Global News : Passport : Ricks : Drezner : Walt : Rothkopf : Lynch
The Cable : The AfPak Blog : Net Effect : Shadow Govt. : Madam Secretary : The Call
Happy "Pupil's Day"
Today is the 30th anniversary of the Iranian seizure of the U.S. embassy in Tehran, an event that did as much as any other to seal Iranian-American acrimony over the past three decades. In a rather new development, however, the "Green Movement" chose to commemorate "Pupil's Day" (the Iranian name for this anniversary) with various anti-government demonstrations. You can follow some of the action on Andrew Sullivan’s blog here.
As one would expect, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khameini gave a combative speech commemorating the anniversary, specifically condemning the United States for its "arrogant" interference in Iranian affairs and casting doubt on Obama’s recent efforts to start a dialogue. He acknowledged that Obama "has said nice things," but went to criticize the Administration’s overall approach. Money quote:
On the face of things they say let us negotiate. But alongside this they threaten us and say that if these negotiations do no reach a desirable result they will do this and that. Do you call this negotiation? This is like the relationship between a wolf and a lamb ...
I'd question the characterization of Iran as a "lamb," but I think this statement (and indeed, the whole speech) demonstrates how hard it is to unwind the spiral of suspicion between Washington and Iran. Given the long record of enmity, and each side’s tendency to view the other’s behavior as both hostile and duplicitous, even well-intended gestures of accommodation are likely to be seen as insincere or even deceitful, as a trick intended to take advantage. Any diplomatic misstep merely confirms the sense of suspicion and resentment on both sides, and missteps are probably unavoidable. If this effort is going to succeed, it will take at least as much patience as we are being asked to exhibit vis-à-vis Afghanistan.
Unfortunately, Obama's own remarks on this occasion aren’t going to help, at least not in the short term. Although he reiterated his desire “to move beyond the past,” some of his comments are bound to reinforce Iranian suspicions instead of mollifying them. He said that "we do not interfere in Iran’s internal affairs," which most Iranians would regard as a bald-faced lie. And they would be right, given recent revelations of covert U.S. programs to destabilize the Iranian regime. He also said "we have recognized Iran’s international right to peaceful nuclear power." He’s technically correct, insofar as the Western powers have offered to supply Iran's reactors with fuel produced outside the country. But to Iran, our insistence that Iran give up enrichment looks like an attempt to keep them dependent on U.S. benevolence and as a denial of Iran's rights under the NPT.
Obama also reiterated America’s "great respect for the people of Iran" and said “the world continues to bear witness to their powerful calls for justice, and their courageous pursuit of universal rights” (my emphasis). These statements can only be interpreted as an appeal to the Iranian people over the heads of the clerical regime, and as a statement of solidarity with the Green Movement. As such, it is bound to make the government of Iran -- with whom the United States is trying to negotiate -- even more suspicious of U.S. intentions.
One could argue that Obama is playing the long game here; that he is betting that the regime is unsteady, that the Green Movement is the wave of the future, and that the United States wouldn't be able to cut a deal with the clerics in any case. In this interpretation, he's willing to jeopardize or even scuttle a possible short-term deal in order to cultivate support among the forces he thinks will eventually triumph.
If that is what he’s doing, it is a huge gamble. Authoritarian regimes do not normally collapse according to a timetable convenient to those in Washington; instead, they show an annoying tendency to hang on far longer than outsiders hope or expect. If statements like this help derail the broader international effort to convince Iran to forego nuclear weapons and the clerics remain in charge, then Obama will have done no better than Bush and will face growing pressure for military action. And perhaps it is worth remembering that Mir Hossein Moussavi supports the nuclear program too, and has been condemning Ahmadinejad for being too forthcoming in the provisional nuclear deal whose fate is now uncertain.
Of course, these glitches in Obama's statement could also be a sign of muddled thinking in the White House or the State Department, which would hardly be surprising in light of some other recent stumbles.
BEHROUZ MEHRI/AFP/Getty Images
Advertisement
FOREIGN POLICY is published by the Slate Group,
a division of Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive, LLC.
All contents ©2009 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive, LLC. All rights reserved.
“The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails.”
Stephen M. Walt is the Robert and Renée Belfer Professor of International Relations at Harvard University.
Daily Reads
Affiliations
Recent Writings
A Military Dictatorship
I still find it hard to believe that the U.S. Government is actually negotiating with the Islamic Republic. It is almost as if President Obama completely missed the violence and chaos following Iran's fraudalent presidential election this past Summer. You know what I am referring too...the televised images of ordinary Iranian citizens being pummeled by their own (oooh I am sorry, Tehran's) security establishment. What kind of message does it send to other authoritarian regimes- some of whom totally disregard individual liberties and internationally recognized human rights- that the most powerful nation on the face of the earth will still be willing to talk despite better judgment?
From a standpoint of practicality, discussing the nuclear issue with Iran may be the most logical. But from a multi-dimensional approach, U.S. mediated discussions have a tendency to produce legitimacy for the opposing party. Rather than embrace the democratic movement inside Iran, what we have essentially done is re-legitimize a belligerent theocratic power; the same power that Iranian citizens view as a police state. Naturally, the President did not intend for this to happen when he decided to reach out to the clerics. But unfortunately, reaching out has done little on either the nuclear issue or on the security of Iraq and Afghanistan. Instead, the democratic opposition has been squashed.
Cost-benefit analysis says a lot of things. Obviously it is easier for me to sit here and criticize what the administration has done (or not done). However, all of these points have their merits. The Islamic leadership has proven that they will not talk with the western community is a constructive manner. Why are we wasting our time on a lost cause?
http://depetris.wordpress.com
I think there is no such
I think there is no such thing as a lost cause. We negotiated with Soviets, we do so with North Korea. How has our Cuban policy worked out? Being cut off for decades from a large civilized country is not a smart option any way you slice it. Right now the Iranian leadership is in a tough psychological spot, so it's probably the best time to negotiate from a position of strength and try for meaningful concessions. And it's our own damn fault if we don't have enough good intelligence on the ground to gauge the resistance. I agree that it's foolish for Obama to wait for a collapse unless he has good info. Either way, the Iranians must be sized up as thoroughly and accurately as possible, the despots as well as the rebellious.
In specific circumstances,
In certain circumstances, there comes a point in time when negotiation and unconditional dialogue- a.k.a. what the Obama administration is doing right now with a number of authoritarian regimes- is more troublesome than beneficial. Yes, we did negotiate with the Soviets, but the negotiations really did not work out until the other side of the table was headed by a moderate leader. In Iran right now, there is no evidence that the Soviet precedent will hold up. The leadership in Tehran is anything but progressive; in fact, the regime is growing more militaristic and confrontational by the day. Arms control and the dissolution of the Soviet Union was contingent upon a willingness to engage constructively, backed by the implementation of treaties that were actually signed. With the Islamic Republic, Khamenei and Ahmadinejad are not only reneging on U.N.-backed agreements; they are doing this in order to appease Islamic hard-liners back home.
As far as North Korea, the United States is not negotiating directly with Kim Jong-il. Interestingly enough, it is the North Koreans that are trying to persuade the Americans to continue the Six-Party talks...not the other way around. The U.S. and North Korea have repeatedly disagreed about what future talks would entail, so the idea that U.S.-N.K negotiations are ongoing is ridiculous.
And as far as Cuba, why even fret? Castro's Cuba is but a small blip on America's radar in the Western Hemisphere. Why would the United States devote a large portion of its diplomatic energy trying to convince the Cubans to open up their societies? Granted, the President is starting to reform U.S. policy towards Cuba more generally. But there are no signs that this moderation is working out, at least not well enough for the national media to pick the story up. But yet again, who cares... its not like Cuba is once again storing Russian weapons on its soil.
http://depetris.wordpress.com
Moderate leaders?
Our negotiations with the Soviets did not work out until they had a moderate leader? I never thought of Khrushchev that way before. You apparently forget that we negotiated the settlement of the Cuban Missile Crisis, the test ban treaties, the Non-Proliferation Treaty, the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, the Biological Warfare Convention, and many others BEFORE Gorbachev ascended to power.
For that matter, by implication you are calling Mao a moderate leader. Seriously?
The basic problem with your logic, though, is that refusing to talk to your enemies guarantees that no progress is made. There might be an example out there of an instance where our refusal to talk to our foes actually enhanced our ability to achieve the outcome we want. I doubt you can find one, though.
That is a pretty easy
That is a pretty easy question to answer. A contemporary example would be Muammar Kaddafi's Libya in 2003, when U.S. military power in Afghanistan and Iraq convinced his regime that confrontation with the United States was the worst possible policy choice for Tripoli's national interests. In that specific case, Washington hardly blinked a diplomatic eye to Kaddafi, both for symbolic reasons (support for past acts of terrorism) and for practical reasons as well (weapons of mass destruction). Nevertheless, this did not stop Kaddafi from changing Libyan foreign-policy virtually overnight; a consequence of a failing national economy and a genuine belief of an impending U.S. attack. Citing a superpower that was willing to back its own words with actions in Afghanistan and Iraq, Libya rightly disavowed its traditional anti-western stance.
Now, Libya has officially renounced international terrorism as a foreign-policy tool, abandoned its primitive biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons programs, and has quickly started to constructively engage in a number of issues pertaining to African reconstruction and development (through Kaddafi's Chairmanship in the African Union). It was not American diplomacy that brought this about, but rather the threats of a U.S. offensive that changed Kaddafi's behavior after three decades of isolation.
By the way, I do not believe that I mentioned Mao as being a moderate in any of my previous statements...check on that for me.
http://depetris.wordpress.com
maybe you should tone down
maybe you should tone down your aggressiveness. negotiations are always a must, and thinking there is another way is a sign of immaturity and a desire to take the easy way, which, like a lost cause, is again not in line with reality. who cares about Cuba? Cuba is not an abstraction, it is made up of people. are you familiar with people? if we did not have a direct line to the Kremlin during the missile crisis, what would have happened? we "negotiated" with Stalin and Krushchev and Brezhnev, not like stupid sheep but like reality-minded independent agents. negotiation is not an option, but it must be done by strong actors who are constantly re-evaluating options based on complex and shifting circumstances. the less sane their opponent, all the more sharp and alert they must be in the engagement, and always receiving new and useful information. cutting off engagement altogether is what the frightened and the foolish do, that's why it's such a common tactic of the uncompromising, dictatorial nature--it is stupid and unworkable. by the way, the Iranian hard-liners in the background are hardly islamic, anymore than the crusader popes were christian. not that i am a supporter of politically organized religion, because it's corrupted by genuine power-players whose primary concerns are always material.
Of course I am familiar with
Of course I am familiar with people. The President is familiar with people as well, but that does not necessarily empower him with the resources he needs to take on the menial task of negotiating with the Castro Leadership. It is called the national-interest, and believe it or not, Cuba is hardly in that category. Sure, the country is in America's backyard and yes, there is a powerful Cuban exile lobby in Washington demanding regime change (much as there was a powerful Iraqi lobby demanding regime change in Iraq in the run-up to the war). But practically speaking, the United States cannot do everything at once...stick with important priorities. Considering the fact that the United States is still engulfed in two distant wars (one winding down and one escalating), perhaps President Obama should find ways to solve those problems before talking to a Cuban regime that is not threatening in any way.
Your people analogy seems to be an attempt to justify American participation in every single world event. That would be unwise at this point; in fact, American interference is the one thing that bonds America's enemies together in a symbolic way. I know it sounds like I am arguing against negotiations and dialogue in every form. This, however, is inaccurate. My whole point was to bring up foreign-policy priorities and how they intersect with the national-interest. Talking with Cuba, while humane, is simply a waste of energy at this point. Likewise, talking with Iran legitimizes a regime that continually subverts civil-society and keeps a lid on the majority of Iranians who strive for a more open and transparent society.
If you want to harp on negotiations, lets start paving the way for direct negotiations between the Israelis and Palestinians. Now this is one issue that certainly warrants U.S. energy at all costs.
http://depetris.wordpress.com
The Dilemma For Future Historians
Good post Dr. Walt, damn near every line of which provokes the head-scratching question of just where in the hell our fundamental or even non-fundamental interests have been threatened by Iran so leading to this deep and thus even more ridiculous bit of enmity?
God knows the U.S. has gone wrong before, but nowhere at least in modern times can I at least think of an instance like we see now with its dealings in the Middle East where it just seems to mindlessly and absolutely hunger for an enemy that otherwise wouldn't be there.
It's like some story where the people on one side of a mountain just hate the people on the other, but have utterly forgotten why.
Provides the real rationale for our covert programs to destabilize Iran I guess: Where would we be be after all with all our enmity if it wasn't reciprocated?
Not just going wrong, future historians are gonna say I think, it's mindless. Just simply mindless. And hard to wrap one's own mind around the idea that the U.S. in particular with all its intellectual capital and sophistication is engaged in same. It's ridiculous.
So what should be done? They
So what should be done? They must be subverted with as much intelligent effort as possible. I am not defending the hamfisted and ignorant and bellicose applications of US foreign policy, but I think our basic interests are fairly plain.
Why?
In response to my post pennflyer wrote:
"They [the Iranians] must be subverted with as much intelligent effort as possible."
Really, pennflyer? Do you really understand what you are so casually endorsing here? Every nation on earth reserves to itself the right to regard an act of subversion against it by another as an act of war.
And do you understand the nature of modern war? Say that ... any number of different and very indiscriminate kinds of attacks on Washington, D.C.— maybe even including the biological or chemical—could be justified under current international law and understanding as a perfectly legitimate strike against the command and control center of the U.S.? No different than when we dropped the A-bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki because they had this or that military significance allegedly?
So what precise "fairly plain basic interest" of the U.S. justifies the U.S. in inviting things up to that basic level? If it/they are indeed "fairly plain" you ought to be able to *specifically* describe same "fairly easily," right?
hmm
i asked you what your proposal would be. i apologize for any insult you perceived. but:
do you understand the basic law of war? it is proportionality. so then, what sort of subversion do you imagine i propose that would justify a nuclear response? is spying not subversion? beaming in "subversive" communications, such as radio free europe for 50 years--or our current farsi news service into Iran? should we not openly and loudly support dissidents? how about financially, if possible?
the basic interest IS clear, and the only question is the degree of proportional action. how far can and should we go to prevent outrages perpetrated against people by their tyrannical governments? what do reason and circumstance dictate?
i appreciate the point you seem to make about mythologizing enemies, if that's what you're saying. but i asked what actions you prescribe since you sounded fairly confident of your opinion.
hmm
pennflyer:
Firstly I want to apologize for the insulting tone of my post to you. Upon re-reading it I winced. And no, you didn't insult me in any way.
In terms of the subversion of Iran I thought you were advocating was the sort Prof. Walt mentioned which seems to be in the form of us supporting more than just verbally if not trying to further foment domestic Iranian groups who are after the overthrow of the Iranian government, some of whom are violent. That's a lot lot different than merely spying on another country and as I said could rightfully be taken by every country on earth as an act of war, a war that they have no obligation to use "proportionality" in if that could even be measured. E.g. the Iranians could say, why *isn't* it "proportional" for us to use terrorism in America/Washington/wherever to interfere with the U.S.'s "command and control" military functioning in exchange for Washington funding these groups?
In terms of our interest it's interesting that the sole one you identify is what you see as Iran's "tyrannical" government perpetrating "outrages" against its own people. And, frankly, I just don't see that rising anywhere near to the level of it being a war crime or other exception to the idea that nations ought not be interfering in other nation's internal affairs. There are plenty of other worse such "tyrannical" internal situations in the world; using that to justify going after Iran—esp. to the point of possible war—strikes me as way out of the bounds of reason. And the American people would never support any such thing either I don't think: Our boys and treasure ought to be expended in a war that could go anywhere because Iran isn't quite the democracy that we'd want to live under?
As to my proposal it's to simply follow policies that have some relation to our interests. Our own intelligence tells us that Iran stopped pursuing a nuke bomb program years ago and is doing nothing not allowed under the NPT which it *voluntarily* signed. And yet we threaten war against it almost daily. And yet even if Iran *was* clearly working on a bomb it's hard to see that this would present the U.S. with such a threat to its vital interests that a war would be justified: Why would they even think of *using* it against us? *How* could they use it against us?
And so on and so forth.
But, to the extent that *any* additional country having nukes is against our long-term interest (even if less than our long-term *vital* interest) then instead of going about constantly threatening Iran with all the negative things that means to us we ought to at least first try less costly ways to our ends, which indeed are more likely to succeed as well. Such as ... promoting a nuke-free Middle-East accord. Except that the reason we *don't* pursue such a policy which would clearly be in our national interest is clear: Israel refuses to go along with same, thereby putting us in our present hypocritical position of declaiming the evil of Teheran having the Bomb but pretending Israel doesn't have the dozens upon dozens if not hundreds that it does.
In short my proposal is that the U.S. start acting in its own interest for a change.
due to the massive importance
due to the massive importance of islamic civilization in the world and the prominent role of Iran within that, and even long before islam, i think our interests in it are significant. and compared to the resources we can bring to bear as the leader of rich non-warring nations, i do not think it is beyond our means to pay attention to most of these old-school repressive dictatorships, even seeming triflings like Cuba or Burma. the interest we do have is hardly trivial. but with Iran we have wider regional and even economic interests--it is already not a small power, it is capable and desirous of being great, and wants to wield significant influence outside its borders socially and economically. it is not content with being a dysfunctional shut-in, it wants to interact.
i do hear you about the dangers involved, and appreciate the conversation.
To be honest, I don't find it
To be honest, I don't find it likely that any experienced member of the Executive branch or even a newcomer like Mr. Obama would be betting on a governments collapse. After fifty years they should know that things don't work that way.
What's the point of appeasing
What's the point of appeasing a country that will run out of oil and young people in another generation? Look at Iran's demographic timebomb, and think about what will happen when the oil runs out. It's the Soviet Union, circa 1980.
Actually Iran has a rather
Actually Iran has a rather large population of young people. According to the CIA World Factbook over 20% of Iran's population is under the age of fifteen and almost 73% are between the age of 15 and 64 (sadly they don't go into further detail). The growth rate is still assumed to fall to 1.5%, but that is hardly negative growth (also I find that demographics are very untrustworthy, especially ones that go more than five years ahead).
If anything, Iran has a reverse demographic timebomb where too many young people will probably contribute to increased opposition to the government.
Lastly, if the Iranian government does obtain nuclear weapons and also experiences increased challenges from the Iranian citizenry that will probably make it more unpredictable and dangerous. Scared leaders do stupid things.
Authoritarian
@ Walt "If that is what he’s doing, it is a huge gamble. Authoritarian regimes do not normally collapse according to a timetable convenient to those in Washington; instead, they show an annoying tendency to hang on far longer than outsiders hope or expect."
I don't really see the difference in Iran's regime compared to our US regime in regards to foreign policy. We seem to have the same foreign policy with a so-called conservative republican or a so-called liberal democrat. Iran has different politicians and the same foreign policy. I don't see a different regime in power after our elections of polar opposites. Could this be authoritarianism?
Iran is perhaps a threat to
Iran is perhaps a threat to Israel in the future when it may or may not get nukes.
It is not a threat to the US.
Let Israel fight its own wars, with its own nukes.
The nuclear arms race in the middle east was started by Israel. The cock has come back to roost.
The last of the communists
"Authoritarian regimes do not normally collapse according to a timetable convenient to those in Washington."
Wrong, Dr. Walt. Just look at Cuba. Fidel Castro didn't last even fifty years. Raul is his brother? No. Yeah? Damn!
Iran After June
President Obama's campaign rhetoric from last year has been overtaken by events in Iran. The Iranian regime with which he wanted to engage brought on itself last June a domestic crisis that made it, at a minimum, very nervous. It probably also made the task of establishing within the Iranian government a unified view of what it should seek from engagement with the United States even more difficult than it was before -- and I suspect it was quite difficult before.
Altering Iranian behavior through economic sanctions is unlikely to work. Engagement is also unlikely to work; an Iranian government preoccupied with the domestic threat to its legitimacy is unlikely to undertake major changes in policy mandated by agreements with foreign countries. That's apart from the difficult question of whether and how much the foundation of the Tehran regime's power has shifted from the clergy to the security services. There is a school of thought -- Dr. Walt's association with it I leave to him to describe -- that under these circumstances the best American course is to find out what Ahmedinejad and Khamenei want, and give it to them on a plate. No questions, no conditions, whether the subject be Iran's nuclear program, Iraq, Afghanistan, or (maybe especially) Iran's domestic opposition.
It's perhaps needless to say that this school of thought does not commend itself to me. I had rather back off the cycle of crises beyond our power to resolve, make use of the time I believe we have until Iran can get close to a workable atomic weapon, and draw attention to all the things the Iranian government has done, and not done, that large numbers of the Iranian people are apt to dislike. The events of June make clear that, while there are many people in Iran's government whose hostility to the United States is deep and sincere, they do not stand before a united front in their own country.
Nothing America can do will reassure Ahmedinejad or his sponsors of their standing in Iran, so let's not try. There are millions of Iranians who appear to want very much for Iran to become a normal country. They have much of the clergy and the security services against them, and they may not win in the end. But they have a chance good enough to bet on.
President Obama and Iran. Some Possibilities.
I don't think that anyone with certainty, can say that Iran is developing nuclear weapons, let alone build conclusions on the assumption that, it will do do so in the future.
However, one is almost sure by now, that President Obama realises beforehand that, the talks with Iran will not produce any tangible positive results, because Iran will continue with its Uranium enrichment programme. He knows even now I think, that a few weeks down the road he will have to leed Britain and the Europeans into further sanctions against Iran, without most probably Russia, and with near certainty without China. He knows also, that these leaky sanctions will not bring a change of attitude in Iran, therefore, at one point, the failure of those further sanctions, will make it far easier for him, to justify to the American people, war against Iran at a time of his own choosing.
Alternatively of course, he could continue negotiating with Iran, while the leaky sanctions in place, until such a time that Iran produces its first nuclear weapon; thus making it easier also for him, to accept Iran in the nuclear club because it would be impossible then to attack it militarily. Mind you, all those options are not likely to bear fruitation if at all, prior to, ptobably, his last days in office, and indeed if Iran also intends to develop nuclear weapons for itself.
But what about gittery Israel?. I guess Presdient Obama will have to continue offering Israel concessions elsewhere, in order to justify the lack of serious action against Iran. But will Israel comply with President Obama's policies over Iran?. In any case, if it doesn't comply, there is very little that the US will be able to do, because then, a major war would have broken out, and the US inevitably, would find itself then, on the side of Israel.
khairi janbek.paris/france
We voted for change, where is it?
It is sad indeed that the first African-American president of the United States defends in Israel exactly the kind of institutionalized bigotry, apartheid oppression, and racism in Israel the civil rights movement defeated in this country, a victory that made his election possible.
George H.W. Bush forced a showdown with Yitzhak Shamir over Israel's West Bank settlements by threatening to link $10 billion in loan guarantees to Israel's compliance with a settlement freeze. Why can't Obama do this?
This is a battle that America and Obama can win at a stroke, without a single life being lost and within a matter of weeks or months.
Bring in legislation to ban all bilateral trade with Israel until its government complies with international law, the UNSC and the Geneva Conventions.
If Mr Obama is really interested in "change" we can believe in then he needs to "change" the same old rhetoric, and dogmatic, unquestioned, unconditional support of Israel. Level the playing field and be an honest broker of the "change" he is espousing. Obama is no fool but AIPAC, Rahm, and our useless Congress have done their their best to bias Obama to be an Israel firster. Shameful. Shameful.
Is it frustrating that Obama cannot make a decision and then see it through. But his strategy may be this...wait until the 2010 elections are over. Do not make waves with AIPAC until he has ensured a Dem majority then turn the screws on Israel and cut their aid if they still refuse to meet their roadmap obligations. Don't forget, the guy still has three years to go.
I will be proud of the day when the President can put the interest of America before the interest of Israel and not be crucified for it by AIPAC, Israel, the neocons, etc. The oath of allegiance that I said everyday in school was not to Israel, or any country but America.
The Iranian issue
Dr. Walt I am skeptical about president Obama's pseudo-opening to Iran. While he is talking about engagement, the US Congress is voting to impose crippling sanction against the same country we are asking to negotiate with. It is contradictory, and the policy makers in Iran are taking note. This is a Rooseveltian (not FDR but TR) kind of diplomacy "speaking softly carry a big stick" in this care carrying a "daisy cutter), this is coercive diplomacy. Representatives Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul voted against it and spoke brilliantly in favor of a more sane approach to solve the Iranian "crisis". They also warned their colleagues of the unintended consequence of such a reckless move. The kind of sanction that the Congress voted to impose on Iran is a declaration of war.
The US is already in a very difficult situation in Iraq, Afghanistan and now Pakistan. Why would the administration want to pick a fight with the most stable among the three? The US needs Iran to stabilize both Iraq and Afghanistan.