Published on FOXNews.com on May 16, 2008.
President Bush is absolutely right to criticize sharply direct negotiations with Iranian President Ahmadinejad. Barack Obama’s embrace of the idea of direct negotiations is both naïve and dangerous and should be a big issue in the campaign.
The reason not to negotiate with Ahmadinejad is not simply to stand on ceremony or some kind of policy of non-recognition. It is based on the fundamental need to topple his regime by increasing the sense the Iranian people have — that he has isolated Iran from the rest of the world, to its severe and ongoing detriment.
The Iranian regime is almost entirely dependent on oil and gas revenues to pay for the vast program of social subsidies with which the government buys domestic support. Gasoline costs 35 cents a gallon in Teheran. Bread and all other staples are subsidized from public funds. But 85 percent of all government revenues come from oil and gas exports. There lies the regime’s vulnerability.
Iran is sitting atop the second largest oil reserves in the world. Only Saudi Arabia has more. But it can’t get at them. It lacks the foreign investment and technology necessary to increase, or even to sustain, its petroleum output. Under the Shah, Iran pumped upwards of six million barrels of oil a day. Now, Iran generates fewer than four million daily barrels. With domestic consumption of energy increasing at 10 percent a year — due in part to the massive subsidies which hold the price down — Iran is expected to see its oil exports cut in half by 2011 and entirely eliminated by 2014. If Iran cannot export oil, it cannot pay for social peace and the regime could be in dire trouble.
Without subsidies, the Iranian people, half of whom are under 30 and only 40 percent of whom are ethnically Farsi, will become restive and resentful. Already, many complain that Ahmadinejad’s policies have led to global isolation of Iran and stymied economic growth and social upward mobility. While opinion surveys in Iran indicate that the people support the nuclear aspirations of the regime, they are not willing to pay a price of international isolation.
If a President Obama were to meet with President Ahmadinejad, it would send a signal to the Iranian people that they are not isolated but that the rest of the world has come to respect them and to have to deal with them. The leading argument for toppling the current regime will have been fatally undermined.
But if the West sustains a policy of economic sanctions, curbs on foreign investment, and diplomatic isolation, the Iranian regime’s days are numbered.
Official United Nations sanctions are having some effect on Iran but the real power lies in cutting off investment by foreign companies, particularly in the banking and energy sectors. American companies are already prohibited from doing business there, although General Electric may be seeking ways around this prohibition through foreign subsidiaries.
Frank Gaffney, formerly of Reagan’s Pentagon, has pioneered the use of private economic disinvestment in companies that do business with Iran, Syria, North Korea, or Sudan. On his Web site, he has identified almost 500 companies that do business with these terror sponsoring nations. They include such international powerhouses as Sieman’s, Shell, Repsol, BNP Paribus, and Hyundai. He has crafted a terror free mutual fund which can earn good returns while avoiding investment in any of these companies.
Missouri Treasurer Sarah Steelman — now running for governor — pioneered disinvesting pension funds in these companies. Now California, Florida, and Louisiana have followed suit.
We need to let these policies work and global isolation of Iran is the way to do it. Negotiating with Ahmadinejad would simply boost his domestic stature and enhance his political stability, the exact opposite of what we should — and must — be doing.
 |
Comments
Only subscribers to Dick Morris' '08 Play-By-Play may post comments. You must be logged in to post a comment.
How does not investing in these terror-dealing companies really hurt them? The stock have already been issued. When you invest, you are buying from another shareholder. I guess if it drives the price down, and the comapny owns a lot of its own stock they would feel it. I guess. But I think boycotting the products they sell is clearly the way to hurt them - not boycotting the stocks.
Dick, Your entire point is negated by your erroneous understanding of Obama’s position on diplomacy with Iran or any other Country. History has shown us that diplomacy is part of what has made our Nation more safe. Engaging in diplomacy occurs at many levels prior to our President entering into any discussions wherein American Military force is never taken off the table.
Barack Obama never said he would take military force off the table. He has said that after the preparatory diplomatic work is done by persons in positions beneath the Presidency to establish the appropriate timing of his entering into talks with the disfavored leaders of other Nations, letting them know where he draws the line. He would offer peaceful incentives and use non-violent sanctions before using Military force when appropriate and Military force when necessary.
This attempt to paint Barac Obama’s position as something it never has been illuminates just how fearful and desperate the Republican machinery is of him. Why not debate him on his true position? Why not write your article based upon his true position?
Simply put, those who try know they will loose. You cleary are getting your bread buttered these days by the Republican machinery. I look forward to the general election because I beleive the majority of the American people are not going to fooled by these cowardly tactics.
As always, I stand by my prediction that if Barack Obama survived the Feb. 5th super tuesday he would be our next president. The Obama jet is taking off and the people are waiting for him.
Hey, Dick….why don’t you try something more intellectually honest in your next article….you are starting to bore me.
Sorry Dick, just can’t agree with you on this one. Not talking to people we don’t like just doesn’t work. Ask any marriage counsellor or examine the Cuban result. Obama’s response was incomplete when he first answered the question about meeting without pre-conditions in an early debate. His current more considered approach of meeting without pre-condition but with preparation is exactly what it needed. Diplomacy, including Presidential inititives, is just one of many tools in a kitbag that should include sanctions, economic pressure, humanitarion jestures, exchange programs and of course use of the military. An intelligent President will use all the tools appropriate to the situation to implement a successful strategy. Short of blowing up the Iranian oil facilities the Iranians will continue to pump about 4 million barrels a day now and well beyond the terms of their and our Presidents. China and others will buy all they can produce and provide them with capital to explore further. The more effective option for us is to accelerate the development of alternative energy sources such as solar, wind, tidal, geothermal and nuclear. Energy independence is what will change everything for the US when it comes to the middle east.
Mercedes,
Looking at the circumstances as they truly are, I would not select you or your rationale to help me out of a dangerous situation. You remind me of the story of the the person who was challenged to a gun fight and you accepted; equipped with a box of candy and boxing gloves.
Would you be specific about incidents of diplomacy that have made our nation more safe.
America needs to put the “pedal to the metal” with Iran. Diplomacy, although an option, will not resolve the difficulties with Iran. You are dealing with a medival culture and government which is never going to change. Any diplomacy with Iran will “only be words without a heartbeat.” American needs to take action against the international subsidaries which are doing business with Iran…..cut off the support lines to Iran. I believe that Obama position of offering the olive branch to Iran is truly off target, however, I believe that it is a campaign strategy for him not to be identified with the Bush Administration and McCain as a “war monger.” America is drowning itself in words……it time for some to do something. OPEC countries are enjoying the wealth and profits from their black gold….and all their children are driving around in their Mercedes and living in their palaces…..I fear, and soon, that their children and grandchildren will be riding camels and living in tents again.