Will the Elections Change Obama's Iran Policy?

"Talks over Iran's nuclear program appear likely to resume in Europe later this month, but nobody's expecting Tehran to cry the only word the U.S. wants to hear: "Uncle." Indeed, U.S. officials are telling news organizations that they don't expect much from the talks to which Iran agreed to on Oct. 29 at the invitation of E.U. foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton. That's O.K., a senior official told the New York Times; that will just give sanctions more time to bite, while demonstrating a U.S. readiness to talk that will help build international support for further coercive action. And with President Obama bloodied by his party's midterm elections setbacks, some in Washington — most notably senior Washington Post columnist David Broder — are even publicly suggesting that Obama's best hope of winning re-election may lie in uniting the country behind him in a showdown with Iran.

There's no indication that the President or other key decisionmakers have abandoned their skepticism of a military solution to the standoff, based on an awareness that the consequences of starting a war could be more dangerous than any threat currently posed by Iran. But the Times reports that a debate is underway within the Administration over whether Obama should be amplifying the threat of military action if Iran remains defiant. The Administration's Iran point-man, Dennis Ross, has made clear in his own writings on the matter that he believes Iran will only back down if it believes it faces a credible threat of military action. But there's currently no legal basis for military action — all relevant U.N. resolutions have been carefully crafted to avoid giving the U.S. the loopholes used by the Bush Administration to claim legal authority for attacking Iraq — because most of those nations supporting sanctions remain resolutely opposed to military action. So threatening force could potentially break up whatever diplomatic consensus currently exists, and that would suit Iran.  But even if Obama is inclined to resist any temptation to rally a more hawkish post-election legislature by ratcheting up confrontation with Iran, he'll find it even more difficult, after the election, to compromise with a regime so widely reviled on Capitol Hill. And without compromise, a diplomatic solution remains unlikely......while they believe sanctions have been more effective than Tehran had anticipated, they're aware that Iran still has plenty of trade and investment from its neighbors and key players such as China, and it's unlikely to arrive at the table in a conciliatory mood....... The U.S. is also not approaching the talks in a compromising mood...... For the U.S., the talks are an opportunity to send Iran a message that pressure will increase until Tehran is ready to yield; for Iran, the negotiations are an opportunity to make clear that it has no intention of backing down, confident it can ride out the sanctions and any other pressure the U.S. can plausibly muster. The same stalemate persisted through the second term of George W. Bush's Administration, and resulted in Iran crossing the threshold to become a nuclear-capable state by mastering enrichment. But Obama, under pressure from an even more hawkish and assertive Congress, is unlikely to have the luxury enjoyed by his predecessor of maintaining a passive hard line while Iran's nuclear capacity grows. ..."