Another example of Obama’s weakness on the international stage

This morning, President Obama, President Sarkozy and Prime Minister Brown issued statements on the news that Iran has been secretly building a second nuclear enrichment facility underground. Here is the text of their comments.

His remarks are almost two times as long as Sarkozy and Brown’s. But, what was his message?

I read through the remarks, searching for the strongest language used by each leader.

This is what I took to be President Obama’s strongest articulation:

“Through this dialogue, we are committed to demonstrating that international law is not an empty promise; that obligations must be kept; and that treaties will be enforced.”

President Sarkozy:

“I repeated my conviction that Iran was taking the international community on a dangerous path.

We cannot let the Iranian leaders gain time while the motors are running. If by December there is not an in-depth change by the Iranian leaders, sanctions will have to be taken.”

Prime Minister Brown:

“As President Obama and President Sarkozy have just said, the level of deception by the Iranian government, and the scale of what we believe is the breach of international commitments, will shock and anger the whole international community, and it will harden our resolve.”

Notice a pattern? In the order I’ve posted the comments above (which is the same order they were presented in), the firmness with which each leader reacts to Iran’s duplicitous actions gets progressively stronger — with President Obama’s statement being the most mellow.

With all that’s on the line and the real possibility of Israel attacking Iran preemptively, President Obama needs to get tougher on Iran and bolder in his language, not just because they have explicitly defied the UN, but even more importantly, because they have repeatedly provoked the US on the international stage.

A gratuitous note/personal opinion:
As a lawyer, I can vouch for the fact that law school and the practice of law teach and require you to communicate in an unnatural voice, constantly qualifying the arguments you make. That may work in a brief or in a court room when you’re appealing to a judge and want your argument to come across strongly, but moderately enough to not tick the judge off. President Obama’s background is rooted in this balancing act, but as President, that kind of rhetoric won’t cut it. Especially not in the face of the danger of nuclear weapons landing in the hands of anti-American, anti-Israeli, anti-capitalist and generally, anti-Western fundamentalists.

Tags: Iran, UN