EUROPE FEARS OBAMA

When did you ever think you'd see that headline?  But it appears to be true, at least in one area. My friend Banafsheh Zand-Bonazzi alerts me to an article by Glenn Kessler in today's Washington Post, suggesting that Europe is worried that Obama is too soft on Iran.  Yes, you read that right.  Consider:

European officials are increasingly concerned that Sen. Barack Obama's campaign pledge to begin direct talks with Iran on its nuclear program without preconditions could potentially rupture U.S. relations with key European allies early in a potential Obama administration.

The U.N. Security Council has passed four resolutions demanding that Iran stop enriching uranium, each time highlighting the offer of financial and diplomatic incentives from a European-led coalition if Tehran suspends enrichment, a route to producing fuel for nuclear weapons. But Obama, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, has said he would make such suspension a topic for discussion with Iran, rather than a precondition for any negotiations to take place.

This is what happens when an amateur runs for the presidency.  Obama is to the left of Europe.  More:

"Dropping a unanimous Security Council condition would simply be interpreted by Iran and America's allies as unconditional surrender, and America's friends would view this as confirmation of America's basic unreliability," said François Heisbourg, a Paris-based military analyst with the International Institute for Strategic Studies. "A hell of a way to start a presidential term."

What a comment from France!

European officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they did not want to be seen as interfering with U.S. politics, said the demand that Iran first suspend its uranium enrichment is a European concept, not something forced on them by the Bush administration. Three European countries -- Britain, France and Germany -- persuaded Tehran to suspend its enrichment activities in 2003 while the two sides negotiated, until Iran declared in 2006 that the talks were fruitless and restarted their nuclear program.

You mean it can't be blamed on BUSH?  No wonder I don't recall reading these details in The New York Times.

President Bush, during his farewell tour of Europe last week, pointed to the coalition as one of his foreign policy legacies. "I leave behind a multilateral framework to work this issue," Bush said. "You know, one country can't solve all problems. I fully agree with that. A group of countries can send a clear message to the Iranians."

But in a recent interview on CNN, Susan Rice, Obama's adviser, was blunt in her criticism of the current approach. "Before we will talk to them about their nuclear problem, they have to suspend their nuclear problem. That [is a] counterproductive precondition," she said.

Why be tough on Iran when you can be tough on Bush?  The McCain camp fires back:

"Obama criticizes a multilateral process and disparages the European contribution. What he is proposing is unilateral cowboy summitry," said Randy Scheunemann, the McCain campaign's national security director. He said McCain "agrees we need to have basic benchmarks, such as suspension, before you go further. And he has called for a significant increase in sanctions, through the U.N. if possible or through like-minded allies if necessary."

The problem, of course, is that once Obama sits down with Iran without preconditions, his worshippers at home will expects results.  And results can only come through American concessions because the Iranians, having gotten us to drop our preconditions, will see us as weak.  They are not going to end their nuclear program for Obama.  And then we're on that familiar slippery slope. 

By the way, this story ran on page 14 of The Post.  It should have been on page one.  The placement shows editorial bias and a desire to bury the story.  Splendid reporting.

June 22, 2008.