As a rule, I've been keeping quiet in political news. This is for two primary reasons:

1. The last time I was overtly political it was to express my dissatisfaction with the state of the Democratic leadership, and I believe the president deserves time to prove and/or redeem himself before I resume commentary;
2. Generally I tend to piss people off.

So, then, to Iran.

The United States is generally in a difficult position. There are a fair number of people for whom no American intervention in the sovereign affairs of another country is appropriate, and they will generally always be irritated when we decide to stick our nose in the business of others. There are a fair number of people who believe that America is the source of all goodness and light in the world, and that it is incumbent upon us to use that torch to light the way for others and set fire to those who would stand in our way. Fair enough.

The net result of this, of course, is that America never ever responds appropriately. We are always either too hasty or too reluctant, too restrained or too aggressive; too arrogant or too ignorant. Thusly do we note that American efforts to exert an overt influence on the International Community seem to fall into two categories.



Sometimes, we encounter blends of these--such as in Cuba, where we pledged our support for an attempt to overthrow Fidel Castro, and then withdrew it. Rarely, however, is the American response to some crisis or general failing in the world hailed as timely, appropriate and respectable. Nor is this a terribly recent thing--it could certainly be argued that the Spanish-American War fell into the first category, above.

For people today, the old Lie that is World War Two serves this role. Of course, World War II came after a lengthy and ardent phase of American isolationism (that did not ever entirely cool, although there were not many people editorialising about why the United States was fighting in Germany, or why it seemed to be the central front in the War on the Axis even though it was Japan who attacked us and we were neglecting the prosecution of that war, et cetera, et cetera), rested on internal racial and class turmoil that is still simmering today and represented in our lack of resolve or action on the Holocaust one of the great moral failures of the century.

I'd suggest it's distance only that makes World War II palatable to today's Americans.

Anyway, I'm cognisant of these concerns, and I understand that the issues are complex. There is not a right answer, objectively--just my own, personal feelings. To wit: say something, goddamnit. I'm not saying we should be bombing Tehran. I'm not saying we should be going to the United Nations demanding sanctions. But Jesus Christ. Bermuda was somehow able to find the moral fortitude to say the Iranian government has "crossed the line". Sarkozy found it within himself to describe the actions of the Ahmadinejad government as the fraud they are. Where is the United States?

The president is right, that we bear witness to the struggles of the Iranian people. Too, though, we bear witness to the role America will--and intends to--take in the global community. An Iranian student describes the cause for our inaction as fear:



Perhaps. But here is what I fear: that the United States will stand by with only tacit hemming and hawing from the leader of the free world on the developments in Iran; that Ahmadinejad will be able to handily take the election, suppress the dissident majority and gunpoint, and continue on his way; that the United States, having witnessed this, will continue as it has before.

In this case, I fear also that the president will couch this craven failure to do his job as a defender of basic human freedoms as pragmatism--that we have to engage with Iran, criminal though its government be, because pressuring Iran or escalating tensions with them is "cowboy diplomacy". But no matter what the rationalisation one comes up with for dancing with monsters, from a distance all that matters is that you're choosing to share the same ballroom.

Sometimes it is not a question of doing what is pragmatic, but of doing what is right. The president, of all people, should understand what a people motivated by a desire for change can accomplish--will we stand by while Iranian thugs put down the legitimate voices of their countrymen?

Mr. President, you say the world is watching.

Are you?

---

Vulpecula 21.06.2009 - 11h34

Yay for possibly writing more than the original post, but this is an issue I've been pent up about discussing and have had no one to discuss it with. So here you go. While I certainly feel that that current citizen uprisings in Iran should be supported, I'm not convinced at just how much we should be involved. This is a country where as recently as Friday they were still chanting "Death to America", "Death to Israel", and "Death to Britain" during Khamenei's speech at Tehran University. If we are too loud in our support, or start throwing material support to the oppositions, that gives Ahmadinejad more ammunition to claim (as he has already done so) that the current uprisings are all due to the West. It needs to be totally clear that these protests are not us inciting riots to try and force a regime change for our own interests. It needs to be clear that what is happening is the expression of the true will of the people of Iran. Personally I think President Obama is doing the right thing to hold himself back and more quietly follow things. I suspect he's also much more informed and involved in a quiet behind the scenes way than we in the public realize (see for example how he more quietly handled the Somali pirate issue a little while back). I support the protesters. I think the evidence pretty heavily suggests that calling the vote results "irregularities" is a grotesque understatement. I think the Iranian people should be very pissed off and demanding their country back. But I don't think it's best for us to look like their driving force. Now that Khamenei has again endorsed the election and Ahmadinejad's "victory", and the Guardian Council has (unsurprisingly) started dismissing the complaints of irregularities, I see really only 3 results that can come from this: 1) The protests will end (either by people giving up in fear or hopelessness, or Tienanmen-style military force) and Ahmadinejad will have effected a successful coup, possibly causing Iran to become "democratic" only as much as Cuba or North Korea are. 2) The people get pissed enough that they move from protests to all-out revolution. The problem here is that although there are reports of the police being unwilling to fight too hard against the protesters, the Revolutionary Guard and the Basij are loyal to the Supreme Leader, and I don't think such a revolution would succeed. 3) Akbar Rafsanjani leads the Assembly of Experts to oust Khamenei, elect a new Supreme Leader (quite possibly himself) and then nullify the election. Rafsanjani certainly supports Moussavi, and he's definitely clashed with Khamenei before. The Assembly of Experts is also majority allies of Rafsanjani. I think Khamenei's defending Rafsanjani against corruption allegations that Ahmadinejad had leveled is significant. An attempt to woo Rafsanjani due to worry about this scenerio. Still, I don't know that I see this as a terribly likely outcome. But it's fun to think about. That leaves option 1 most likely, I think. And I don't think any amount of words from Obama is going to have any affect on any of this. Unless we want to get military support involved, I think this is going to play out in its own way. And I think there is valid reason why it's best to make sure everyone sees this an Iranian revolt, not an American-backed insurgency. Or who knows? Maybe something else will happen. There is certainly a rift in the power elite in Iran that goes beyond the major players heard most from. The Interior Minister, the Speaker of Parliament, Former Presidents, giving conflicting opinions on the election. It's clear that there is a rift among the power class just a much as there is among the populace. So who knows? It's also hard to make too many judgments since all we have for information are speculation, hearsay, and internet posts. Between the foreign media being banned and censored from reporting, and claims that what we hear about is far over-blown compared to the reality of the situation, it's hard to know what is really going on in the country or how strong the protest movement really is. Of course, a completely separate issue is that of how different Iran really would be under Moussavi, Rafsanjani, etc. But I've gone on long enough already. Needless to say, Iran is an issue that I have been closely following and find quite interesting to see how it unfolds.

Galluskek 22.06.2009 - 9h20

Heh, Middle Eastern politics... I try to keep my opinions to myself on this as much as possible, but I'll give commentary a go just this once. Projection: The protests will accomplish very little, they will stew for a week or so getting shot in the streets (as the leaked videos show) and then the government will apply some sort of token change to mollify the masses. Then after they make that change, some of the protesters will feel they have been heard and the rest will have their anger calmed enough so the unrest will die down within a month. or of course: Massive protests eventually yield a clamp down on freedoms, and when the ire of more people has been drawn, more protests will occur. Larger protests draw increased government attention, fearing the mobs that may result when these get out of hand, resulting in a military/police intervention on a large scale. This leads to many deaths, which can be easily manipulated by any sort of leader with half a brain to amass a large opposition that can be given arms and sent to the mountains (cause nobody would ever have their stupid rebels in a flowery meadow). They tie it into religion somehow and they start a civil war that destabilizes the region for some time. In either case (or somewhere in between) the United States does not get involved. Obama's cowardly tactics of fondling dictators and tyrants will be applied here. Of course, in this case we SHOULDN'T get involved. That whole region fears us in a way that is not good. These are the sort of people who's fight or flight response was renamed to just fight. If we back the people who we should support, the protesters in this case since they are pro-freedoms, then every leader there will look at us as an active threat and it will polarize them, either they fortify their ties with us, or they badmouth us in the UN and turn a blind eye towards terrorism (look at what that got Pakistan, like ten attacks just recently and that is after they signed a cease fire with them :P). Though... there is always the chance that our government will do the wrong thing this time. Obama's diplomatic directives have supported the conclusion that he thinks that we can win over the hearts and minds of the people who dislike us. He might throw in support for the current leadership. You might say, "America supporting tyrants? I thought we were past that!" And I would hope that you are right. There is only one guarantee in all this mess, one thing I can promise you. The people in power will always strive to remain in power. You will not see the election redone without a fight. There will be more killing. Speculation: On that note, if the protesters do come out on top, and given the level of cultural and personal freedoms in the country before this mess, they stand poised to become a prime example of a Middle Eastern nation that can retain its cultural identity while embracing western style rights. I think such a fusion would be very nice for the people. Certainties: None, cause all my sources are the internet, media, and my own two lobes. And of course that is one of the problems with dealing with this region, it is hard to tell what gets lost in translation after it goes through the media filter.

La Chevre 22.06.2009 - 9h22

Klis, what exactly would a denunciation of Iran do? The government of Iran knows very well how much we disapprove of them and their conduct no matter what we say. I would guess that just about every actor with even a thimble of power would be able to figure out that Obama and the US government wants some sort of development unfriendly to the interests of Khamenei and Ahmadinejad. So what good would Obama proclaiming his support for Mousavi's field of green do? Everyone will understand our position just as well. But suddenly you will have Iranian news media flooded with images and video of the president of the United States proclaiming his support, reinforcing years of propaganda alleging American meddling. Watch this wonderful film if you haven't. I doubt it will shock you, but you will see the kinds of things that all Iranians, from the strident reformists to the mad hardliners to the tepid onlookers. If America starts throwing its weight around many Iranians, including those who are currently sympathetic to the protesters, will start to doubt the home-brewed nature of this foment, and that would be a very, very bad thing. I am surprised and dismayed that you view these developments so unabashedly through the lens of American policy. That's an error that most of the media has been making. This whole thing started because Iranians became angry at Iranians. We ought not saunter in unless we are directly called upon or a true humanitarian crisis emerges. I guarantee that anything else will merely help the established power structure.

Comrade Alex 22.06.2009 - 12h33

I view it "through the lens of American policy," as you put it, because I am an American and it is the only policy I can speak on. I suppose I could pontificate on what I think Ahmadinejad should do, instead? Or Sarkozy? The British parliament? A denunciation of the politics and actions of the Iranian leadership gets at the heart of American moral legitimacy and credibility. There is a point at which a continued measured response moves beyond political neutrality and begins to adopt the appearance of serving as support of the existing regime. You doubtless recall, as I do, that the opposition was much the same in Bosnia. In particular I'm thinking about debates as to whether or not NATO and the United States had any prerogative to intervene in Kosovo--and recalling the arguments that it was an internal Yugoslavian matter, and even that foreign intervention would strengthen Milosevic's hand. Of course, a policy to directive to hold ourselves back and quietly follow things is nothing new in recent history, either. It was, after all, the United States who saw what was going on in Rwanda, recognised the likely scope of the atrocities there... then, holding to a policy that intervening would compromise its neutrality, boldly said this: We call on the leadership of the Rwandan armed forces... to do everything in their power to end the violence immediately. — Press Secretary Myers April 22, 1994 You tell 'em, Bill! In the event, you're holding a logically inconsistent position. You say that everyone knows the American point of view, but an outright statement of this truth would radically change the nature of the opposition by serving as a propaganda coup for the Ahmadinejad "government". This is a common enough logic--that a more condemnatory American response would only cement the legitimacy of Ahmadinejad's coup--but appears to be drawn from... what? It is not the statement of Iranians themselves, either within or outside of the country (like Amir Fakhravar: "please help us. Please help my classmate. Please help my friends, my brother and sister in Iran"). And why would it be? The idea is mildly illogical on its face. Iranians aren't stupid. They understand that the idea that the United States is literally behind the unrest is propaganda. I cannot imagine why they would not understand that an endorsement by the United States of the democratic process and a condemnation of the tactics, political and otherwise, of the Ahmadinejad coup is just that: the response by decent human beings, the same as the leadership of so many other countries who realise their responsibility to the disenfranchised and oppressed of the world. An Iranian situation? Perhaps. But it is clearly global--pretending otherwise as a rationalisation for inaction is the height of folly. Look at the signs the Iranians carry. "A new greeting to the world"? "Where is my vote?"? These are English words that one might expect might meet with a response in English. Or why hasn't the conventional wisdom that the Iranians don't want foreign recognition or intervention filtered over to their words? Do they suppose Ahmadinejad has lost the ability to read Persian? Is this just an attempt for them to practise the language of the apostate West? I should think we might give them some credit. +ca

Vulpecula 22.06.2009 - 1h53

I don't think our current "measured response" is due to isolationist desires. In the Balkans and Rwanda, Clinton didn't want to get involved (possibly over lingering fears of how bad of a PR nightmare it would be if they became a repeat of our intervention in Somalia). But here I think it's not that we don't want to be more involved as it is that it's not the best thing. Do many in Iran believe that the US is behind the protests? No. Of course not. Most Americans don't believe the government planned 9/11 either, or that the world is flat. But some do. And the ultra-conservative hardliners who back Amadinejad are more than eager to believe the US is fueling the conflict. It's not that such an arguement will change the minds of the protesters. But it might cause the Basij to become more cohesively oppressive of the protesters and might fuel stronger and more violent counter-protests that support the current regime. I'm also not sure how valid the analogies to Yugoslavia and Rwanda are. Those are countries whose people had very different cultures. Former Soviet bloc as Yugoslavia may have been, I'm not sure their hatred of the West was quite as openly ingrained as it is in Iran, nor was their expression of it as rhetorically violent as "Death to America". I also offer as proof that greater condemnation by us would only add more propaganda arguments to Khamenei and Armadinejad to just look at what is going on with them and Britain right now. The UK has multiple times called in the Iranian ambassador in London to get an earful of how much they dislike the government's actions and disapprove of the election. British studies are being published talking about statistical irregularities in the results. How is Iran responding? They're "reviewing their relations" with the UK. This is on request of Parliament speaker Larijani (who has called the election a fraud and condemned the government response to the protesters), not the Supreme Leader or President-"elect". The Foreign Minister is fairly explicitly saying that Britain has been plotting to screw with the election for some time. They're talking about having tons of intelligence reports that Britain is fueling the unrest. In short: They're exactly using Britain's more vocal opposition to make them the poster-child for the hardliners to brush off the protests as Western-controlled plots that don't represent the will of real Iranians. And I have little doubt that the only reason the government is blaming the UK instead of the US is precisely because President Obama hasn't allowed them to have the rhetorically ammunition that Britain has.

Comrade Alex 22.06.2009 - 2h43

I disagree with you on several points. Firstly, I would argue there are a number of people who oppose escalation on what are essentially isolationist grounds. This is always the case, and it remains so today. For example, both this article and the comments attached thereto couch the discussion in terms of what is and is not our "business"; nor is this a particularly uncommon way to vocalise this sentiment. Now it may very well be that the president is champing at the bit to go in with his fists swinging but is restrained by a belief that this isn't appropriate, but I don't really think this is the majority view. Secondly, the analogies to Rwanda and Yugoslavia (Darfur, Somalia, etc) are appropriate because they show the discourse around any proposed American intervention in the affairs of other countries. They also demonstrate what I see as the grave moral failure on the part of American presidents who are aware of injustices and suffering perpetrated abroad but do nothing to stop them, whether on the basis of well-intentioned desires not to worsen the situation or outright apathy. In the end, Milosevic forced the United States' hand in Yugoslavia, even though there were certainly people at the time saying that American (for that matter, NATO) intervention in the Kosovo situation would only worsen the matter by reinforcing Milosevic's ardent nationalism in allowing him to cast the battle in "us vs. them" terms. It is more telling to me how the United States sat on its hands when watching the Rwandan situation develop; it was thought that intervening would compromise America's carefully structured neutrality and worsen the situation on the ground. The result was, as here, equally carefully structured non-statements. Thirdly, you and the goat both seem to take as a truism that the Iranians have a deeply ingrained "hatred of the West". It's not at all clear that this is the case, excepting propaganda that I don't find terribly convincing. The Iranian student whose editorial I linked to puts it simply: "there is strong evidence that Iranians across the board want a better relationship with the United States". This article from the Saturday edition of the Times also describes this in terms of the "New greeting to the world" theme of the Moussavi protesters, referring to the New America Foundation's Afshin Molavi as saying that "the vast majority of Iranians today want better relations with the United States" (this is backed by anecdotal evidence, too, but so what?). I'm not sure where exactly the sense that Iranians hate Americans or the west came from, or why it only started to become widely-repeated in the last couple of weeks. There is the sense that this rapprochement (Iran was, prior to this election when for some reason we forgot about it, frequently described as among the more pro-American countries in that part of the world) will be jeopardised by stronger American words. Fine, set aside statements like the Iranian woman, a year ago, who said "let the Americans come. Let them sort things out for us."--probably most people don't believe that. But Iran's protesters are clearly engaging on an international level. The situation on the ground is already cast, and not just by talking heads in the media, as a conflict over this internationalism and a reaction to the isolationist policies of Ahmadinejad. The United States sitting this out fails to change this one whit, certainly not for the better. On the other hand, an endorsement of democracy in Iran, and a sharper condemnation of Ahmadinejad's attempted coup, does not put the United States in the position of "meddling". It puts it in the position of supporting the Iranian people, which is substantially more than Khameini can lay claim to. +ca

Vulpecula 22.06.2009 - 3h52

The thing to keep in mind, however, is that even the Moussavi-Rafsanjani-Khatami set of reformist leaders aren't particularly friendly towards states such as Israel and the US (support of Israel being something they don't like either). Hell, the Shah's recognition of Israel is one of the key factors that caused the '79 revolution in the first place. That said, the reformists are certainly more pragmatists who want improved or at least less hostile relations with the US just because it would be easier on Iran if they didn't have the sanctions and bad international press. But they still don't really like us. They're just willing to put up with us for the better of their people. It's also telling, I think, that the son of the former Shah (obviously not someone who is apt to be particularly friendly to the revolutionary regime) feels that the way the US is handling this situation currently is the best. Besides, I also have to agree with the goat in questioning just what you think will come from Obama more openly saying "we wish you the best" to the protesters. Certainly we wouldn't start sending material aid to them. And given the history of our relations towards Iran's government, I do give the Iranian people enough credit that the majority can't possibly believe we actually support Khamenei and Ahmadinejad. So what are we to do? Just put our more explicit "shame on you" on the regime just to be on the record about it? What is that going to accomplish beyond satisfying a need to endorse ourselves as a moral authority? It doesn't actually help the Iranian people. And though you disagree, I fear it could help re-galvanize the fracturing group of religious leaders they are fighting against.

Vulpecula 22.06.2009 - 4h53

Yay double-posting! But I had some specific comments from the articles you linked to. The ex-hostage is not presenting his arguement in isolationist tones. He's saying that Iranians already resent the fact that we have in the past treated them like a second-class nation. Going off now telling them what they should and should not do is only going to reinforce those percieved colonialism sentiments. Thus instead we should show the Iranian people the respect of not letting the current regime accuse them of being manipulated by us. The result, according to many experts here and in Iran, was that Iranians, including reformers, swallowed their criticism of the hard-line regime and united against the common enemy. Iranians with reformist sympathies even began advising Americans to stop openly supporting them, lest that open them to attack as pawns of America. — New York Times June 20, 2009 In fact, US intervention seems to be the only issue that will unite most Iranians with the Islamic regime. Counterintuitive as it may seem, overt US calls for regime change and direct support of dissidents and NGOs have a negative effect on Iranian civil society because they result in government crackdowns and increase popular anger aimed at the American government. — Christian Science Monitor January 19, 2007 That is why, Western diplomats in Iran said, the best thing Washington could do to encourage more moderate behavior in Tehran is to ease off. Less pressure would make it harder for Iran's leaders to keep out Western influences. — New York Times February 11, 2008 Again, it's not that we don't have a right or are morally obligated to stay out in general. It's not a fundamentally isolationist issue. It's that Iran is different from other places in a way that makes it more harmful for us to be too pushy towards them. I will grant that many Iranian people look more highly on American culture. But few express support for or a liking of the American government and American foreign policy. Although they feel that better relations with America is beneficial, they don't want to become American. Perhaps the better support is for the Iranians to be able to see that ordinary Americans are following their plight and cheering them on. Keep Iran as the big main article on CNN. Post comments to their YouTube videos. Cheer them on through Twitter. That would probably mean much more to them than any official government words from the White House. Their real dissatisfaction with Ahmadinejad is not just his own isolationist foreign policty. The collapsing economy under his leadership is higher on their list of concerns. And it's worth noting that Iranians aren't talking about overthrowing their entire structure of government. They like the concept of the governmental regime. They just don't like the stolen election. They want Mousavi as President, not the overthrow of the theocratic leaders. And even if they like America, they don't want America telling them what to do. It's not due to isolationist arguments that we don't have a right or are morally obligated to stay out in general. It's not for the sake of our neutrality or isolationism. It's that Iran is different from other places in a way that makes it more harmful for us to be too pushy towards them. We've been too involved in shaping their government in the past, and this time need to give them the respect of letting this clearly be their fight for their own will.

Comrade Alex 22.06.2009 - 5h17

I don't really see how you say that Kennedy is "not presenting his arguement in isolationist tones". He mentions the past history of American interventionism and says this was a bad thing. He then says explicitly that it isn't "any business of ours to seek elections, fair elections... I think that that is their problem." Then he says that it's "not the fear of being drawn into a conflict. It's expressing our respect for a sovereign state that we do not interfere in the internal affairs of another country". I would take this as an endorsement of an isolationist standpoint, especially when cast directly against an interventionist one. Anyhow, yes, the articles I linked to describe the problems of aggressive foreign policy without popular support during the Bush regime. I didn't seek to compare that (as opposed to simply the general position of the Iranian people with regards to Americans, in direct rebuttal to the notion that the "death to America" bullshit was widespread or widely-accepted) because it would seem that the situation has changed with the new administration (as one might expect it to have). If the climate there--setting aside tired propaganda broadcasts purporting to show Iranian hatred of the United States--had ever chilled, it has certainly rewarmed in the last few years. That the typical Iranian has fond feelings for the United States, and certainly desires renewed friendship in relations, is a point repeatedly made by Iranians and foreigners who have lived or travelled there. And, while it's true that the crop of Iranian leaders has at best metered support for America as a philosophical concept, but the same can't be said for the average Iranian on the street. We are talking, here, about a people who invited Brzezinski to speak on Iranian t elevision. Certainly, the Iran that elected Ahmadinejad is not the same as the one that failed to re-elect him this year, and I do not think American foreign policy directed against a popular anti-American leader can be reasonably compared to this situation, which is without precedent in the last decade (well, perhaps the last 9.9 years). You quote from the New York Times in describing the policies of the Bush administration, but the article itself describes a new current of Iranian sentiment with regards to engaging with the West. It does not, in general, make comment as to whether or not the president's actions can be seen as engaging back with them. My position is that it does not, and that the policy lessons of the past are hard to apply now--facing massive turnout of reformist Iranians, as opposed to widespread support for a leader like Ahmadinejad. Saying that we shouldn't interfere now, because interference was problematic in the past, must be seen in the light of the vast differences between said past and the present. What good will come out of an explicit statement by the president? If you don't believe that the United States has a basic imperative to promote human rights abroad, or that American foreign policy should find it within itself to endorse basic human freedoms, then you may find little value in it. For my part, I believe the president--as all people with moral authority--has the responsibility to make it clear the behaviours that are and are not acceptable in the civilised world. Iranians are, of course, broadly speaking aware that the outside world is watching them. A desire to connect with that outside world, in part, likely underlies their use of English in their protests. My point is that keeping the United States from directly commenting--or condemning--on the actions of the Iranian government is not a decision being driven by the protesters themselves. The loudest voices telling us that any condemnation or further words would be seen as "meddling", as often as not, are from the increasingly-illegitimate Iranian government. And even NIAC president Trita Farsi, who broadly supports the White House position, offers "one legitimate criticism, the Iranians are missing two words from Obama: "I condemn"." In the event I do think the idea that the United States needs to keep its distance misses two points. Firstly, as I said, the average person on the ground desires rapprochement with the United States, doesn't dislike Americans, and recognises the "great Satan" nonsense as the propaganda that it is. Secondly, the United States is already deeply embroiled in Iranian politics and it has been for decades. Pretending now that the United States has to keep its distance--when to a very real degree America is at the forefront of both street-level and political discourse--to avoid entering American politics fails to accept the fact that we're already there. This is essentially the point of Nader Mousavizadeh, writing for the WaPo: Concerns that any U.S. statement of support will rekindle resentment toward foreign interference presume that Iranians are unable to distinguish between an enemy and an ally of their democratic aspirations. More importantly, such diffidence fails to recognize that the United States is indispensable to a peaceful resolution of the security challenge that Iran poses. Even as Washington worries about "meddling," the reality is that there is no one else Iranians want to talk to -- not the Iranian people for whom the outside world largely is synonymous with America; not the Iranian regime for which negotiations with other powers have been mere dress rehearsals for the meeting with the "Great Satan." — Nader Mousavizadeh June 18, 2009 At the moment, while I wouldn't oppose direct action, I also wouldn't argue it's inherently called for. And as I said in my initial post, I'm cognisant of the concerns that surround taking a side. If, however--as I fear--the Iranian regime is successful in suppressing these protesters, doubtless with substantial bloodshed, I do not think this careful silence will reflect any better on the current president than it did fifteen years ago. +ca

Vulpecula 22.06.2009 - 11h04

I guess the difference for me is that when I think of isolationism, I see it as people arguing that it's better for us not to get involved in the affairs of others. The reasons being that it better serves our own self-interests not to get involved elsewhere and to instead focus on ourselves. This situation here is saying that it's best for them if we don't get involved. Kennedy is saying it's best to give them that respect. The primary motivation is based on the idea that less involvement is actually more helpful for them, as opposed to less involvement being safer for us. On the other hand, he had already put in play a tool that the reformists could use in their internal debate — the notion that this could be the best time in many years in which to seek better relations with America... — New York Times June, 21, 2009 And the next few paragraphs go on to outline exactly how President Obama's actions have been giving powerful support to the reformists and the people even though he is doing so in more subtle ways. It exactly makes comment on how his actions are engaging back with them. Mr. Parsi basically says the same about how the simple actions he's already taken have been monumentally powerful. I agree with your point on the President using his moral authority in general. But the problem is that one of the main criticisms leveled against the US, especially from the middle east, is that we are too arrogant and colonialist in our rhetoric. Too much emphasis in saying we know how people should run their countries and that they need us to tell them because they can't do it themselves. Certainly our forced regime change in Iraq has only bolstered this view of us. Us telling Iranians now to rebel against their government because the government is no good can too easily be seen as just reinforcing this perception of arrogant colonialism, regardless of how good our actual intentions are. As for Mr. Parsi, you'll note he's critical of Senator Graham's comments and generally saying that most of those calling for stronger responses are doing so out of our own desires to see a regime more friendly to us; not driven by what is best for the Iranians (and it goes back to the arrogance issue once you start claiming that the two must be the same). The words he uses to describe those calling on Obama to be much more forceful in his remarks included "misses the point" and"reckless arrogance". On the other hand, he says that when looking at signals from the Iranians themselves. Those signals have been clear, and on most counts, the White House's position has been on mark. — Trita Parsi June 22, 2009 While he goes on to say that condemning the violence is not the same as taking sides in principle, in this case it's not really possible. How do you condemn the violent actions of the government without inherently siding with those against the government? (Or at least in a way that won't be widely interpreted as such.) It's also worth noting that although Mr. Parsi does say the US needs to use the word "condemn" towards the government's actions, the vast bulk of what he says really is that we need to continue to play it fairly cool and not push ourselves too much into the attention in this issue, which really is exactly my point as well. The problem with saying that the Iranian people like us more is also that this is only partially relevant. Short of an all-out revolution against the entire Islamist regime, the people are still not in charge. The leaders of the Islamist clergy are the ones who run the country and control its foreign relations. Although it changes which member of that group holds the various high political positions, the mullahs still rule. And it's the mullahs you have to work with, no matter how the Iranian people feel. I agree that the most likely outcome is a violent repression of the protesters (and agree that this is a very very bad outcome). But in that case, if/when the hardliners stay in power, the more we say now, the more they have for their propaganda. They will use it to continue to justify their further oppression and control over their people, and continue to justify their current relations towards us. And it won't matter if very few of the Iranian people believe or agree with those justifications. You keep saying to give the people credit to know enough not to believe the "Great Satan" propaganda. Well also give them enough credit to know that they are equally smart enough to realize that we sure as hell don't support the government's actions. They are also smart enough to read between the lines and see our disapproval without us having to boast out the words in explicit press releases from the White House. I also don't buy the argument about it degrading our moral authority if we don't do so. The rest of the world, too, knows we don't approve, and the rest of the world, too, is smart enough to understand why we are more cautious with our words. Our explicit condemnations of torture and the actions towards the prisoners in Guantanamo (regarding their trials and rights more than the closing of the base itself) are just two examples of how we make our moral stances well-known. Not throwing more sparks into the Iranian fire is not going to suddenly change how we're perceived either in Iran or anywhere else.

Comrade Alex 23.06.2009 - 1h03

Well, yes. I understand that Dr. Parsi is, as I said, broadly supports the White House position. My point is that even this fairly graduated endorsement recognises the need to be seen as taking a position on the developments in the country. You say that "it won't matter if very few of the Iranian people believe or agree" with the government's use of American position statements to justify further crackdowns and restrictions on human rights. If this is the case, though, than it doesn't matter one way or the other--unless you are suggesting that the government wouldn't engage in these crackdowns without an American provocation. I can't see why this would be the case, especially if the conventional wisdom is that the Iranian protests are occurring in a vacuum anyway. But, as I argue, they are not occurring in vacuum. The history of Iran, certainly since the deposition of the Shah and arguably well before that (the 1953 regime change of Iranian leader Mossadegh, for starters) is inextricably linked with the United States. Ahmadinejad is widely viewed in the context of Americo-Persian relations. Moussavi's supporters are waving protest signs written in English. Simply stating, as La Chevre does, that it's a "Iranians becoming angry at Iranians" ignores the global implications, most of which directly bear upon the United States. You also say that Iranians are "also smart enough to read between the lines and see our disapproval". As I said earlier, the problem is that line at which silence moves from neutrality to tacit approval of what is transpiring. American support for Israel, for instance, has been less strident in recent years--yet I imagine if you tried to tell the Palestinians that an outright condemnation of Israeli actions was unnecessary (and meddlesome) because it was clear what we meant, their reaction to you would be somewhat cool. And, of course, well it should be. In the absence of explicit statements one way or the other, one has to draw on history to read meaning into silence. I'm not sure why exactly Iranians would conclude the position of the American president was "I support you but can't say it", particularly as it stands as a rejection, implicit and occasionally explicit, of calls for outright displays of support by American opposition leaders and considering his history, as Galluskek puts it, of "fondling dictators and tyrants". Nor, I submit, are all the reasons why there has not been more overt support of the democratic support in Iran by the American president clear, particularly given the diverse political and ideological spread of people questioning the president's taciturnity on the matter. Unless, I suppose, one succumbs to the unfortunately-common notion that all such opposition is couched entirely in political grandstanding, but this is a useless ad hominem, and it's well we've seen little of it here. A firm denunciation of the regime and its policies shows the average Iranian the path to normalised relations with the United States, a goal it's clear many of them want. It's been claimed that this would give some sort of propaganda coup to the current illegitimate government. How? What's the scenario anyone expects to play out? Obama: "We condemn the use of violence to suppress legitimate demonstrations of democratic intent. We also remind those in positions of power of their responsibility as citizens of the world to uphold the basic tenets of human liberty. And we call upon the Ahmadinejad government to recognise and be bound by the results of a free and fair election unfettered by coercion, corruption or predetermination." Khameidinejad: "Look! There go the Americans, meddling in our affairs again!" Non-aligned Iranian public: "Damn and blast! We must rally around Ahmadinejad! He's right! We should use the Republican Guard to kill political dissidents! It's the only way to protect us from American hegemony!" Of course not. And attempts to "meddle" with Iranian sovereignty, such as it is, have before occurred without this groundswell of support that, by nearly all accounts, is a gamechanger. But what, then? If the Iranians already know our position and would not respond to a statement thereof, then there's no reason to expect the opposition protesters to behave differently, and any crackdowns that occur against them would have occurred anyway. But, on the other hand, if our words do carry weight, then why should we presume it would be to support the Ahmadinejad regime? Why do we use our failure to arouse outrage against a popular, democratically-elected leader in years past to predetermine that our words will similarly fail to provide moral support to the opposition of an unpopular, undemocratic one--in the face of widespread discontent with said leader? Doing so seems to rest on two points. Firstly, that American support for the massive protests and outpouring of opposition to Ahmadinejad can somehow be gauged by precedent with American opposition when he was popular and legitimately elected--but there is no precedent, here, and the situation on the ground has completely shifted. Secondly, that the Iranian people have some latent and deeply-ingrained hatred of the United States that would cause nonallied Iranians to shift their allegiance to the current regime and the current regime to resolidify--in the face of what nearly everyone agrees are egregious attacks against their own people. I find neither of these statements logical, and as such I cannot support their conclusion. Perhaps, in the end, this boils down to a difference of opinion in the moral obligations of the president, a position on which we clearly disagree. I maintain, however, that there is an inconsistency in believing on the one hand that everyone already knows our position, and on the other that stating it would only serve to let slip the dogs of war. If it were the case that the position of the United States was unknown, than their might be value in keeping our cards close to our chest. A known position, unstated, serves little purpose. If everyone already knows what we believe, than failing to say it is a conspicuous absence--hence there is some confusion on what it is we actually do believe. Few have called for material support to the supports of the elected Iranian leadership; fewer still for military intervention. At worst they have called for a known position to be stated as though we weren't ashamed of it, and at best they have called for the clarification of that position in the first place. I believe that there is power in words--so, presumably, do the other leaders on the world stage who have managed to overcome what Mousavizadeh called their "anxiety of influence when it comes to Iran". I believe there is legitimacy in giving voice to our beliefs (Thomas Jefferson, explaining what a 'Declaration of Independence' would do--when, after all, the American position was well-known: "to place before mankind the common sense of the subject, in terms so plain and firm as to command their assent... it was intended to be an expression of the American mind, and to give to that expression the proper tone and spirit called for by the occasion"). Now, as I said, I recognise the complexity of the situation, and that there is not, objectively, a right answer. But it is my belief that silence in the face of known evil is reprehensible, and deafening. And it is my prerogative, if the situation goes poorly, to view the current president with the same contempt for his inaction as I do Clinton for his. But I hope it doesn't come to that. +ca

Vulpecula 23.06.2009 - 1h52

"unless you are suggesting that the government wouldn't engage in these crackdowns without an American provocation" The fundamental issue here, I think, is not the concern over how the people's actions will change due to Obama's words, not whether or not it will change the minds of unaligned Iranian citizens, but how the actions of the larger group of religious power-holders will change (I'm thinking here of people such as the Assembly of Experts, the Guardian Council, and the various other Ayatollahs in Iran). The government itself right now is fractured. Different elements within it are taking different sides, arguing different positions and fighting amongst themselves. What we want to avoid is them all deciding to get together in unison to complain about our "meddling". As I said before, even if the people are much warmer today to relations with the US, very few of the political and religious elite feel that way. The protesters actions will not significantly change, I don't believe, just because Obama makes a more aggressive statement. But if the mullahs back down their arguments with each other behind the scenes, that opens it up to be easier for Khamenei to call the IRGC (R for "Revolutionary", the "Republican" was in Iraq) and Basij in to crack down. And in a theocratic government, it's much easier for the IRGC to beat down dissident citizens than it is to go around arresting various Ayatollahs. What is holding him back is not the actions of the protesters and not the worry of how the international community will react. It's the worry that he'll lose his already tenuous support from the religious elite from which the regime's authority flows. Although they are certainly disagreeing amongst themselves now, they are mostly of the older "Death to America" generation that still feels much more hardlined resentment towards the US than the average Iranian on the street. The analogy to Israel definitely doesn't apply. We have years of staunch support for Israel, and the recent rather direct statements calling for a halt to settlements denotes a change in the policies and relations. You can't read a change between the lines. On the contrary, here a denouncement of election fraud and condemnation of Ahmadinejad would be repeating what we've said before, not anything new. I'm not going to go so far as to claim that people such as Senator Graham are criticizing Obama's handling of the issue purely to get airtime on the news or just to find something to complain about with the opposing party's leadership. But I do think you can't ignore the fact that such statements and quick condemnations are a hell of a lot easier for a Senator to make than the President. Outside of the US, Obama's words mean far more than anyone else's in the country, and thus he needs to be much more careful about what he says. As for your proposed set of quotes, I'll first note that supporting the protesters and explicitly recognizing the Ahmadinejad government seem contradictory. You'll note that while Obama hasn't explicitly condemned the Iranian government, he has also not explicitly acknowledged or recognized Ahmadinejad as its current President, to the best of my knowledge. Also, for all that you tried to present that exchange in an absurdist light, that is again more or less exactly what Kameidinejad is doing with Britain as the target. And while I'll grant that its effectiveness can certainly be questioned, the very fact they are doing it means that the concern is nowhere near as absurd as you present it to be.

Comrade Alex 23.06.2009 - 2h40

No, because the concern is how the Iranian public reacts. The political and theocratic authorities, even in an autocratic state, derive their power from the consent of the governed. What the illegitimate Iranian government chooses to do with its time has no real bearing on my conclusion, especially as it does not appear that this has legitimated in anyone's mind the crackdown of the regime on its political dissidents. The absurdism comes in assuming that the regime would be benefited by an explicit American showing of support, the fundamental arguments for which I've seen little support for, or that the Iranian people would accept further violations of their human rights, whether backed by the Iranian religious authorities or not. The notion that Ahmadinejad and his handlers would be able to solidify their base by railing against the United States now, because they have been able to do so in the past--despite the substantial differences between then and now--is not something I'm willing to accept on its face. I have outlined the case for an international character to the Iranian opposition movement, and for an existing degree of American presence in Iranian politics. I have outlined the rational for speaking out, in demonstrating by condemnation of the Ahmadinejad regime (in point of fact, an obvious condemnation, yes--and Ahmadinejad is still the government, just not the legitimate one) where the future of normalised relations between Iran and America lies. This is not an obvious conclusion in a world of silence, considering Obama has historically evinced a willingness to engage with even an Iranian government controlled by Ahmadinejad--unless I am missing a refutation of this policy in recent days. It might, I would say, have been incumbent for president Bush to have kept his distance--firstly, because his history of direct and forthright condemnation of the Iranian government would make action now carry an obvious bias, and secondly because in his case his position is clear. Obama, however, does not have a legacy of opposition, and his lack of a firm stance does not have the same meaning. After all, positions in America are hardly unified either. I would suggest there are at least five views circulating in current political discourse: • The United States should offer direct support to Iranian dissidents, because their cause may falter without an external ally; • The United States should not be seen as interfering directly in Iranian politics, but should offer a clear statement of support for Iranian democracy and refutation of the recent nonrepresentative elections; • The United States should not be seen as interfering directly in Iranian politics, and should maintain a cautious distance so as to avoid the appearance of hegemony while retaining hope for the success of the opposition; • The United States should not allow its fanciful notions of what a democracy "really" looks like to cloud its judgement, but should hold no judgment one way or another and respect the eventual outcome; • The United States should not pretend that there is an "eventual" outcome at all, but rather recognise the legitimacy of the election and halt further actions that could be seen as compromising the sovereignty of the Iranian state and the democratically-re-elected Ahmadinejad government. What does silence mean? You speak as if it's clear that when Obama says nothing, he really means the third option, above. I agree that this is probably his position, but then again, I'm not sure. The greater the disparity between the actions of the Iranian government and the lack of unequivocal comment by the president--whom, I agree, has a special degree of authority--the greater the risk of said absence looking, from certain angles, like a tacit endorsement of said government. +ca

Vulpecula 23.06.2009 - 3h19

The United States and the international community have been appalled and outraged by the threats, the beatings, and imprisonments of the last few days. I strongly condemn these unjust actions, and I join with the American people in mourning each and every innocent life that is lost. And we deplore the violence against innocent civilians anywhere that it takes place. — President Obama June 23, 2009 Presumably the words "appalled", "outraged", "deplore", and the magical "strongly condemn" are more satisfactory to you? I think this fairly clearly qualifies as your option 3 above (he doesn't explicitly refute the elections themselves, so not really option 2), which I agree is is what I would say is the line he has been following all along. And although there are the buzzwords listed above in there now, I don't think these new statements give any significantly different message than what he had said before. But, of course, you and others would likely say that these new statements are substantially different in the message they give. In the questions that followed, Major Garrett of Fox News certainly felt this way when he explicitly asked "What took you so long to say those words?" (That is his exact wording of the question, not just a paraphrase.) I don't think that's accurate. Track what I've been saying. Right after the election, I said that we had profound concerns about the nature of the election, but that it was not up to us to determine what the outcome was. As soon as violence broke out -- in fact, in anticipation of potential violence -- we were very clear in saying that violence was unacceptable, that that was not how governments operate with respect to their people. So we've been entirely consistent, Major, in terms of how we've approached this. My role has been to say the United States is not going to be a foil for the Iranian government to try to blame what's happening on the streets of Tehran on the CIA or on the White House; that this is an issue that is led by and given voice to the frustrations of the Iranian people. And so we've been very consistent the first day, and we're going to continue to be consistent in saying this is not an issue about the United States; this is about an issue of the Iranian people. — President Obama June 23, 2009 The critics of course will forever argue that his statements today are significantly stronger and that the strength or character or tone of the message has not been consistent. But part of me wonders how much this really is semantics, to some degree. As you pointed out earlier, Trita Farsi made a big deal about the specific word "condemn". But the President has never expressed approval or recognition of the official results of the election, nor has he ever been supportive of the violent response of the government to the protests. And nor has he been silent, either. I am deeply troubled by the violence that I've been seeing on television. — President Obama June 15, 2009 We stand with those who would look to peaceful resolution of conflict and we believe that the voices of people have to be heard, that that's a universal value that the American people stand for and this administration stands for. The fact that they are on the streets, under pretty severe duress, at great risk to themselves, is a sign that there's something in that society that wants to open up. — President Obama June 19, 2009 We call on the Iranian government to stop all violent and unjust actions against its own people. The universal rights to assembly and free speech must be respected, and the United States stands with all who seek to exercise those rights. — President Obama June 20, 2009 No, he did not use the word "condemn". But he has consistently expressed disapproval of the violence and support for letting the protesters be heard. He has not been silent, or tacitly approved the government's actions. I guess, to me, it feels like much of the criticism has been whether or not he used particular keywords that others liked, despite the fact that his message already expresses the same sentiment. And it's worth noting that even before the election, his words of reaching out have generally been in terms of offering the people of Iran a path to improved relations; saying that how they proceed in the international community is up to the people of Iran. He has consistently phrased it as the choice of the Iranian people, not the Iranian government. It might also be worth noting, that in further show of his support to the Iranian people, the White House website has the video of his opening remarks today available (from right off the front page) with subtitles in Farsi. A transcript is also available in Farsi (as well as Arabic). The other point that I will continue to return to is that is it not absurd or unreasonable to worry about how the Iranian government will use the President's words in their own discussions both with the public and the theocratic authorities. The President himself multiple times confirmed this exact issue. He has expressed concern over making it quite clear that these are Iranian protests and not allowing the government the change to claim otherwise. This was expressed last week This is not an issue of the United States or the West versus Iran; this is an issue of the Iranian people. The last thing that I want to do is to have the United States be a foil for those forces inside Iran who would love nothing better than to make this an argument about the United States. That's what they do. That's what we're already seeing. We shouldn't be playing into that. There should be no distractions from the fact that the Iranian people are seeking to let their voices be heard. — President Obama June 19, 2009 And in his opening remarks today The Iranian people are trying to have a debate about their future. Some in Iran -- some in the Iranian government, in particular, are trying to avoid that debate by accusing the United States and others in the West of instigating protests over the election. These accusations are patently false. They're an obvious attempt to distract people from what is truly taking place within Iran's borders. This tired strategy of using old tensions to scapegoat other countries won't work anymore in Iran. This is not about the United States or the West; this is about the people of Iran, and the future that they -- and only they -- will choose. What we know is that a sizeable percentage of the Iranian people themselves, spanning Iranian society, consider this election illegitimate. It's not an isolated instance -- a little grumbling here or there. There is significant questions about the legitimacy of the election. And so ultimately the most important thing for the Iranian government to consider is legitimacy in the eyes of its own people, not in the eyes of the United States. And that's why I've been very clear: Ultimately, this is up to the Iranian people to decide who their leadership is going to be and the structure of their government. — President Obama June 23, 2009 And repeated again in a response to a question from Chip Reid of CBS when he asked if the decision to use the apparently stronger language today was influenced by critics such as Senators McCain and Graham accusing him of being timid and weak. I mean, you guys must have seen the reports. They've got some of the comments that I've made being mistranslated in Iran, suggesting that I'm telling rioters to go out and riot some more. There are reports suggesting that the CIA is behind all this -- all of which are patently false. But it gives you a sense of the narrative that the Iranian government would love to play into. So the -- members of Congress, they've got their constitutional duties, and I'm sure they will carry them out in the way that they think is appropriate. I'm President of the United States, and I'll carry out my duties as I think are appropriate. All right? — President Obama June 23, 2009 You have said such concerns are absurd, unsupported, and something you're not willing to accept. Perhaps you are just smarter than the President and his advisers or have some insight that they are missing. But it is not a concern that I am able to so hastily brush aside. I will grant you the point that the average Iranian person is not as anti-American as many might believe. I will grant that the people do show signs of trying to embrace the attention of the outside world and America in particular, and are succeeding well in showing that the opinions of the regime are out of sync with those of the people. But I will not grant that Obama has been too silent or giving the appearance of a tacit endorsement of the Ahmadinejad government. And I will not grant that concern over the Iranian regime twisting the President's words into their own propaganda in order to change the terms of the debate among the people and clerics in Iran is foolish. You can (and have) perfectly well argue that such attempts by the regime will fail, and certainly the President also feels those tactics are outdated and won't work. But despite this, he, and also I, do believe it is nonetheless an issue that should be given pause and that words should be chosen carefully. This, really, is my fundamental point in all of this.

Comrade Alex 23.06.2009 - 4h13

I have not argued that the Iranian government will not twist the president's words for their own purposes. What I have said, and hold by, is that their words need to fall on ears to have an effect, and it is that link--that such interpretations on the part of the regime will amount to anything more than more than spittle-flecked diatribes from an illegitimate and largely ignored propaganda machine--that has been insufficiently demonstrated. As has already been demonstrated, the Iranian government can say whatever the hell they like. The president, living as he does in a world with Rush Limbaugh, understands that what he says on any topic will be subject to interpretation, both accurate and slanted. It's not sufficient, though, to say "our opponents might twist our words"--else he would say nothing. Something must come from this. It is increasingly clear that the babbling of propaganda minsters has little or no traction with Iranians, which is the crucial third stage (we say something => government uses it for propaganda => ???) that is necessary for anything to be problematic. Because, after all, if the average person doesn't believe it, they can either shoot them all or shut up and go home. Iran is not above killing dissidents, of course, but that is entirely a separate question from whether giving Iranian crackpots words they can "twist" is so great a concern as to cause us to bite our tongues. The notion that the Khameidinejad regime will creatively reinterpret what we say isn't surprising at all; what I consider absurd is the idea that anything will come of it--especially since, so far, little has. In the event, I consider the new statements from Obama to be significant in two regards. Firstly, I don't really think I would classify it as what I listed in option 3. Or, at least, I think it treads very close into being option 2 territory. You're correct, in that he never comes out and says "c'mon dudes, seriously, this election was bullshit," but he is also, to me, less equivocal about the election itself than his earlier "ok stop beating up on each other now :< " statements. I read there also a change in tone and, no matter how much he insists that he's been saying the same things all along, I'm not the only one. YMMV, of course. Secondly, I agree with others who have said that his statements when asked if the offer of dialogue with Iranian leaders was still open--namely, a "well, this might change shit; we'll have to see"--is a cautious sign from a president who remained committed to dialogue with the then-Ahmadinejad government throughout the primary and campaign season. It's not quite a "the United States won't deal with somebody who oversees this sort of repression", but if it helps to cement the message that the best--perhaps only--way to normalise Americo-Persian relations is by repudiating, both here and there, the governments that froze them in the first place I'll shed no tears. I am not completely pleased--I still think there's too much caution, and as I've said the "wait and see" sort of language does come dangerously close to the same sort of shit we tried in Rwanda. But, for me at least, it is the sort of language that, while I might've preferred to hear last week, I'm open to hearing now. +ca

---

You can use this form to add a comment to this page!

Name:

Website:

Comment:

You will be identified by the name you provide. Once posted, comments may not be edited. For markup, use 'bulletin board' code: [i][/i] for italic, [b][/b] for bold, [ind][/ind] to indent, [url=][/url] for URLs, and [quote=Author|Date][/quote] for quotes (you can leave the date blank but you need the pipe). HTML is not allowed. Neither is including your website :)