![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2013\/01\/vali.jpg\")
The problem is that none of this is true. Beyond a few empty words about diplomacy at the beginning of his administration, President Obama has chosen to pressure, bully, and threaten Iran virtually without deviation. And\u00a0that<\/em> is what has pushed Iran to continue to its defensive postures and to continue to enrich uranium (albeit in what remains\u00a0a civilian nuclear program<\/a>).<\/p>\nIn his New York Times<\/em> column today, Richard Cohen reviews<\/a> Vali Nasr’s book \u00a0The Dispensable\u00a0Nation<\/em><\/a>. Nasr criticizes Obama’s foreign policy with an inside perspective (he was “senior adviser to Richard Holbrooke, Obama\u2019s special representative to Afghanistan and Pakistan until his death in December 2010”). His conclusions are revealing:<\/p>\n In Iran, Nasr demonstrates Obama\u2019s deep ambivalence about any deal on the nuclear program. \u201cPressure,\u201d he writes, \u201chas become an end in itself.\u201d The dual track of ever tougher sanctions combined with diplomatic outreach was \u201cnot even dual. It relied on one track, and that was pressure.\u201d The reality was that, \u201cEngagement was a cover for a coercive campaign of sabotage, economic pressure and cyberwarfare.\u201d<\/p>\n Opportunities to begin real step-by-step diplomacy involving Iran giving up its low-enriched uranium in exchange for progressive sanctions relief were lost. What was Tehran to think when \u201cthe sum total of three major rounds of diplomatic negotiation was that America would give some bits and bobs of old aircraft in exchange for Iran\u2019s nuclear program\u201d?<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n