The Multi-Step Dance to War

As I am getting ready to leave for Chicago to go to a White Sox game (yuck!) I was looking over the New York Times, a habit which I developed while in school, and still follow. Today there were two headlines which grabbed my attention. The first was about Obama's news conference, scheduled for tonight, in which he is expected to articulate again his argument for health care reform. The Times argues that this fight over health care could be the "defining moment" of Obama's Presidency. I sincerely doubt that it will be the defining moment, as it is almost impossible to identify the defining moment of a President's term until quite a way down the road. Furthermore, when defining moments happen, they usually occur in the realm of foreign policy. Think about it:

-Dubya had 9-11 and Iraq as his defining moments (even if Katrina should be in there it won't be)
- Papa Bush had the 1st Gulf War
- Reagan had the fall of the USSR
- Carter had the Iranian Revolution and the taking of the US Embassy
- LBJ had Vietnam
- JFK had the Cuban Missile Crisis

In other words, in the post WWII era (A.K.A. the era of USA as "superpower") the majority of Presidents have been defined by a foreign policy issue. Even Nixon would likely would have been remembered for his trip to China and his Cold War diplomacy had he not been a paranoid idiot (see Watergate). Even going back to Truman's second term, Korea was his defining moment, so the trend holds. That leaves us with three post-WWII Presidents who are not easily defined by Foreign Policy issues (Eisenhower, Ford and Clinton), and a fourth who would have been if he wasn't so stupid (Nixon). Eisenhower's presidency was largely uneventful, except for the whole nuclear proliferation thing, so I suppose you could throw him in with the others. Ford pardoned Nixon ... that's pretty much his defining moment, I guess. It's hard to say what Clinton's defining moment would have been, but it's pretty easy to recognize that it is Monica. So, if you're keeping score at home, the post WWII presidency, starting it with Truman's second term, looks a little something like this:

- 11 Presidents
- 7 who are easily defined by a Foreign Policy moment (Truman, JFK, LBJ, Carter, Reagan, Bush I, Bush II)
- 1 who, after much thought, probably would be defined by Foreign Policy more than anything (Eisenhower)
- 1 who, if he wasn't an idiot, would have been defined by Foreign Policy and as a great diplomat (Nixon)
- 1 who didn't really do anything other than bail out his predecessor (Ford)
- 1 who couldn't keep it in his pants (Clinton)

And so, if you're a betting person, would you bet that health care reform will be the "defining moment" of Obama's presidency? I certainly wouldn't, and that brings me to the second article from the New York Times which caught my eye. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is starting to throw the idea out there that the US might be looking into extending a security blanket over the Middle East. In practical terms, this means that the US would guarantee the security of many (mostly Sunni) Arab nations in exchange for them helping us to counter the growing Iranian power and prestige in the Gulf. While the article is quick to note that Clinton did not mention fortifying these nations militarily, that is the logical end to this problem. If Iran continues to push forward, and if the Security Council remains split due to China and Russia's loyalties and economic investments in Iran, the next logical step (according to US history) would be for the US is to begin heavily backing other key players in the region. We've done it before, and it would not shock me to see us do it again.

If I was betting on what will become the defining moment for Obama, I'd take a long hard look here. The Iranian situation is not going to go away easily or quietly. The Supreme Leader has dug in for the battle, even in the face of the Clerical establishment splintering between the old guard and the reformist wing. Ahmadinejad will come out of this election cycle significantly weakened, but that will likely only embolden him to try to regain that power. He does not seem, to me, to be a player who will be content to simply hold the office. He is an all or nothing thinker, and will try to find the time to reassert himself. So long as Ahmadinejad has control of the Revolutionary Guard and the other key aspects of the Iranian military and government you can bet he will push forward with his nuclear ambitions. Khaminei seems to have made his bed with Ahmadinejad; he will seemingly choose to lay in it. Barring some internal upheaval, led by Rafsanjani (who alone might have the ability to move the Clerical establishment and the populace, and is seen on the left), the change we desire in Iran is unlikely to come from within.



To that end, the question for Obama will be can that change come from without. I sincerely doubt that anything positive will come from US meddling here, but we may not end up having choice. The Obama administrations has been treading very carefully along these lines, and that should continue. They cannot forget that the regimes we would be fortifying in the Gulf are, in almost every case, less democratic and more tyrannical than the regime we seek to dispose of in Tehran. Backing the Saudis, the Egyptians ... this might seem like the logical move, and it may very well be the best move. But we need to be well aware of the long term ramifications of our actions. Lest we forget, it has barely been twenty years since a war we sponsored to rid the world of the Mullahs ended.
We supported Saddam Hussien in that war, and less than twenty years after he failed to crush Iran we ended up sacrificing a great deal to discard him. The very monster we made (the picture above shows Saddam shaking hands with none other than Donald Rumsfeld). Those who do not learn history are bound to repeat the same mistakes; hopefully the Obama administration will continue to think long and hard before it takes any brash action towards the Iranians.