Here’s a little note for the White House: When a president has to insist publicly he’s not “bluffing” about the threat of military force, it really means that lots of people think he is bluffing. And when the individual you send out to persuade people otherwise is Joe Biden, you’re not necessarily enhancing your credibility.
That’s our take from the rhetoric on Iran coming out of Washington these last few days.
Speaking before the American Israel Public Affairs Committee early last week, the vice president sounded tough. The administration’s goal, Biden said, is to “prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon, period, end of discussion.” In case anyone missed the point, he said: “Prevent, not contain, prevent!”
“President Barack Obama,” he declared, “is not bluffing.”
Now, we’ve been skeptical about Obama’s Iran policy for some time. But the test today isn’t whether the president and the vice president have persuaded us he’s serious. The test is whether the hard men in Tehran are persuaded. The evidence — from Obama’s own team — suggests they aren’t.
Take Gen. James Mattis, our top military commander in the Middle East. Before the Senate’s Armed Services Committee, Mattis was asked if the current sanctions regime against Iran’s nuclear quest are working. “No, sir,” he responded.
The next day, Secretary of State John Kerry essentially agreed. In an interview with ABC, Kerry acknowledged that “lines have been crossed before, and they’ve been passed. That’s why the president has been so definitive this time.”
The word “definitive” is a stretch. On Thursday, Obama had a meeting with Jewish leaders, where he was pressed about what actions he was prepared to take to prevent Iran from getting the bomb. According to The Washington Post, he responded by saying “I’m not going to beat my chest to prove my toughness on this” — and went on to cite an ancient Chinese military philosopher on the importance of building bridges.
The Iranians, unfortunately, aren’t as dazzled as our national press corps is by the president’s speechifying and classical allusions. And why would they be? For when it comes to Obama’s actions, what do they see?
They see a president who chooses as secretary of defense a man who didn’t even know what Obama’s Iranian policy is.
They see a president whose team repeatedly declares “Assad must go” — and yet stands by as Assad continues to slaughter Syrian civilians.
They see a president who couldn’t even give moral support (until it was too late) to pro-democracy Iranians risking their lives on Tehran’s streets to protest the regime.
Understandably, Obama would like to avoid military action against Iran if he can. In the end, that will depend on how credible the Iranian regime finds his threat of force. No matter how loudly Biden may shout, words aren’t enough.
We’re waiting for some action that shows Iran that it needs to take Obama seriously. So, apparently, are the Iranians.