The disappearance of the threat

Spirited political debate was as much a part of the Thanksgiving tradition as turkey and gravy around my family’s table.

Soon after the pumpkin pie was served, someone brought up the public option. My relatives deteriorated into shouting, irrational quasi-experts who actually thought they might change the minds of their opponents.

For a minute, I thought I was in Washington.

Although the health care reform debate drags on in the capital and across the country, foreign policy takes center stage this week as President Barack Obama unveils a military surge he hopes will “finish the job” in Afghanistan.

While this plan garners little public support at home, increased American military engagement anywhere raises questions about America’s national image everywhere.

Recent news from Cuba and Iran should serve as an important reminder that although America is grateful to see the bellicose Bush administration writing memoirs instead of memos, the rest of the world is still registering the change.

A conservative lawmaker in Iran hinted that the country might consider pulling out of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty just as the International Atomic Energy Agency censured the nation for its stubbornly protected nuclear program.

Many agree that fear is a major factor motivating Iran’s nuclear progress.

As a paranoid Ahmadinejad presents a fallacious narrative of American aggression toward the nation and Islam, any signs from the United States that their fear of military action might be warranted will be extraordinarily dangerous.

Joseph Cirincione, a policy analyst at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, said, “No nation has ever been coerced into giving up a nuclear program, but many have been convinced to do so by the disappearance of the threat.”  

Despite the Nobel Prize and unprecedented diplomatic overtures, the shift in U.S. policy apparently doesn’t mark the disappearance of the threat in the eyes of Iran’s policymakers.

In Cuba, similar paranoia prevails among policymakers.

Recently, Cuban military leaders reported that there “exists a real possibility of a military aggression against Cuba.”

In both cases, Obama has offered vocal reassurance that the United States has no plans of military action in Cuba or Iran.

That’s not even considering the dubious feasibility of asking the military and the country to fight and fund yet another war. It’s out of the question.

So why the disturbing gestures of military preparation in these countries? While the Nobel committee recognized the shift in leadership style from crusader Bush to pragmatist Obama almost immediately, America’s not-quite-allies might need a little more time.

The worst-case scenario: Cuba or Iran’s fear of American military involvement eventually becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Hopefully, America’s new policymakers will avoid the trap of fear run awry, and continue to prove that this administration’s approach will be a significant change.

Obama will need to be especially careful this week, as the decision to send more troops to the Middle East could and will probably be misinterpreted and misrepresented by already paranoid leaders.

He will only stand a chance of assuaging fears around the world if his White House continues to place its faith in cooperation and diplomacy before coercion and force.