This article is from the source 'nytimes' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/25/us/politics/obama-iran-syria.html

The article has changed 13 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 5 Version 6
Obama Says He Will Pursue Diplomacy on Iran and Syria Obama, in Wide-Ranging U.N. Speech, Defends American Power but Acknowledges Its Limits
(about 4 hours later)
UNITED NATIONS — President Obama said on Tuesday that Iran’s diplomatic overture in recent weeks could provide a foundation for an agreement on its nuclear program, but he warned that “conciliatory words will have to be matched by actions that are transparent and verifiable.” UNITED NATIONS — President Obama on Tuesday laid down a new blueprint for America’s role in the strife-torn Middle East, declaring that the United States would use all its levers of power, including military force, to defend its interests, even as it accepted a “hard-earned humility” about its ability to influence events in Syria, Iran, and other countries.
Speaking to the United Nations General Assembly, Mr. Obama sounded a cautiously optimistic tone about the prospects for diplomacy, saying he had instructed Secretary of State John Kerry to pursue face-to-face negotiations with Iran on its nuclear program. In a wide-ranging speech to the General Assembly that played off rapid-fire diplomatic developments but also sought to define the limits of American engagement after 12 years of war, Mr. Obama insisted that the United States still played an “exceptional” role. Turning inward, he said, “would create a vacuum of leadership that no other nation is ready to fill.”
“The roadblocks may prove to be too great,” he said, “but I firmly believe the diplomatic path must be tested.” Mr. Obama embraced a diplomatic opening to Iran, saying he instructed Secretary of State John Kerry to begin high-level negotiations on its nuclear program. He called on the Security Council to pass a resolution that would impose consequences on Syria if it failed to turn over its chemicals weapons. And he delivered a pitch for peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians, restarted at the prodding of Mr. Kerry.
Mr. Obama also called on the Security Council to pass a “strong” resolution that would impose consequences on Syria if it failed to turn over its chemical weapons. The American threat of military action against Syria, Mr. Obama said, set in motion diplomatic efforts with Russia to take over and eventually destroy Mr. Assad’s weapons. Hours later, Iran’s newly-elected president, Hassan Rouhani, echoed the call for diplomacy, telling the General Assembly that “we can arrive at a framework to manage our differences.” But Mr. Rouhani said Iran would insist on its right to enrich uranium and he warned Mr. Obama to resist pressure from “warmongering pressure groups.”
“Without a credible military threat, the Security Council had demonstrated no inclination to act at all,” the president said. “If we cannot agree even on this, then it will show that the U.N. is incapable of enforcing the most basic of international laws. On the other hand, if we succeed, it will send a powerful message that the use of chemical weapons has no place in the 21st century, and that this body means what it says.” Mr. Rouhani, who had mounted an aggressive charm offensive in the weeks before he arrived in New York, also declined a chance to shake hands with Mr. Obama — avoiding a much-anticipated encounter that would have eased more than three decades of estrangement between the leaders of Iran and the United States.
A much-anticipated handshake between Mr. Obama and President Hassan Rouhani of Iran on the sidelines of the meeting did not materialize, a senior American official said, apparently because the Iranians concluded it would be too complicated politically for their president. At the end of a day of drama and disappointment at the United Nations, the spotlight swung back to the grinding work of diplomacy that awaits both Iran and the United States. In their speeches, both leaders balanced their ideals as statesman with their imperatives as politicians.
Mr. Obama also announced that the United States would pledge an additional $340 million in humanitarian aid to help refugees from the civil war in Syria. And while he praised the diplomatic initiative by Russia on chemical weapons, he also said that the continuing support of Russia and Iran for the government of President Bashar al-Assad risked leading to further extremism in Syria. In the morning, it was a somewhat diminished American president who faced a skeptical audience of world leaders here. After first threatening, then backing off a military strike against Syria, and now suddenly confronting a diplomatic opening with Iran, Mr. Obama’s foreign policy has at times seemed improvisational and, in view of many critics, irresolute.
Mr. Obama’s speech came at a time of swift, almost disorienting diplomatic developments, with the White House first threatening a military strike against Syria, then backing off, and then suddenly encountering a diplomatic opening with Iran on its nuclear program. Mr. Obama tried to take account of all of it, in a wide-ranging speech that echoed some of the themes of his address last spring on the changing American role in the world. The president acknowledged as much, saying his zigzag course on military strikes unnerved some allies and vindicated the cynicism of many in the Middle East about American motives in the region. But he said the bigger threat would be if America withdrew altogether.
“For the United States,” he said, “these new circumstances have also meant shifting away from a perpetual war-footing.” “The danger for the world is that the United States, after a decade of war, rightly concerned about issues back home, and aware of the hostility that our engagement in the region has engendered throughout the Muslim world, may disengage,” Mr. Obama said.
Part of the American recalculation, he said, involves restricting the use of drones in counterterrorism operations; transferring prisoners from the military prison at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba and ultimately shutting it down; and rethinking broad surveillance activities. “I believe that would be a mistake,” he declared.
“Just as we reviewed how we deploy our extraordinary military capabilities in a way that lives up to our ideals,” the president said, “we have begun to review the way that we gather intelligence, so as to properly balance the legitimate security concerns of our citizens and allies with the privacy concerns that all people share.” Despite a war-weary American public and its declining reliance on Middle Eastern oil, Mr. Obama insisted the United States would continue to be an active player in the region, defending its interests; advocating for democratic principles; working to resolve sectarian conflicts in countries like Iraq, Syria, and Bahrain; and if necessary, intervening militarily with other countries to head off humanitarian tragedies.
Mr. Obama emphasized three areas: the civil war and the use of chemical weapons in Syria, the prospect of diplomacy with Iran, and the Middle East peace process between Israelis and Palestinians, which has recently restarted under the prodding of Mr. Kerry. “We will be engaged in the region for the long haul,” Mr. Obama said in the 40-minute address. “For the hard work of forging freedom and democracy is the task of a generation.”
For a president who has sought to refocus American foreign policy on Asia, it was a remarkable concession that the Middle East is likely to remain a major preoccupation for the rest of his term, if not that of his successor. Mr. Obama mentioned Asia only once, as an exemplar of the kind of economic development that has eluded the Arab world.
Much of Mr. Obama’s focus was on the sudden, even disorienting flurry of diplomatic developments that began after he pulled back from the brink of ordering a strike on Syria last month after a chemical weapons attack. He said Iran’s overtures could provide a foundation for an agreement on its nuclear program, but he warned that “conciliatory words will have to be matched by actions that are transparent and verifiable.”
Referring to the moderate statements of Mr. Rouhani, and an exchange of letters with him, Mr. Obama sounded a cautiously optimistic tone about diplomacy. “The roadblocks may prove to be too great,” he added, “but I firmly believe the diplomatic path must be tested.”
Similarly, Mr. Obama pushed negotiations at the Security Council on a Russian plan to transfer and eventually destroy President Bashar al-Assad’s chemical weapons. But he faulted Russia and Iran for their support of Mr. Assad, saying it would further radicalize the country. And he claimed it was only the American threat of military action against Syria that had set in motion these diplomatic efforts.
“Without a credible military threat, the Security Council had demonstrated no inclination to act at all,” the president said. “If we cannot agree even on this, then it will show that the U.N. is incapable of enforcing the most basic of international laws.”
The president spoke immediately after Brazil’s president, Dilma Rousseff, who delivered a blistering denunciation of the United States over reports that the National Security Agency monitored e-mails, text messages and other electronic communications between Ms. Rousseff and her aides. Last week, Ms. Rousseff canceled a state visit to Washington to signal her displeasure with the N.S.A. surveillance.
Mr. Obama took note of these grievances, saying that the United States was rethinking its surveillance activities, as part of a broader recalculation that included restricting the use of drones, transferring prisoners out of the military prison at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, and ultimately shutting it down. His words echoed a speech he delivered last spring on the need for the United States to get off “perpetual war footing.”
“Just as we reviewed how we deploy our extraordinary military capabilities in a way that lives up to our ideals,” the president said, “we have begun to review the way that we gather intelligence, so as to properly balance the legitimate security concerns of our citizens and allies, with the privacy concerns that all people share.”
Mr. Obama reaffirmed his support for another perennial American project: bringing together Israelis and Palestinians. With talks starting again between Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel and the Palestinian Authority leader, Mahmoud Abbas, Mr. Obama appealed for support.
“The time is now ripe for the entire international community to get behind the pursuit of peace,” he said. “Already, Israeli and Palestinian leaders have demonstrated a willingness to take significant political risks.”“The time is now ripe for the entire international community to get behind the pursuit of peace,” he said. “Already, Israeli and Palestinian leaders have demonstrated a willingness to take significant political risks.”
But much of Mr. Obama’s focus was on when the United States would use its power in the Middle East. Acknowledging that his reversal on Syria had prompted uneasiness in the region about American resolve, Mr. Obama insisted that the United States would still act to protect its interests and, in some cases, to avert humanitarian tragedies. Mr. Obama also sent a warning to Egypt’s military-backed government that it would lose American support if it continued to crack down on dissident elements. His message was viewed positively by the Egyptian state media, despite the criticism, because he credited the government with taking steps towards democracy.
“The United States of America is prepared to use all elements of our power, including military force, to secure these core interests in the region,” he said. “We will confront external aggression against our allies and partners, as we did in the Gulf War.”
Speaking immediately after Mr. Obama, Turkey’s president, Abdullah Gul, welcomed the Russian-American agreement to rid Syria of its chemical weapons stockpile. But Mr. Gul, whose government has emerged as one of Mr. Assad’s biggest opponents, also said that the Syrian conflict had become a “real threat to regional peace and security” and that the United Nations had a responsibility to help resolve the crisis, which has left more than 100,000 people dead and millions displaced.
On Iran, Mr. Obama mixed hope with wariness, saying that three decades of estrangement would not be repaired quickly.
“I don’t believe this difficult history can be overcome overnight – the suspicion runs too deep,” Mr. Obama declared. “But I do believe that if we can resolve the issue of Iran’s nuclear program, that can serve as a major step down a long road toward a different relationship – one based on mutual interests and mutual respect.”
A senior State Department official, commenting on Mr. Obama’s remarks, emphasized the difficulties still looming over any negotiation with Iran. “The president has asked Secretary Kerry to help play a leading role as we determine the path forward,” the official said. “But actions speak louder than words, and the steps taken by the Iranians in the weeks ahead to show they are serious will determine how successful these efforts will be and how long they will take.”
President François Hollande of France, a strong American ally in dealing with both Syria and Iran, echoed some of Mr. Obama’s assertions in his General Assembly speech, saying he expected Iran to provide “concrete gestures which will show that this country renounces its military nuclear program even if it clearly has the right to pursue its civilian program.” Mr. Hollande was expected to meet with Iran’s new president later in the day.
The first speech of the day was from Brazil’s president, Dilma Rousseff, who delivered a denunciation of the United States over reports that the National Security Agency monitored e-mails, text messages and other electronic communications between Ms. Rousseff and her aides. Last week, Ms. Rousseff canceled a state visit to Washington to signal her displeasure with the N.S.A. surveillance.
Mr. Obama, who spoke after Ms. Rousseff, also sent a warning to Egypt’s military-backed government that it would lose American support if it continued to crack down on dissident elements there.
“We will continue support in areas like education that benefit the Egyptian people,” he said. “But we have not proceeded with the delivery of certain military systems, and our support will depend upon Egypt’s progress in pursuing a democratic path.”“We will continue support in areas like education that benefit the Egyptian people,” he said. “But we have not proceeded with the delivery of certain military systems, and our support will depend upon Egypt’s progress in pursuing a democratic path.”
In Egypt, the state media saw only good news in Mr. Obama’s speech despite his criticism. On the Web site of Al Ahram, the flagship state newspaper, a headline declared: “Obama: the current Egyptian government took steps towards democracy.” The article reported that Mr. Obama had credited the government with "consistent steps towards democracy" and continued military aid "depends on the route Egypt takes on the democratic path". For all his caveats, Mr. Obama left no doubt the United States would use its power in the Middle East. Acknowledging that his reversal on Syria had prompted uneasiness in the region, he insisted that the United States would still act to protect its interests.
As Mr. Obama spoke, the United Nations was crackling with speculation that he might shake hands with President Rouhani of Iran, who was scheduled to address the General Assembly later on Tuesday. But there was no sign of President Rouhani at a lunch for all the visiting heads of state given by Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, where a possible encounter and handshaking opportunity would have presented itself. The president also issued a fervent call for countries to intervene, militarily if necessary, to avert humanitarian tragedies — as the United States did in Libya, but conspicuously not in Syria.
Mr. Rouhani also was not in the General Assembly hall for Mr. Obama’s speech, though Iran’s foreign minister, Mohammad Javad Zarif, was. “Sovereignty cannot be a shield for tyrants to commit wanton murder, or an excuse for the international community to turn a blind eye to slaughter,” Mr. Obama said.
The last time an American president met an Iranian leader was on Dec. 31, 1977, when Jimmy Carter and his wife, Rosalynn, spent New Year’s Eve as a guest of the shah of Iran. As he made a toast to the shah at a state dinner, Mr. Carter said the idea for the trip had come from Mrs. Carter, when he asked her with whom she would like to celebrate the holiday.
“We have no other nation on Earth who is closer to us in planning for our mutual military security,” Mr. Carter said. “We have no other nation with whom we have closer consultation on regional problems that concern us both. And there is no leader with whom I have a deeper sense of personal gratitude and personal friendship.”
Less than two years later, an angry crowd overran the American embassy in Tehran, holding 52 Americans hostage for 444 days and plunging relations between Iran and the United States into a deep freeze from which they have not yet emerged.

Reporting was contributed by Somini Sengupta from the United Nations, Michael R. Gordon and Rick Gladstone from New York, and David D. Kirkpatrick from Cairo.

Reporting was contributed by Somini Sengupta from the United Nations, Michael R. Gordon and Rick Gladstone from New York, and David D. Kirkpatrick from Cairo.

  
This article has been revised to reflect the following correction:This article has been revised to reflect the following correction:
Correction: September 24, 2013Correction: September 24, 2013

An earlier version of this article misspelled the name of former President Jimmy Carter’s wife. She is Rosalynn Carter, not Rosalyn.

An earlier version of this article misspelled the name of former President Jimmy Carter’s wife. She is Rosalynn Carter, not Rosalyn.