Dr. Rouhani and his Foreign Minister Dr. Javad Zarif have repeatedly called for constructive, respectful and time-bound dialogues to resolve the nuclear dispute.

“If the West uses the language of logic, reason and mutual interests on an equal footing, the Iranian administration is also ready to respond in the language of wisdom, prudence and logic,” said Rouhani on September 10.

Obama, then, in response to the ABC host who described his policies were “improvised” and “undisciplined” replied, “I’m less concerned about the style points. I am much more concerned about getting the policy right.”

One could conclude that the US president is probably unaware of the formalistic approaches to language where form is considered not only inferior to content but also the same as the content. “What is said” is not prior to “how this is said” but “how this is said” affects, affirms, and transfers meaning and consequently is the same as what was meant to be said.

If President Obama is changing his initial peaceful tone to a Bush-like war rhetoric it has nothing to do with “style points” and has everything to do with his force of “policy right” and that right can be the very right of the mighty power.

This situations gives rise to a number of questions for Iranians: will the scenario of George W. Bush and the Reformist President Mohammad Khatami be repeated in the upcoming talks? Will the US label this Iran, seeking respectful talks, part of an “axis of evil” again? And will this opportunity which was prepared because of the election victory of President Rouhani, who won with the slogan of putting an end to hostile relations with other countries, be seized or will it go to waste again this time because of the flaws in President Obama’s foreign policy shift?

Amir Barati is an Iranian journalist and social activist. He has written many articles on different political and cultural issues in English and Persian .Readers can contact Amir Barati on [email protected]



 

Share on Tumblr

 

 


Comments are moderated