Share
A new poll of 20 nations, with 62 percent of the world's population, finds that among global leaders, President Obama inspires the most confidence. The leaders of Russia and Iran inspire the least.
Nearly two-thirds of those polled by World Public Opinion had confidence in Obama. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad took last place, while Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin came in next to last.
Yet global approval ratings don't easily translate into policy results. That was apparent during Obama's Moscow trip this week.
The bearded visage of Ahmadinejad hovered like a surly ghost over the president's visit. Obama had hoped to convince Russia's leaders and public of our common interest in preventing nuclear proliferation and defeating violent extremists.
To be more precise: Facing threats from Islamists in the country's southern regions, Moscow should be worried about a nuclear Iran on its border. And if Iran refuses to halt its march toward nuclear weapons, Russia should support tougher U.N. sanctions against Tehran.
Obama made his pitch in a speech to university students at the prestigious New Economic School. If Washington and Moscow don't cooperate, he told them, global barriers to nuclear proliferation will crumble.
Yet there was no evidence Putin – or even the more modern Russian president, Dmitry Medvedev – got the message. Obama's speech wasn't even carried on state-controlled TV, where most Russians get their news.
Indeed, Russia was quick to recognize Ahmadinejad's tainted “victory.”
Some Russian pundits speculate that Putin prefers tensions between Tehran and Washington so oil revenues will remain high; Moscow needs the money. Whatever their rationale, Russian leaders seem more interested in poking Washington in the eye than in curbing the proliferation threat.
So, for now, Obama's chances of eliciting Russian cooperation in dealing with Tehran appear minimal. Without that cooperation, tougher U.N. sanctions may not be possible.
At the same time, the evolving political crisis in Iran has undercut any prospects for Obama's policy of “engagement” with Tehran. Although the regime has forcibly squelched mass demonstrations, internal divisions within the elite are still playing themselves out.
In these circumstances, it's hard to discern whom one would talk with, and to what purpose. The hard-line paramilitary Revolutionary Guards, loyal to Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, have clearly gained power and seem to have little incentive to compromise at home or abroad.
A senior U.S. defense official recently told me that, in spring 2008, the commander of the Quds force, a secretive unit of the Revolutionary Guards, sent a message to Gen. David Petraeus. It said Petraeus should know that “I, Brigadier General Qassim Suleimani, control the foreign policy of my country with respect to Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon, and Gaza.” In other words, forget the Iranian foreign ministry, Ahmadinejad, or even the supreme leader.
And no one is entirely certain who controls Iran's nuclear portfolio.
With Obama's engagement policy on ice and tougher sanctions hard to envision, Iran analysts got a jolt Sunday, when Vice President Biden seemed to say that America would give Israel the green light to attack Iran's nuclear installations.
Tuesday, in Moscow, Obama walked Biden's remarks back. The United States is “absolutely not” giving Israel a green light to attack Iran, he told CNN. Glad to hear that. I think Biden got it right, however, when he said, “We're not rushing to sit down (with Tehran).”
This is a time for Obama to breathe deeply, watch developments in Tehran, and keep pressing Russia to act in its own best interest on Iran. And to start thinking, if all else fails, about a Plan B.
Trudy Rubin is a columnist for The Philadelphia Inquirer, P.O. Box 8263, Philadelphia, PA 19101. E-mail: trubin@phillynews.com.
