How Clinton Can Woo Back Iranian Americans
From NIAC--
http://www.niacouncil.org/how-clinton-can-woo-back-iranian-americans/
Additionally, while Sanders has signaled a willingness to challenge the conventional Washington wisdom on Iran by indicating that the U.S. should pursue normalization, Clinton has attacked him for that statement and accused him of naiveté. To many, the dispute reflected the debate eight years ago when Clinton, along with other candidates, attacked Obama for his statement that he would sit down with hostile nations, including Iran, without preconditions. According to foreign policy advisor Ben Rhodes, on the day the Iran deal was agreed upon the President traced the historic agreement all the way back to the question submitted to the candidates during the YouTube debate in 2007, showing how important campaigns can be in shaping the direction of Presidencies.
Clinton’s stance toward further Iran negotiations might not ultimately be that different than Sanders, but her attacks on normalization send a worrying signal that engagement would be the exception rather than the rule. This runs counter to the lessons of the nuclear accord. When the U.S. doubled down on isolation at the expense of negotiations, Iran’s nuclear program moved steadily forward in response. When the Obama administration demonstrated seriousness in reaching an accord, however, it succeeded in freezing Iran’s nuclear program and then significantly rolling it back. Why not signal greater openness toward addressing the full spectrum of differences with Iran? By rejecting normalization at the outset, Clinton only succeeds in shrinking the range of diplomatic possibilities during her potential Presidency.
Even if Clinton does seek a further reduction in tensions, there is a fear that her hawkish language could help close the window of opportunity with Iran. Clinton’s statement in the very first Democratic debate that she was proud to list the Iranians among her enemies remains a major source of contention for Iranian Americans. Of course, Clinton was referring to the Iranian government and not its people, but she never clarified the off-the-cuff statement. The episode suggested to many that she was more comfortable maintaining animosity at the expense of exploring conflict resolution and areas of mutual interest.
When President Obama began on the path of diplomacy, the first thing he changed was America’s language on Iran. Recognizing that the hawkish and threatening language of George W. Bush rendered diplomacy next to impossible, President Obama adopted a much more sophisticated language on Iran to create an atmosphere conducive to the success of diplomacy. Obama never hesitated to criticize Iran, but he always did so while stressing that relations can change and that the U.S. is pursuing a relationship of mutual respect. If Clinton wants to score points with Iranian Americans, she could start by adopting rhetoric that sounds more like President Obama instead of a return to the saber rattling of President Bush.
= new reply since forum marked as read
