With Iran, Think Before You Speak
By Senator JOHN KERRY | The New York Times
THE grass-roots protests that have engulfed Iran since its presidential election last week have grabbed America’s attention and captured headlines — unfortunately, so has the clamor from neoconservatives urging President Obama to denounce the voting as a sham and insert ourselves directly in Iran’s unrest.
No less a figure than Senator John McCain, the Republican presidential nominee in 2008, has denounced President Obama’s response as “tepid.” He has also claimed that “if we are steadfast eventually the Iranian people will prevail.”
Mr. McCain’s rhetoric, of course, would be cathartic for any American policy maker weary of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s hostile message of division. We are all inspired by Iran’s peaceful demonstrations, the likes of which have not been seen there in three decades. Our sympathies are with those Iranians who seek a more respectful, cooperative relationship with the world. Watching heartbreaking video images of Basij paramilitaries terrorizing protesters, we feel the temptation to respond emotionally.
There’s just one problem. If we actually want to empower the Iranian people, we have to understand how our words can be manipulated and used against us to strengthen the clerical establishment, distract Iranians from a failing economy and rally a fiercely independent populace against outside interference. Iran’s hard-liners are already working hard to pin the election dispute, and the protests, as the result of American meddling. On Wednesday, the Iranian Foreign Ministry chastised American officials for “interventionist” statements. Government complaints of slanted coverage by the foreign press are rising in pitch.
We can’t escape the reality that for reformers in Tehran to have any hope for success, Iran’s election must be about Iran — not America. And if the street protests of the last days have taught us anything, it is that this is an Iranian moment, not an American one.
To understand this, we need only listen to the demonstrators. Their signs, slogans and Twitter postings say nothing about getting help from Washington — instead they are adapting the language of their own revolution. When Iranians shout “Allahu Akbar” from rooftops, they are repackaging the signature gesture of the 1979 Islamic Revolution.
Mir Hussein Moussavi, the leading reformist presidential candidate, has advocated a more conciliatory approach to America. But his political legitimacy comes from his revolutionary credentials for helping overthrow an American-backed shah — a history that today helps protect protesters against accusations of being an American “fifth column.”
Iran’s internal change is happening on two levels: on the streets, but also within the clerical establishment. Ultimately, no matter who wins the election, our fundamental security challenge will be the same — preventing Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. That will take patient effort, and premature engagement in Iran’s domestic politics may well make negotiations more difficult.
What comes next in Iran is unclear. What is clear is that the tough talk that Senator McCain advocates got us nowhere for the last eight years. Our saber-rattling only empowered hard-liners and put reformers on the defensive. An Iranian president who advocated a “dialogue among civilizations” and societal reforms was replaced by one who denied the Holocaust and routinely called for the destruction of Israel.
Meanwhile, Iran’s influence in the Middle East expanded and it made considerable progress on its nuclear program.
The last thing we should do is give Mr. Ahmadinejad an opportunity to evoke the 1953 American-sponsored coup, which ousted Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh and returned Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi to power. Doing so would only allow him to cast himself as a modern-day Mossadegh, standing up for principle against a Western puppet.
Words are important. President Obama has made that clear in devising a new approach to Iran and the wider Muslim world. In offering negotiation and conciliation, he has put the region’s extremists on the defensive.
We have seen the results of this new vision already. His outreach may have helped to make a difference in the election last week in Lebanon, where a pro-Western coalition surprised many by winning a resounding victory.
We’re seeing signs that it’s having an impact in Iran as well. Returning to harsh criticism now would only erase this progress, empower hard-liners in Iran who want to see negotiations fail and undercut those who have risen up in support of a better relationship.
John Kerry, Democrat of Massachusetts, is the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
14 thoughts on “Should Obama speak out on Iran?”
Speak Truth to Power
By James Phillips
President Obama famously proclaimed in his inaugural speech: “To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history; but that we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist.”
Now that it is clear that the regime’s fist remains tightly clenched around the neck of the Iranian people, the Obama administration can not simply take a business-as-usual approach to Iran’s clerical dictatorship. This would send a dangerous signal to the regime that it can forcefully crush the demonstrations at little or no cost in terms of international pressure.
President Obama must make it clear that the United States stands with the Iranian people, not with the repressive Islamist regime. He should strongly denounce the violent suppression of the democratic opposition and the systematic human rights abuses perpetrated by regime. Moreover, he should call on other world leaders to cooperate in pressuring Tehran to end its persecution of political reformers, human rights activists, and religious minorities.
The Obama administration instead has muted its criticism of the regime, in the vain hope that this will improve the chances of successfully engaging Tehran diplomatically to defuse the slow motion crisis over Iran’s nuclear program. But this diplomatic effort is likely to yield scant results anyway, given Tehran’s longstanding determination to continue on its nuclear path.
Turning a blind eye to the regime’s excesses therefore is not likely to advance American interests on the nuclear front, but will only demoralize Iranian democratic and human rights activists and bolster a regime that fears, rather than seeks, better relations with the United States.
(James Phillips is senior research fellow for Middle Eastern affairs at the Douglas and Sarah Allison Center for Foreign Policy Studies at the Heritage Foundation.)
Meddling Won’t Help
By Fariborz Ghadar
The Iranian election is a matter for the Iranian people. It is up to them to elect their leadership. Of course, we hope that the real will of the people will be reflected in their elections. But any other statement at this time by the President Obama and his administration would be counterproductive. If the intention is to help the opposition, it would likely back fire and have the regime call the opposition agents of the Great Satan.
Yet if we approve of the election results we will be abandoning the faction that believes the election has been stolen from them. Since we do not know what the actual results were, or likely to be, any statement is highly inappropriate and would be considered meddling by the majority of the Iranian public.
That said, there’s reason to be deeply concerned about the events in Iran. Peaceful dissent must not be suppressed, and human rights should be respected — which is what President Obama has already reiterated. We should refrain from being the world’s referee –- we are not perceived as unbiased, and certainly not in Iran.
(Fariborz Ghadar, the director of the Center for Global Business Studies at Penn State University, is a senior adviser at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. He held a vice-ministerial post in the Ministry of Commerce of Iran under the shah.)
Dangers of a Weak Dictator
By Sandeep Baliga
A stolen election, and what it reveals about the security of Iran’s ruling elite, means that it is more important than ever to engage with Iran.
So far the signs from the Obama administration are encouraging: “The administration will deal with the situation we have, not what we wish it to be,” one senior official said. Let’s hope the administration understands what that situation is.
President Obama is in a difficult position. He under pressure to speak out more and take a tougher line with Iran, as Senator McCain has. But the main issue is not whether the election was stolen or not, but what it reveals about Ayatollah Khamenei’s hold on power.
Under Khamenei’s leadership, the Revolutionary Guard has become more powerful and taken over parts of the economy. The disputed election suggests that Khamanei’s position has become weaker as the public distaste for Ahmadinejad’s policies has grown. If we respond with our own saber-rattling, this is more likely to inflame the situation than ever before. A strong dictator can be passive in the face of aggression and still survive in power. But a weak dictator must respond forcibly to every threat to his rule.
The key question is whether Khamenei will ratchet up aggression to survive in power. One way to consolidate power is to win a war. If the regime’s survival is in question, it may destabilize the region and pursue nuclear weapons in a bid to consolidate internal support. A democratic leader may also try to use aggression to drum up support for re-election.
A careful study of history finds that weak dictatorships like Iran, that lie in between full democracy or strong dictatorships, can be the most warlike of all.
(Sandeep Baliga is associate professor of managerial economics and decision sciences at the Kellogg School of Management at Northwestern.)
Let Protesters Know the U.S. Cares
By Mehdi Khalaji
Only before the June 12 elections could I have agreed with President Obama’s statement on Tuesday that “the difference between Ahmadinejad and Moussavi in terms of their actual policies may not be as great as has been advertised.”
What is happening these days in Iran has little to do with Mir Hussein Moussavi’s policies or background. What matters now for the Iranians participating in the daily demonstrations, even those who did not vote or voted for the other reformist candidate, Mehdi Karroubi, is not Mr. Moussavi’s agenda as he expressed during his campaign but rather what he represents: the Iranian people’s resentment of the militarization of the government, the humiliation and isolation of the nation on the world stage.
Despite Ayatollah Ali Khamenei being the one who has the final say on the Islamic Republic’s foreign, nuclear and military policies, Mr. Moussavi, in his televised debates before the election, criticized the government’s economic agenda and political and cultural suppression. He also challenged Iran’s foreign polices and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s inflammatory statements about the decline of the U.S. and the annihilation of Israel.
The Obama administration’s caution in passing judgment about the legitimacy of the election is wise. It will do best if it watches and waits for the final decision of the Iranian supreme leader. But President Obama should make it clear in his public statements that there is a big difference between a President Ahmadinejad and a President Moussavi because two things cannot be ignored by the U.S. administration.
First, if we assume that Ayatollah Khamenei is the real power in Iran, there should be an explanation for his persistent support of Mr. Ahmadinejad in the last four years despite strong criticism of the president’s policies from a wide spectrum of reformist and conservative Iranian politicians. There are many reasons to believe that Ayatollah Khamenei sees a fundamental difference between Mr. Moussavi and Mr. Ahmadinejad.
Second, had Mr. Moussavi won the election in the same way that Mohammad Khatami did 12 years ago, the supreme leader could have used all the same tools to weaken him. But in the current situation, if Mr. Moussavi comes to power out of the mass mobilization of Iranian society, it would mean the defeat of not only Ayatollah Khamenei but the institution of the “ruling jurist” and the agenda of the militarization of the government. Mr. Moussavi would be the first president in the history of the Islamic Republic who comes to power by defeating “the real power” in Iran.
What President Obama should to do now is focus more on the people in the streets rather than the election itself. He should condemn the Iranian government for using violence against the peaceful demonstrators no matter who would come to office as a president. According to several sources in Iran, more than 30 demonstrators have been killed and at least 150 leaders of the reform movement have been arrested in the last few days. President Obama’s strong statement in favor of human rights can have a significant impact on preventing further arrests and bloodshed.
(Mehdi Khalaji is a visiting fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.)
Let’s Just Watch
By Tamim Ansary
Tamim Ansary is the author of “Destiny Disrupted: A History of the World Through Islamic Eyes” and the memoir “West of Kabul, East of New York.”
Pushing Iran makes Iran push back, especially when the push comes from America. Stepping back from Iran lets Iran’s own internal debates emerge and shape events. In the eighties, America’s (alleged) support for Iraq in its bloody war with Iran paid America no dividends. It only helped Iran’s religious hardliners rally their masses and consolidate their grip.
In the nineties, with Western influence purged from Iranian discourse and Islam unchallenged as the doctrine of the state, Iranians began to debate Khomeinism, and “reformist” currents emerged, culminating in Khatami’s 1997 victory.
But in 2003, following from the events of 9/11, the Bush Administration sent troops into Iraq and spoke of forcing regime change in Iran, sparking resentiments that helped Ahmadinejad win the presidency in 2005. During his term, continued threats to Iran’s sovereignty only built popular support in Iran for a nuclear weapons program.
America has a definite interest in the outcome of the Iranian election, but we promote that interest best by doing least. Iran is going through a convulsion generated by its own issues. Reformists such as Mousavi are not pro-Western stalking horses coming out of hiding but Muslims with a dissenting yet still Islamic vision of where their country ought to go—and as such they might succeed.
By “succeed,” I don’t mean getting Ahmadinejad decertified. That’s superficial. I mean establishing a direction for change that leads to democratic norms, expanded gender equality, et al without attacking the idea of an Islamic republic but rather by redefining what “Islamic Republic” means. That would profit the West by empowering Iranian leaders to engage peacefully and by undermining popular support for nuclear weaponry because the thing is, a nuclear bomb forces the world to take you seriously, but if you already feel respected, you don’t need that bomb after all.
Joh Kerry already gave a brilliant answer to that. American interest is best served by not dictating things from outside and letting the people in the main street decide their destiny. I hope this will translate into Africa as well. In our case, the reality is quite different. Unlike Islamic fundamentalism, there is no way African dictators can rally their citizens against the US to prolong their dictatorship. American help against tyranny will only bond US future interests with the people of Africa.
Thanks Obama weyane has committed more crime than sudaneese bashir
http://www.eastafro.com
http://www.eastafro.com/Post/2008/10/20/amharic-music#
Are u drunk almaz?
After WWII Americans have already damaged the people of Iran more than once. They should just keep their hands off the people of Iran. Iranians are quiet capable of charting their own course, they don’t need discredited American policy dipping its dirty hands in their affairs.
Regardless of what American officials say in their media, they are already interfering in the internal affairs of the Iranian people by fanning the flames with their media outlets, western secret services are working day and night to destablize Iran as we speak. So what the politicians say is nothing but window dressing. I hope the Iranian people don’t fall prey to the underhanded tactics of western intelligence agencies working under various guises.
why is this a topic here any way? don’t we have our problems to worry? the question should be why don’t we have the courage of Iranian people to say no and expose the dictator of our own country? woyane can’t stand against 80 million people if we all stand up and say enough is enough.
Locking horns in public with some bulls may not help since descrete but effective underground assistances may do better miracles there in the area of the God’s and Prophet’s birth places. Interferance or no interferance, Iran will surely change sooner than later and may even become a modern Middle east super power without those medieval Mullahs or becoming a petty puppet like the late Shah who lived as a demi God and died as a petty fugitive. Hmm…
“Courage, it would seem, is nothing less than the power to overcome danger, misfortune, fear, injustice, while continuing to affirm inwardly that life with all its sorrows is good; that everything is meaningful even if in a sense beyond our understanding; and that there is always tomorrow.” ~Dorothy Thompson
Iran issue is for Iranian and American for americans. Period. Even if it come to Ethiopia, if Ethiopian election were made without interference, it were Ethiopian problem to deal with it, sadly as we all know the Bush-adminstration had their dirty fingers on Meles´s as$, hence it became to be American problem too. Iran is indenpendent unlike Ethiopia and other African country and as such it´s up to them, by the way i´m sure the CIA dirty fingers are already there.
Obama’s “wait and see approach!”
The position President Obama has taken so far about Iran is the correct one – the mildest and the safest one to deal with a nuclear-developing Iran, a country governed not by reasons but by emotions and religious dogmas inspired by its mullahs and Imams.
The approach – “let the Iranians hammer out their differences and then elect their president for their country” – is a-wait and see approach taken by Barack Obama, a pacifist.
Iran, an oil producing country, has been a severe headache to the United States since the fall of the Shah of Iran, and the American people will never forget the humiliations and sufferings of their sons and daughters taken as hostages by the Iranian Muslim extremists in 1979.
Even though America has tried to erase the misdeeds of Iran, the Iranians, however, continue to disseminate their hateful slogan: “Down with America!” And they are still burning the American flag when ever they get out for demonstration in the streets of Tehran; they are the inciters of the Middle East conflicts between Lebanon and Israel and between the Palestinians and the Israelis. They are deeply involved in the Iraq War and never want America to win the war and bring democracy to the Arab regions. Of course, the hatred between these two countries will continue until Iran dismantles its nuclear programs and join the international communities. Therefore, America should distance itself from the Iranian politics and watch gingerly the outcome of this election that has claimed the lives of some innocent Iranian demonstrators.
However, Obama must be fully involved in the coming of the Ethiopian presidential election because Ethiopia is not Iran; Ethiopia is one of America’s best friends, perhaps next to Israel, the recipient of billions of American dollars.
Ethiopians, despite America’s continuous material support for the dictator Woyanne government for such a long time, never demonstrated against the United States, never uttered the three ugly words: “Down with America,” and never burned the American flag; they have great admirations and sincerely respect for the American people.
Therefore, I would say that President Obama must carefully follow the coming Ethiopian election; he must first pressure the Woyanne government to release all political prisoners from jails and to allow the other Ethiopian exiles to return to their country and participate in this historic election.
Obama must send his representatives to Ethiopia ahead of time to monitor the election process. We in the diaspora have sharpened the minds of the Ethiopian people through our comments and articles so that they can get out in a great number and elect their own prime minister without fear or intimidation as in the past election.
By any means, Ethiopia needs Obama to persuade Meles Seitanawi never to use brutal force as he did in the past. This time, Ethiopians need the presence of the American and the European police force to avoid another blood shed between the Ethiopian civilians and the brutal Ethiopian federal police force.
The United Nation should allow the United States and the European Union to send ten to fifteen thousand police for that Election Day. No Ethiopian police should be seen in the streets of Addis Ababa, only American and European forces, protecting the Ethiopian citizens. In this case, the election would be fair to both parties and clean from would be cheaters.
I am eagerly waiting for President Barack Obama to issue a guideline to the Woyanne government about the coming Ethiopian election by which the two parties should abide, and the guideline must include the following points:
1. No Ethiopian police presence at each ballot station during the ballot casting day.
2. The ballot boxes must be watched by foreign agents throughout the ballot stations.
3. The ballots must be collected by the same foreign agents.
4. The ballots must be kept at the Canadian or British or American Embassies in Addis Ababa.
5. The ballots must be counted by religious leaders: Muslims or Christians, Jews or animists. Aba Paulos should not be allowed in counting those ballots.
6. During the ballot count day, there must be watchers standing while the others are counting the ballots.
7. When the ballot counting is over, the result must be sent to the British or American Embassy in Addis Ababa.
8. The Next day, the American or the Canadian ambassador should inform Meles to convene the Ethiopian Parliament without telling the result to the Prime Minister.
9. When all the Ethiopian representatives are convened, the Canadian or the American or the British Ambassador must declare the winner.
10. Immediately the defeated candidate must accept defeat gracefully and congratulate the victor.
It is shame to see the right wing in here want to use the Iranian uprising for their political advantage against Obama rather than to take a position that could help the oppostion in Iran. The goverment of Iran loves Obama to declare US support to the opposition so it will blame the CIA. A ground for “legite” right to liquidate the movement. This is precsely the Republicans want. They did not say any thing when the same kind of phenomenan happend in Ethiopia in 2005.This is undoubtly revealed their masquared hipocracies.As for all Ethiopians in the diaspora we must show our solidarity to the Iranians by going out and demonistrate. Lets take out our martyrs picture and expose the Woyanes by using this oporunity. The people of Iran and Ethiopia will be victorious. DOWN WITH THE DICTATORS!