Obama foreign policy (Iran and the Middle East): Is it working?

I think one might understand why President Obama is not willing to pin himself in the corner and draw a stark red line against Iran, as Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu wants.  With two war fronts on Iran's nuclear program (the not-so-secret computer attacks and the economic sanctions), the argument can be made, that even if Iran is -- seemingly always -- on the cusp of building a nuclear weapon, you don't want to attack Iran without first exercising all other options.

In recent days, Iran's currency -- the Rial -- has plummeted in value against the US Dollar, by over 40%.  If you go back further, it's a lot worse than that.  In 2011, the Rial was valued at about 10,600 Rials to $1 USD.  Inter-day yesterday, it reached 34,800 Rials to $1 USD.  Iranians are apparently (and ironically) rushing to exchange their Rials for US Dollars (which only further devalues the Rial.)

Between the different sanctions (oil embargo, trade and banking), it seems that the pressure has grown considerably, to the point that Iran's ability to cope with the sanctions could be reaching a plateau.  And in recent weeks, the Obama Administration, the EU and Israel have talked up the possibility of more sanctions.

To bolster this point, last week a leaked memo from the Israeli Foreign Ministry pointed out that the sanctions were devastating Iran's leadership and economy far more than what was initially expected.  That's the same day that Netanyahu spoke at the UN about the limited time available before Iran is able to build a nuclear weapon, saying that a red line must be drawn.

That Netanyahu would use a major speech to push the Obama Administration to set a red line, despite evidence that the sanctions have been more effective than expected, seems to further demonstrate how Netanyahu's thinking has been clouded by his friendship with Mitt Romney.

Surely this has to be a clear sign that, when Mitt Romney says that the Obama Administration is "leading from behind", Romney is really just grabbing at straws.  Even the National Journal noted today that Mitt Romney's attacks have been neutered by the revelation that the Iranian sanctions have actually worked.

"Until the debacle surrounding Stevens's death, Obama had done an effective job of neutralizing what has traditionally been a GOP strong point: national security. With the latest news out of Iran, he may have gotten his mojo back again."

So the answer is: Yes, President Obama's foreign policy on Iran is working.

Now let's reverse this.  Romney has repeatedly talked about the threat of the Muslim Brotherhood's Morsi (the popularly elected Egyptian President) and how President Obama has failed on Egypt.  What if Mitt Romney had been president during the Arab Spring?

During the Arab Spring, would a President Romney have (pragmatically) supported Hosni Mubarak and his perpetual crackdown on the Muslim Brotherhood; or would he have allowed Democracy to spread to Egypt at the risk of the Muslim Brotherhood gaining power; or would he use our foreign money contributions to Egypt as a means to force the Muslim Brotherhood to stay out of the elections?

Without belaboring the analysis, in the first instance, it would show that he values Pragmatism over Democracy; in the second instance, it would show that he has been hypocritical in attacking President Obama for allowing the Muslim Brotherhood to participate in a Democracy; in the third instance it would show that he really doesn't support Democracy.

It's a classic Mitt-22.