The big news on foreign policy front, over the last few days, has been Obama’s über-secret (oops!) letter to Russian President Medvedev.  The fish?  Iran’s nuclear program.  The bait?  Bush’s proposed European Missile Defense shield.   Here’s Krauthammer’s take (via the Corner) on Fox’s All Stars:

This is smart diplomacy? This is a debacle. The Russians dismissed it contemptuously.

Look, if we could get the Iranian nuclear program stopped with Russian’s helping us in return for selling out the Poles and the Czechs on missile defense, I’m enough of a cynic and a realist to say we would do it the same way that Kissinger agreed to delegitimize and de-recognize Taiwan in return for a large strategic opening with China.

But Kissinger had it done. He had it wired. What happened here is it was leaked. The Russians have dismissed it. We end up being humiliated. We look weak in front of the Iranians, and we have left the Poles and Czechs out to dry in return for nothing.

The Czechs and the Poles went out on a limb, exposed themselves to Russian pressure, and we have shown that Eastern Europe is not as sovereign as it appears if the Russian influence is there, and we will acquiesce in what they consider their own sphere of influence.

This administration has prided itself, flattered itself on deploying smart diplomacy. “Smart diplomacy” is a meaningless idea, but if it has any meaning at all, it is not ever doing something as humiliating, amateurish, and stupid as this.

This is right of course, but Krauthammer doesn’t go into what seems like a pertinent point.  Lets lay aside the advantages of that sort of Missile Shield for the moment: what should we make of this, as a piece of diplomacy?  A few months ago, I wrote two posts criticizing the so-called “nuclear umbrella” over Israel idea.  I basically argued that an Obama nuclear guarantee wouldn’t alter Iran’s calculations one iota in pursuing, or even using, the bomb and that this was particularly true because of who Obama was.  We have a similar situation here.  Let me illustrate my point by two stories/scenarios.  Let’s imagine that you and I were trapped on two separate desert Islands.  My desert Island has a few trees- including 1 or 2 almond trees- running water (a stream) and carrot plants.  Your Island has some dry twigs, barley, and a ton of fig trees.  Occasionally we can trade with each other, by crossing a bit of the ocean and meeting on a small, craggy rock.  There would probably be some profitable trades to be had.  Maybe I’d give you 3 or 4 carrots and a canteen of water for a pound of barley.  Whatever.  You could imagine all sorts of scenarios where we exchange goods to meet our nutritonal needs.

Now, imagine instead that you’re off your Island, enjoying a hot cup of cocoa, and somehow my best friend has taken your place.  He’s pretty upset about being interrupted in the middle of his workout.  Plus, he just hates figs.  By the time we finally meet up, he’s meaner, annoyed, and a bit feral.  Now my friend notices something right off: I’m allergic to carrots.  I, like, die and stuff if I eat them.  I try to offer him that same deal: 3 or 4 carrots and a canteen of water for a pound of barley.  “No can do”, he says.  So I up it to 10 carrots.  Still, he holds out, and dances a little jig in the waning moonlight.  He’s got me and he knows it.  After a bunch of haggling, he gives me a handful of dry twigs for my 10 carrots.  I dejectedly accept his offer, climb onto my poor raft, and sail back to the Island with the rising sun.  What went wrong?  Well, my buddy knew me, and he knew that while I had little use for dry twigs, I had no use for carrots.  My death roots were his Vitamin A miracle sticks.  You’re probably sitting up on your couch now, putting the hot cocoa- it’s gotten cold anyway- back on your Budweiser coaster, and slapping your hand against your forehead.  If you only you’d known, you’da fleeced me good!  Well, it’s not your fault.  I managed to cunningly shield my preferences from you.  I’m just smooth that way.  Unfortunately for me,  my buddy had an inside scoop, and no amount of cajoling could have convinced him to give me something useful (to me) for something useless (to me).  In negotiations we love to talk about the trade off between carrots and sticks, but we don’t usually mean it literally.

On to my second story.  A couple years ago, I was in a fantasy baseball league with this monstrous Yankees’ fan.  He never bothered to pay much attention until after the draft, so he ended up with a pretty weird, but usually strong, team.  But, he had a weakness: he absolutely NEEDED Yankees players, and absolutely hated Red Sox players.  Now this guy, Sam*, would try to keep it on the down low.  He’d only ask for a Yankees player a few times a day, all sly-like.  But, I saw through it.  Every couple of days, I’d casually send him a message like, “hey, I’ve got Derek Jeter, but I already have Tejada.  You interested in Jeter?”  He’d feel me out cautiously with a “HeCk YeAh!!!!”.  Making my move, I’d respond, “I see you have David Ortiz.  Why I could use a first baseman”.  And so I’d trade Derek Jeter for David Ortiz.

The trick in both these cases is the traders’ knowledge of preferences.  My buddy knew I had no need for, or interest in, carrots, and he fleeced me.  I knew that Sam thought the Yankees were just teh roxxor, and that he couldn’t stand Red Sox players, so I took him to the cleaners.  Back to Obama.  Obama opposes the proposed European Defense Missile shield.  Most Democrats do.  Russia knows this.  Everyone knows this.  It’s not exactly a state secret.  So why, oh why, would Russia give Obama something he considers valuable (ending Iran’s nuke program) for something he’d love to do without (the European Missile Shield system)?  It’s not like I’ve just discovered this nifty concept.  Humanity has known about it since, I don’t know, the end of mass subsistence farming.  Of course Presidents can’t keep all their preferences opaque and nor should they.  If your power and influence are on the rise, allowing your antagonists to see your cards can act as a deterrent.  But, it’s frightening to see this President try to offer up something that everyone knows has little value to him, in exchange for the holy grail of political diplomacy.  For all his many political skills, Obama seems increasingly like a guy utterly incapable of dealing sensibly and rationally with his opponents (foreign or domestic).  He’s bought the hype.

*I’ve changed the names to protect the guilty of worshiping an awful franchise.