Use "Smart Power" to Help Cubans

http://www.brookings.edu/opinions/2009/0224_cuba_huddleston.aspx

Contrary to popular myth and public misunderstanding, if President Barack Obama wishes to change the U.S. policy toward Cuba, he has ample authority to do so. If he takes charge of Cuba policy, he can turn the embargo into an effective instrument of ''smart power'' to achieve the United States' policy objectives in Cuba.
Obama's leadership is needed to change the dynamic between the United States and Cuba. The status quo is no longer an option. Not only has it failed to achieve its goals; it has tarnished our image in the hemisphere and throughout the world. Waiting for Congress to act will only further delay change. Fortunately, even in the case of Cuba, Congress has not materially impaired this country's venerable constitutional arrangement under which the president has the ultimate authority to conduct our foreign affairs.
Executive authority
Again and again we hear that the embargo can't be changed because the Helms-Burton law codified it. Nothing could be further from the truth. Whether you agree or disagree with the current commercial embargo, the president can effectively dismantle it by using his executive authority. Helms-Burton codified the embargo regulation, but those regulations provide that ``all transactions are prohibited except as specifically authorized by the Secretary of the Treasury by means of regulations, rulings, instructions, and licenses.''
This means that the president's power remains unfettered. He can instruct the secretary to extend, revise or modify embargo regulations. The proof of this statement is that President Bill Clinton issued new regulations for expanded travel and remittances in order to help individuals and grow civil society.
Obama will have to modify Office of Foreign Assets Control regulations to fulfill his campaign promise to increase Cuban-American travel and remittances. If he wants to reproduce the more open conditions in Cuba that led to the ''Cuban Spring'' of 2002 and Oswaldo Payá's Varela Project, he could reinstate people-to-people and educational travel. By a simple rule change, he could also speed the entry of life-saving medicines from Cuba, rather than subjecting them to delays from cumbersome OFAC licensing procedures.
Since 1992, U.S. law -- the Cuban Democracy Act -- has sought to expand access to ideas, knowledge and information by licensing telecommunications goods and services. Yet, in practice, regulations are so strictly interpreted that the United States in effect is imposing a communications embargo on Cuba. To lift it, the president can authorize a general license for the donation and sale of radios, televisions and computers. In addition, rather than helping Cuban state security keep Yoani Sánchez and others off the Internet, the Obama administration could make Internet technology readily available so that any barriers to communications would be clearly the fault of the Cuban government, and not ours.
Environmental concerns rate high with the Obama administration. So it might open bilateral discussions, exchange information and license the provision of scientific equipment to improve the health of the ocean and success of commercial fisheries.
The United States Geological Survey estimates that the North Cuba Basin holds 5.5 billion barrels of oil and 9.8 trillion cubic feet of natural gas reserves. If the president wishes, he can instruct the secretary of the treasury to license U.S. companies to explore, exploit and transport these resources that we and the region so badly need.
Failed policy
After a half-century of failed policy, there is enormous support in the Cuban-American community for initiatives that will improve the well being and independence of the Cuban people. What they didn't know -- but know now -- is that there is no reason they can't reach out to the Cuban people and still retain the embargo as symbol of their concern about the Cuban government's failure to live up to international norms of human rights, democracy and transparency

Obama & America's Image

NPR had an interesting article up earlier this week about how Obama has jump-started the American image abroad.

I was taking pictures alongside other tourists at the Temple of Karnak in Egypt earlier this month when a member of the national police marched across 50 yards of sun-blasted terrace to talk to me. He was wearing the black uniform and beret of the security forces, and he had an assault rifle strapped acoss his chest.

"Where from?" he asked me.

"America," I said.

"Obama!" he shouted, suddenly beaming and nodding.

It might have been startling, except that something similar happened every day of the dozen I was there.

It's a commonplace that President Obama has altered the perception of the United States around the world. But meeting people in an Arabic-speaking country brings that statement to life in compelling ways.

Shopkeepers and cabbies, students and business people, young and old are eager to signal their interest and approval. America, an old and well-known actor on the world stage, has undergone a character transformation overnight.

The author cautions however that this may be more of an "Obama Moment" than a lasting changing in perceptions.

It is impossible to escape the sense of something opening all around you. If it is not a new era, it is at least a new window of possibilities. Perhaps the "clash of civilizations" paradigm that dominated after Sept. 11 will not prevail indefinitely.

Yet, alongside that glimpse of hope there are shadows of caveat and doubt. For one thing, the impressions Americans receive in foreign countries are often formed inside a tourism bubble, where people have a strong interest in courting our friendship.

Beyond that, the sheer intensity of the Obama phenomenon suggests impermanence. Having dazzled his way from London to Istanbul to Baghdad, the American president is a starburst over the global consciousness -- much as he was on the U.S. political scene late in 2007. He maintained altitude well enough in 2008 to be elected, and he remains popular after three months in office. But staying aloft this well as a world figure will be more difficult.

The international version of the Obama Moment is unlikely to survive the first international crisis in which the Obama administration must defend the U.S. interest. And sooner or later, that crisis and choice will come, forced by the complexities of world problems and the simplicities of domestic politics.

For now, the Obama administration is doing all it can to postpone the day of reckoning. The White House maintains that the national interest can be redefined to harmonize with the global good. It's an inspiring vision, but it contends with powerful impulses deep in our political nature.

Again we see the issue of the say-do gap. There is a distrust of what the difference between what Obama says now and what the US would do then if a crisis did occur. America's credibility reserve with the rest of the world has been spent and seems that it will take some time and actions to build it back up.

Obama on Venezuela and Cuba

President Obama is meeting with leaders from both North and South American countries at the Summit of the Americas this weekend, and one of the issues surrounding the summit is whether or not Obama will interact with Venezuelan President, Hugo Chavez. Obama has publicly stated that he will speak with Chavez should he initiate conversation, and Chavez wants to restore US-Venezuelan relations to the level that they were at under President Clinton (http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/04/17/obama.chavez/index.html).

Similarly, Obama has cracked open our doors to Cuba since he began his presidency, allowing for more freedom of movement of both capital and of people between the US and Cuba. He lifted restrictions on Cuban-Americans that prevented them from sending money to relatives in Cuba, and he also removed restrictions on visiting their families back in Cuba. (http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/04/17/us.cuba/index.html?iref=newssearch).

Are these steps in the right direction for Obama if he wants to make America look like a country that is much more willing to hash out its differences with other countries rather than shut its doors to them as its policy had for the past 8 years?

PD Pooch?

White House photo by Pete Souza, from the official White House Blog

Yes, the Obama family finally got a puppy. The much-anticipated dog Bo (or BoBama as John Stewart says) is a Portuguese Water Dog. The first family's choice was apparently a pleasant surprise for Portugal. "Obama's pick for first dog thrills Portugal," according to the headline of this AFP story. Will the increased interest in the breed create a better climate for Portuguese PD? How will the government of Portugal respond? How will the "first dog" fit into America's PD? So many questions for BoBama...

Obama's global debut seen as mostly successful

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090407/pl_nm/us_obama_europe


ISTANBUL (Reuters) – President Barack Obama's eight-day overseas trip yielded success on a top goal: signaling to the world a new U.S. approach that breaks with the "go it alone" style of President George W. Bush.

But Obama had more limited gains during his trip to Europe and the Middle East on concrete issues like prodding allies to do more to stimulate the global economy and help on Afghanistan.

Obama headed back to Washington Tuesday after an unscheduled stop in Baghdad, where he pushed Iraq's feuding factions to compromise and urged Iraqis to take responsibility for their country so U.S. troops could leave.

In cities from London to Prague to Istanbul, Obama got a rapturous welcome to his promise to listen and consult more, as he took his first turn on the world stage as president.

It made a high contrast with Bush, who was criticized for ignoring the advice of allies in his 2003 decision to invade Iraq and for failing to join the Kyoto climate treaty, an agreement Obama says he would have embraced.

Obama and his wife, Michelle, drew adoring crowds at campaign-style events in Europe where fans waved posters of him and media compared the couple's youth and glamour to the late U.S. president John F. Kennedy and his wife Jacqueline.

In Turkey, he won plaudits for his declaration that "the United States is not, and will never be, at war with Islam."

But at the summit of the Group of 20 economic powers in London, European countries balked at his suggestion that they spend more to try to fight the global recession.

EXPECTATIONS

Europeans were similarly reluctant to heed a call to shoulder more of the burden in Afghanistan. They offered help with training of Afghan forces and humanitarian efforts but showed no new willingness to provide combat troops.

"On balance the trip has gone extremely well. The Obama administration deliberately lowered its expectations on the specific issues," said Charles Kupchan, a scholar at the Council on Foreign Relations.

Although Obama had made clear that a call for fiscal stimulus was part of his message to the G20, aides stressed on the eve of the meeting that they did not necessarily expect countries to spend more right away.

Ahead of the NATO gathering, the White House said Obama's chief aim was to explain the revamped policy he had unveiled to address the worsening violence in Afghanistan. They said the effort to seek more resources would be an "ongoing process."

"He was able to get some things that he wanted and then there were other things that allies and others pushed back on," said Gary Schmitt of the American Enterprise Institute think tank. "Ironically, I think they got about as much as they could get from our NATO allies on Afghanistan.

"I think people were kidding themselves if they thought there were going to be significant amounts of more capable troops heading to Afghanistan," Schmitt said.

"WHY DIDN'T THE WATERS PART?"

Top Obama adviser David Axelrod mocked the notion that Obama achieved little on substance, telling reporters at a news briefing Tuesday that they seemed to be asking: "Why didn't the waters part, the sun shine, and all ills of the world disappear because President Obama came to Europe this week?"

The 47-year-old Obama was criticized as lacking seasoning in foreign affairs during last year's election campaign.

But the U.S. president, known as "no drama Obama" for his even temperament, did impress some leaders at both the G20 and NATO summits with his ability to broker disputes.

When China and France became deadlocked over the issue of how to regulate offshore tax havens, aides said Obama lowered the temperature of the meeting, paving the way for a deal.

Financial markets cheered the show of unity from the world leaders and French President Nicolas Sarkozy went out of his way to thank Obama, saying he "helped find a consensus."

Obama also intervened when Turkey objected to a push by several European countries to name the Danish Prime Minister as the next leader of NATO. Turkey ended up dropping its objections, allowing Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen to be named as the new secretary-general.

On the sidelines of the G20, Obama emphasized what he describes as his "pragmatic" approach to foreign policy when he held sitdowns with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev and Chinese President Hu Jintao.

While Bush talked about getting a sense of Vladimir Putin's soul when he first met the Russian president in 2001, Obama was more business-like. But aides said the meetings with both the Chinese and Russian leaders had gone well.

Still, neither country gave Obama immediate support when he sought a strong response from the United Nations Security Council to North Korea's firing of a long-range missile.

(Additional reporting by Ross Colvin in Washington and Crispian Balmer in Paris; editing by Andrew Roche)

A New Tone Towards Europe and the World

As President Obama is reaching the midway point of his European tour, it has become clear that Mr. Obama and his administration are using a completely different tone when speaking to Europeans and the rest of the world.  I have been watching international news coverage of President Obama’s speeches and press conferences, and I watched him hold a town hall meeting in Strasbourg, France this morning.  From a New York Times article, titled, “Obama Sets a New Tone for Alliance With Europe”:

“On the eve of a NATO summit meeting here [in Strasbourg], President Obama offered a compact for a renewed partnership with Europe, saying ‘America is changing but it cannot be America alone that changes’…Hundreds of people, many of them students from France and Germany, applauded him loudly as he spoke in a sports hall, particularly when he evoked efforts to reduce nuclear stockpiles and close the Guantánamo Bay detention center. He also drew enthusiastic cheers when he insisted: ‘The United States does not, and will not, torture.’”

I have noticed that in all his speeches over the last several days, President Obama has emphasized that the U.S. wants to listen and have a respectful dialogue with Europe and the rest of the world.  Mr. Obama has even admitted U.S. mistakes concerning the global economic crisis and has implied that the U.S. will no longer dictate terms to Europe.  He spoke candidly at the town hall meeting about U.S.-Europe relations in the past: 

“[President Obama] urged a shift in attitudes. In America, he said, there had been ‘a failure to appreciate Europe’s leading role in the world,’ and there had been ‘times when America has shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive,’ Mr. Obama said…But in Europe, he went on, there had also been anti-American attitudes. ‘On both sides of the Atlantic, these attitudes have become all too common,’ President Obama said. ‘They are not wise.’”

The language and tone being used by President Obama would have been unthinkable during the Bush administration.  Pledging to listen and engage in dialogue are hallmarks of effective public diplomacy, as is reaching out to foreign publics, such as today’s town hall meeting in Strasbourg.  This could be a boon to U.S. public diplomacy and lead towards less anti-Americanism in Europe.

What remains to be seen is if President Obama’s tone is followed by the actual implementation of policies and if Europe is willing to reciprocate regarding a variety of issues facing the U.S. and Europe.

Obama Writing Op-Eds

President Obama has decided that writing an op-ed for newspapers around the world is an effective way to convey his message and vision for the global economy in the time leading up to the G20 economic meeting. The op-ed was published in newspapers in Europe, Asia, the Arab world, South America, and South Africa.

Unfortunately, I was not able to find the op-ed or reactions to it in the online editions of foreign newspapers, such as Al Watan and the International Herald Tribune. Obama's statements seemed to be very generalized and included much of what he has been saying all along, with renewed commitments to promote economic growth throughout the world and improving the IMF.

The wording he used in addressing certain issues is what really stood out to me though. Although he talks about issues that face the whole world, he says things like, "The suffering caused by this crisis will be enlarged, and our own recovery will be delayed because markets for our goods will shrink further and more American jobs will be lost." To me, it seems as though simple things like this may be interpreted by foreigners as if Obama is looking at the economic crisis as something that is only affecting Americans, despite his insistence that this is a global crisis. I think that if he was intending this op-ed to simply be published in American papers, a statement such as this would be well received, but in a global context, it may cause a bit of a stir that he's addressing American job losses as opposed to world-wide job losses.

How do you interpret this statement and do you think it's important that Obama specifically addressed American job losses instead of referring to job losses around the world?

For the full op-ed go to:
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2009/03/24/obama_reaches_out_to_the_world.html?wprss=44

Nov 22, 2008 ... [Interview] Can Obama orchestrate the return of American soft power?

The Correspondent has raised lots of questions which i believe many of us are interested in.

Nye sat down with The Hankyroeh’s Washington correspondent Ryu Jae-hoon after U.S. presidential election for an interview on his thoughts about the importance of “soft power,” a term he is credited for having coined in the late 1980s, and his expectations for Barack Obama’s presidency.

Ryu: I want to begin with Barack Obama’s foreign policy and vision for foreign policy. As I understand, you strongly supported Obama. Originally, you supported Hillary Clinton, but you later switched to supporting Obama. What made you change your mind? Which leadership characteristics and merits of leadership did you find in Obama?

Nye: Well, I originally supported Hillary Clinton during the primary because I knew her personally and I was impressed by her experience, and I worried that Obama did not have as much experience. But the way Obama ran his campaign impressed me and made me think that he would make a good president.

The election of Obama contributed to the elevation of the profile of the United States abroad. What do you think will be different about the Obama administration’s foreign policy?

A: Well, Obama, as the first African-American president, shows that the United States has the ability to overcome some of its deepest problems, like racism. And it’s a society that can recreate itself, the idea the son of an immigrant father could become president is rare in most societies. So I think that by itself will do a great deal to restore American soft power, which was damaged during the Bush administration.

How you met him? I heard you advised Obama

A: Well I’ve been a peripheral adviser. I haven’t been in the center circle of advisers, because I had started out as an adviser to Hillary Clinton. I was invited to be adviser to Obama but I couldn’t because I already told Hillary Clinton I would support her. But after the primaries were over, I did things to help Obama.

What advice did you give to Obama about the use of soft power? How much does he understand about soft power?

A: Well, I think he understands soft power very well without me. I mean, if you look at his behavior, the way he ran his campaign, he was fully knowledgeable about soft power. So I didn’t suggest that he use soft power, he did it himself.

You criticized the decline of soft power during the eight years of the Bush administration. What do you think was the Bush administration’s biggest mistake?

A: The biggest mistake was the Iraq War, which I think was a huge strategic blunder. But I think there was a bigger problem, which is even before the Iraq War, turning to unilateralism and not spending enough time working with our allies and our multilateral institutions.

President-elect Obama faces one of the most difficult foreign policy landscapes in history. For example, the financial crisis, the Iraq and Afghan Wars, the war against terrorism, even the nuclear issues in Iran and North Korea. Some say the financial crisis was the start of the decline of American power. What do you think about that?

A: I think that’s not true. If the financial crisis was the start of the decline of American power, we would see the dollar declining, but the dollar has become stronger. I think one has to distinguish between the series of mistakes, which have undercut the particular Wall Street model, and the question of whether the American economy itself remains competitive and productive. I think the financial crisis is driving us into a recession, but after the recession the American economy will remain stronger than ever.

The financial crisis remains a priority for the Obama administration.

A: Well, it will certainly make it more difficult to have funds for some of the things that he wants, but it is worth noticing that, in the short run, the fact that you have a recession is going to mean you’re going to want deficit spending, which will relieve some of the pressure on the fiscal side. Because if there had been no recession, then the money spent on the financial crisis would mean there’s not much money for anything else. Because of the recession, you want deficit spending and that will free up some money.

What do you think the effects of the financial crisis on foreign policy will be?

A: Well, the effects will be complex. In some areas that require extra expenditure, that will become difficult. With the recession there is some danger that as unemployment increases, it will give rise to protectionism. On the other hand, one of the effects of the recession is the decline in the price of oil. The decline in the price of oil means less power for Russia, Iran and Venezuela. So there are mixed effects on foreign policy. Take, for example, Iran. When oil is $150 a barrel, sanctions against Iran do not hurt very much. When oil is $70, sanctions might begin to have more effect.

When we think about the foreign policy of a new administration, the person appointed as secretary of state is key to understanding the foreign policy of that administration. I’d like to know which of the candidates for Obama’s secretary of state has the best understanding of soft power and hard power.

A: Well, nobody knows who the appointee will be at this stage except Obama, but I hope he will make a major Republican appointment for bipartisan purposes. Among the people who’ve been talked about are people like Senator (Chuck) Hagel, or perhaps Secretary (Robert) Gates might stay in his position. I think both of these men have a clear understanding of soft power. For example, Secretary Gates said that the United States needs to spend more time and energy on soft power.

Q: Of the challenges Obama faces, one is the rise of China and the arrogance of Putin’s Russia. How do you expect Obama will manage relations with China and Russia?

A: Well, he’s spoken about the desire to have good relations with China and accepting the importance of Asia. And of course he has direct experience with Asia having lived in Indonesia as a child. So I think he will have interest in Asia and an interest in good relations with not just China, but also Japan and Korea as well. I think the major danger would come if the Chinese currency remains undervalued, and it leads to pressure on the jobs in the United States. That could put pressure on Obama in that direction. But on issues like Taiwan and the six-party talks on North Korea, I think Obama’s policies will look similar to those of the Bush administration.

Q: How about the relationship with Japan? The Bush administration considered the U.S.-Japan alliance the pillar of Asian policy.

A: Well, that’s been true before, that was true even during the Clinton administration. And after the Clinton-Hashimoto Declaration of ’96, the view was that good U.S.-Japan relations were the bedrock for post-Cold War East Asia, and I’ve often said that you have a triangle of relations in East Asia -- between the U.S., China and Japan -- and it’s important to have good relations in each leg of this triangle, but between the U.S. and Japan there is this formal alliance that doesn’t exist with China.

Q: What do you expect for the future of missile defense and the Proliferation Security Initiative, both of which the Bush administration has emphasized during the last eight years?

A: I think those will probably continue, I don’t think there will be a big change in that dimension. I think, for example, the joint research with Japan on AEGIS and regional ballistic missile defense will continue.

Q: On the issue of missile defense, Russia criticized U.S. intentions.

A: That’s different. That’s the European side, putting interceptors in Poland and radar in the Czech Republic. That was more controversial, but I think in East Asia there will be less controversy about missile defense.

Q: Do you think South Korea has to join MD and the PSI in the future?

A: It’s up to South Korea, if they feel it’s good for them I think they’d be welcomed.

Q: I’d like to ask about the North Korea nuclear issue. It’s likely to be one of the headaches for Obama. The last time you visited South Korea, you recommended that the soft power of South Korea and the hard power of China could be used to resolve the North Korean nuclear issue. Could you explain?

A: I think we need to continue the framework of the six-party talks. Within that framework China has a special role, it can cut off food and fuel supplies to North Korea if it needed to, and that gives it a lot of hard power. South Korea can provide an example of a successful society, which could be attractive to many North Koreans when they become more aware of it. So that’s what I meant when I said within the six-party framework, China has hard power and Korea has soft power.

Q: South Korea is medium-sized country, and it is geographically located between China and Japan. I think we Koreans need to encourage the use of soft power to survive. What do you recommend to Korean leaders and people?

A: Well (South) Korea is an enormous success story both economically and politically. The fact that you’ve been able to become the 12th largest economy in the world, and that you have a vibrant democracy, this is a huge success story which can be attractive to many people not just in East Asia, but around the world. And so getting the story out more is important.

Q: Regarding the nation-state as an actor in international politics, this year seems like a special year. In August the Georgian War laid out profound questions about multinational organizations like NATO, and after the financial crisis nation-states intensified the laws regulating banks. So is the increase in the role of the nation-state a temporary phenomenon?

A: Well, technology is giving more power to non-state actors all the time. For example, communications are now so cheap that non-state actors have capacities that were once reserved for governments or even multinational corporations. But government and state remain the most important actors in international politics. Because non-state actors are being empowered by technology, the stage is becoming more crowded. So the non-state actors will not replace the state actors, but will crowd the stage, and the nation-state will continue to be the most important actor.

Q: Even in the 21st century?

A: Yes.

Q: The world has high expectations for Obama. What kind of leader do you expect him to be?

A: I think he will probably try to act more multilaterally, working with other countries and international organizations. But I think he’s also careful to make sure that expectations don’t rise too high. If you look at his acceptance speech last Tuesday (November 4), he was very careful to dampen some expectations, which is a mark of good leadership.

Q: What foreign policy changes do you expect in the next few months?

A: Well, more multilateralism, more attention to global climate change, I think change in the position on the Geneva Conventions and Guantanamo, I think these changes will be the most obvious.

Please direct questions or comments to [englishhani@hani.co.kr]

The Next Step

In my blog post A new Era of Transatlantic Relations? two weeks ago, I focused on how President Obama’s election raises hope for an improved transatlantic cooperation. However, I concluded, that there are more steps to follow in order to have a continuous impact.

At the security forum in Munich, Germany last week, we saw one next step in this direction. As already mentioned in YuanYuan’s post We will engage. We will listen. We will consult. "--Joe Biden, Vice President Joe Biden not only attended the conference in Munich on behalf of the new U.S. Administration, he also gave a keynote speech, emphasizing the new perspectives of the U.S. public diplomacy, the ways to improve relations between NATO and Russia, nuclear proliferation, and the nuclear programs of Iran and North Korea.

I think it was crucial for Biden to attend the Munich conference for three core reasons: First, Biden’s appearance at the conference is a visible effort by the U.S. administration to show engagement and the will to change transatlantic relations. Second, Biden was able to address the new U.S. foreign policy direction in his speech, thereby signaling that the lack of cooperation, which has been vividly criticized by Europeans in the last years, will have an end.

And third, the fact that key politicians with a high interest in learning about the new directions of U.S. foreign policy were among the 300 guests of the conference provided an opportunity for a dialogue and therefore also underscores the importance of Biden’s appearance and speech. German Chancellor Angela Merkel, French President Nicolas Sarkozy, Russian Deputy Prime Minister Sergei Ivanov, and NATO Secretary-General Jaap de Hoop Scheff all came to Munich. Eventually, it is a dialogue and a cooperation that has to be aimed at when it comes to transatlantic relations.

Badminton Diplomacy?

In class last night, we talked about Culls article and the facets of PD. A story in the news this week highlights cultural/exchange diplomacy in an interesting way.

The United States women's Badminton Team was denied visas to enter Iran for an International tournament coming up in March. According to their foreign minister, the visa process was just too "time consuming" thus the team would not receive them in time. See FP Passport for their blog on it, which brings up a sexist angle as well.

The relationship between Iran and the US is increasingly in the spotlight as the world waits to see how our new president will act. According to an NY Times article yesterday,
"While Mr. Obama is expected to soften the Bush administration’s line against talking to Iran, the aides said, he may also seek to toughen sanctions."

While Badminton tournaments may not be on the top of Mr. Obama's list of grievances against Iran, this particular snub of our public diplomacy does show an unwillingness to engage with the US.
If even the most benign form of PD, allowing our teams to compete in their country, is rejected then it seems difficult to forsee how or where the US and Iran will ever diffuse tensions.