Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama seems to be softening his “unconditional” willingness to hold talks with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea.
Good thing.
Obama’s vow to meet with such leaders during his first year in office, without preconditions, drew widespread (and well-deserved) criticism. Over the past few days, however, he’s tempered that.
“Without preconditions,” he now says, doesn’t necessarily mean without “preparations” – that is, without lower-level, informal contacts that would set an agenda for any meeting between leaders.
In the case of Iran, that’s surely a welcome move. Just this week, the International Atomic Energy Agency warned that Tehran continues to hide the truth about its pursuit of nuclear weapons.
“There’s no reason why we would necessarily meet with Ahmadinejad,” Obama said Monday. “He’s not the most powerful person in Iran.”
And the Illinois senator’s top foreign-policy adviser, Susan Rice, said over the weekend that Cuba must make “concrete progress” toward free elections, allow a free press and free political prisoners as a requirement to “initiate a process through engagement.”
Sounds like preconditions to us – and good for Obama.
Of course, he hasn’t fully ruled out sitting down with Tehran’s tinhorn, who has vowed to “annihilate” Israel and denies the Holocaust occurred.
But absent any real hope of a policy shift from Iran, talks would do little.
As GOP presidential contender John McCain said yesterday, “Many believe all we need to do to end the nuclear programs of hostile governments is to have our president talk with leaders in Pyongyang and Tehran – as if we haven’t tried talking to these governments repeatedly.”
Let’s face it: Tehran, in particular, seems bent on building nukes – and continues to sponsor terror. More “dialogue” isn’t likely to change that.
If the presidential wannabes can agree on that point, that alone is progress.