Obama Persists on Iran

The most interesting moment, I thought, in President Obama’s press conference was his last answer, when he spoke in praise of “persistence:” “That whole philosophy of persistence, by the way, is one that I’m going to be emphasizing again and again in the months and years to come, as long as I am in this office. I’m a big believer in persistence.”

So now that he’s president, Barack Obama no longer invokes the audacity of hope, but rather appeals to the virtue of persistence. I guess campaigning is poetry, governing is prose, and all that. Still, “persistence” is pretty prosaic prose.

But what was also interesting was his list of things he was going to be persistent about. Persistence, incrementalism, moving in the right direction one step at a time -- this, of course, makes sense in many areas of domestic policy. Obama mentioned health care, energy, education and reducing the influence of lobbyists as examples. Persistence is important in some aspects of foreign policy as well, where one works diligently to resolve a long-standing problem or improve a difficult situation. Obama cited the Middle East peace process.

But President Obama also invoked persistence with respect to Iran.

“When it comes to Iran, you know, we did a video sending a message to the Iranian people and the leadership of the Islamic Republic of Iran. And some people said, ‘Well, they did not immediately say they were eliminating nuclear weapons and stop funding terrorism.’ Well, we didn’t expect that. We expect that we’re going to make steady progress on this front.”

Is stopping Iran from getting nuclear weapons really like improving health care or advancing the Middle East peace process? I would have thought not. The American (and European) position -- and the position of candidate Obama -- has been that this Iranian regime acquiring nuclear weapons is “unacceptable.” If that’s so, then there’s a deadline, so to speak, to all the incremental efforts. And since, by all accounts, that deadline is fast approaching, there would have to be a certain speed to the hoped-for “steady progress.” President Obama seems to evince no sense of urgency about Iran’s nuclear program. Did his relaxed statement about Iran tonight suggest he has quietly decided to accept the previously unacceptable?

By William Kristol |  March 24, 2009; 10:14 PM ET  | Category:  Kristol