Jonathan Chait: Obama is Not Naïve.
I think this is quite a good analysis of what Obama is up to:
The thing that people haven’t figured out about President Obama’s conduct of foreign policy is that it’s the same as his conduct of domestic policy. Obama believes in the power of negotiation and public dialogue to split his adversaries–Republicans at home, Islamists abroad–and strengthen his own position. […]
Obama’s method begins with attempts to find common ground, expressions of respect for the adversary’s core beliefs, and profuse hope for cooperation. […]
Naturally, Obama’s pacific expressions tend to alarm the more hawkish elements of his own camp, who interpret his idealistic rhetoric as naivete or weakness. […]
Obama’s method entails small acts of intellectual dishonesty in the pursuit of common ground. […]
Critics […] are correct that surrendering intellectual ground comes at a cost. Our most successful presidents articulate clear, forceful public rationales for their beliefs […]
It is a mistake, however, to view Obama’s strategy as an act of submission.
Consider how Obama explained his approach toward Iran during a recent interview with Newsweek:
Now, will it work? We don’t know. And I assure you, I’m not naive about the difficulties of a process like this. If it doesn’t work, the fact that we have tried will strengthen our position in mobilizing the international community, and Iran will have isolated itself, as opposed to a perception that it seeks to advance that somehow it’s being victimized by a U.S. government that doesn’t respect Iran’s sovereignty.
This is a perfect summation of Obama’s strategy. It does not presuppose that his adversaries are people of goodwill who can be reasoned with. Rather, it assumes that, by demonstrating his own goodwill and interest in accord, Obama can win over a portion of his adversaries’ constituents as well as third parties. Obama thinks he can move moderate Muslim opinion, pressure bad actors like Iran to negotiate, and, if Iran fails to comply, encourage other countries to isolate it. The strategy works whether or not Iran makes a reasonable agreement.
The results remain to be seen. But it eerily resembles the way Obama has already isolated the GOP leadership. …
Read the whole thing. The only problem is, it’s already out of date. Because it isn’t coming across the way he wanted it to.
Ambiance 
Ron said,
June 23, 2009 at 8:38 pm
But “demonstrating his own goodwill and interest in accord, Obama can win over a portion of his adversaries’ constituents as well as third parties” strikes me as a very naive perception of problems. This makes assumptions about how people will respond, etc, etc., that simple don’t seem to match up with how they do respond.
amba12 said,
June 23, 2009 at 9:13 pm
“A portion” is the keyword. There may be some people in the Muslim world — in fact I’ve heard some quoted — who are just relieved not to be demonized, impressed to be understood a little bit, to feel respected. That’s “some.” Instead of being pushed towards anti-Americanism, those people might be somewhat positively disposed towards America (might have been before, if not sweepingly labeled “evil”). That much less sympathy for Osama’s project.
On the other hand, domestically it went over like a lead omelet, perceived for the insincere ploy it was.
PatHMV said,
June 23, 2009 at 9:56 pm
I think it is naive to believe that if his attempt at negotiation fails, world opinion will be more on our side, because we’ll have clearly tried to be nice. That just flies in the face of all experience in reality. Other nations aren’t nearly so concerned about “feelings” as we are; they look after their fundamental interests. They (other governments, both in Europe and the Middle East) use anti-Americanism to further their own political ends and steer public opinion in ways favorable to them.
While they do care about perceptions (some times, as with global warming “solutions,” all they care about is looking like they’re doing something, rather than actually doing it), shifting perceptions will not induce them to do something they fundamentally consider not to be in their best interests. And Europe has historically looked more to appease evils rather than combat them. They’ve been able to do so the last 50 years in part because they could rely on America to actually take action.
His position is naive also because he thinks that Iran gives a rat’s ass about international “public opinion.” They’re a rogue nation, they know it, and they’re not trying to win any popularity contests.
What’s particularly offensive about President Obama’s strategy is that it gives some legitimacy to Iran’s propaganda that they are the victim of America’s “imperialist” actions. He never says anything like “the mullah’s regime’s claims that we’re responsible for the acts of repression they’ve conducted against their own people is of course ridiculous; nevertheless, America’s going to now take extra steps to avoid giving them any excuse at all to claim this is our fault.”
And, he overlooks the positive impact that America’s strong stand in favor of democracy has had on resistance and freedom movements of all sorts, both in the Islamic world and, during the Cold War, behind the Iron Curtain.
Rod said,
June 24, 2009 at 12:30 am
The interesting thing to me is that, five months into the Obama administration,so many people are not really very clear as to what Obama really believes. The debate over whether he is really a Christian is quite astonishing. Is he really pro-gay rights or anti gay rights? Who knows. About the only thing I can safely say I think he believes in is big government.
Carter: moderate left leaning Christian idealist
Reagan: Big ticket defense spending, domestic policy conservative
Bush Sr.: Moderate Republican forced to run as a conservative, willing to raise taxes to balance the budget
Clinton: Liberal leaning pragmatist who enjoyed being tolerated by big business
W: Neocon, or cipher manipulated by neocons, (take your pick)
Obama: ?
wj said,
June 24, 2009 at 2:30 pm
But Rod, perhaps my memory is slipping. But while your analysis of the past few presidents is not too bad on how they were perceived by the end of their term, I’m not so sure that it is really accurate on how they looked at this point in their first term. Certainly the emphasis was a lot different, even if there were glimmers of how they would eventually be seen.
Which likely proves only that everybody who holds that office ends up changing, as he has to deal with things that were not even on his horizon when he started.
Liza said,
June 24, 2009 at 3:14 pm
“They’re a rogue nation, they know it, and they’re not trying to win any popularity contests.”
Iranians, as any nation, include a multitude of people with different ideas and goals. Branding them all “a rogue nation” is not only wrong – it’s dangerous. It is the only thing that can turn them uniformly anti-American. Omana clearly understands that much. “America’s strong stand in favor of democracy” included both very reasonable policies that, for instance, ended Cold War, and the use of brute force that failed every time (and had little to do with promoting democracy in the first place).
mileslascaux said,
June 25, 2009 at 8:12 pm
What’s overlooked in the equation is the medium. Or, to put it another way, the statement “by demonstrating his own goodwill and interest in accord,” begs the question “demonstrates to whom?” and “how?”
Obama plays a game with the GOP here at home, and the game is covered by the U.S. media. He demonstrates something to the domestic audience of that media. Very well.
But if his audience is the masses of Iran, how on earth will they get his subtle message?
I suspect this also undermines the criticism that he is lending legitimacy to the Iranian regime.
It’s also why I didn’t agree that the Abu Ghraib pictures were a terrible blow to America’s image in the Arab world. Most of the Arab world already firmly believes far, far worse things about us than what was in those pictures.