This is a guest post by ganselmi.
On Friday morning, President Barack Obama released a video to congratulate Iranians around the world on the occasion of the Persian New Year, or “Nowruz.” BBC Persian’s hugely popular and officially-banned satellite channel has broadcast the message in its entirety to Iran.
This video “postcard” to Iran reflects the new administration’s emphasis on renewing American soft power and public diplomacy to tackle the many foreign policy challenges facing the US and its allies. Politics aside, President Obama’s typically eloquent rhetoric is sure to impress the Iranian masses. And his demonstration of genuine appreciation for the artistic and literary contributions of Persians (he even quotes Saadi!) is a major improvement over George W. Bush’s often culturally tone deaf approach to Iran.
Tucked into this warm overture however, was a statement that should alarm all those concerned about the security of Israel, the long-term stability of the Middle East, and the Iranian people’s three decade-long struggle for freedom from theocratic misrule. “The United States wants the Islamic Republic of Iran to take its rightful place in the community of nations,” Obama declares. “You have that right.”
Coming from a US President, this is an absolutely stunning choice of words. For it seems to suggest that going forward, the United States takes for granted - for all intents and purposes - Iran’s clerical regime as a legitimate entity and a permanent fixture of the Middle East. In other words, the Obama Administration’s approach vis-à-vis Tehran is based on the assumption that the IRI’s recent ascent is simply an irreversible process, i.e. now it’s just a matter of learning to “deal” with the mullahs and encouraging them to become more responsible.
But this is clearly a false assumption. The IRI is currently facing a number of problems that threaten its domestic stability and undercut its ability to realize its dreams of regional primacy. These include falling oil prices, massive inflation, high unemployment, rising unrest among its ethnic minorities, resurgent student protests, and a looming succession crisis posed by the possibility of the current Supreme Leader’s death. (If the regime had truly consolidated and solidified its rule to the extent that Obama seems to think, then it would not be conducting so many domestic security/anti-riot drills such as the one pictured in this report by Mehr, the organ of the IRI’s nuclear establishment.)
The perils associated with overestimating the IRI’s power are revealed by Khamanei’s very own Nowruz postcard to the Iranian nation. In it, the Supreme Leader reminds Iranians that the “bullying powers” have conceded “that they cannot close the path to nuclear advancement by the Iranian nation.” And in response to the President’s message, the venerable Jurisconsult offers more of the same defiance and obfuscation:
“As long as the American government’s actions, orientation, and politics remain the same as they have been for the last 30 years, we will also remain as we have been for 30 years!” [my translation]
Meanwhile, President Obama’s message is bound to reduce the confidence of Iran’s oppressed dissidents and leave them wondering if the US has now completely abandoned their cause.
I don’t agree. Obama is talking over the heads of the clerics to the population. He’s cutting the rug out from under Khamenei’s predictable bluster. He’s saying, in effect, “Ok, we’re ending the Bush-Cheney way of doing business. What’s your excuse?” The Iranian population, we hope, will continue asking its “leaders” the same question, with mounting vehemence.
David,
The Iranian population does indeed ask its leaders such questions — only to face arrest, torture, and execution at the hands of the mullah regime. Take, for example the case of one Omid Mir Sayefi, a young Iranian musician and apolitical blogger who, just a few days before Mr. Obama released his video, dared to ask the Supreme Leader “Mr. Khamenei, will you love me as much as you love Sheikh Nasrollah’s son?” i.e. question Iran’s support for Hizbullah.
Omid was immediately arrested and taken to the notorious Evin prison on the outskirts of Tehran where the authorities proceeded to inject him with a lethal overdose of tranquilizers. And there are many, many more Omids out there, many of whom I know personally. And they keep on questioning the regime at great personal risk to themselves and their families.
I’m not one of those people who is a priori predisposed against diplomacy. In fact, I think smart diplomacy on the part of the US is essential. I just think diplomacy needs to be principled as well. (Wasn’t that a campaign promise of Mr. Obama’s?)
In French ,”Iran : Les vœux ratés d’Obama” (Obama’s missed vows)
http://www.iran-resist.org/article5244.html
I don’t agree either.
The whole problem has been that Bush and Cheney have disrespected Iranians by not accepting them and their government as true equals in the International arena. The excuses they provided didn’t seem to apply to other undemocratic countries with terrible human rights problems.
Obama is reversing the trend. He’s saying it’s not up the US to say who is legitimate but up to Iranians.
Even if you are a dissident this is an empowering message. So I have to disagree with the author who seems to be repeating old, tired neoconservative lines.
But JavadX: As long as the constitutional basis of the Islamic Republic’s sovereignty is the absurd, arbitrary notion of velaayat-e faqih or “guardianship of the jurisconsult,” and any attempt to question, renegotiate, or change this state of affairs lands Iranians in jail or worse — don’t the US and other democratic powers have a responsibility to stand up for dissidents?
And when did I ever approve or disapprove of Bush’s Iran policy or policy toward other authoritarian regimes in my original piece?
The death of Omid Mir Sayefi is an outrage (and one I have protested on Facebook). But I do not accept that Obama’s Newroz message counteracts solidarity with Omid or other dissidents. Obama is changing the discussion at the highest level so that dissidents may face a changed set of circumstances on the ground. Not a perfect set of circumstances by any means, but changed.
I was so glad to see some pushback to the genselmi post. But that post is unfortunately predictive of what Obama will be facing as he attempts to chart a new course.
Every effort he makes, whether in Iran or Israel, will be met with certain howls, and the post by genselmi is symptomatic of what is going to happen.
Eric
It’s “gAnselmi,” not “gEnselmi.” If you are going to disagree - your inalienable right, denied to dissidents in Iran - at least do the writer the courtesy of spelling his name correctly. You also might want to reflect on what is being said here before you rush to judgment - the writer is not opposing engaging Iran per se, but to the implication that Iran’s status as an Islamic Republic is somehow permanent.
Sorry for the typo, but I reiterate my point: we will see predictable carping at every effort to alter Iranian behavior.
I am 100% certain of that.
And what’s “predictable” about what’s written in this article? As I said, it’s not completely critical of the Obama initiative, but neither is it another voice in the Amen Chorus.
“If and when the time comes when he finds himself seeking harsh new sanctions–and conceivably even support for military action–against Iran to halt its nuclear program, America will have far more leverage if Obama can say that he made good-faith efforts at dialogue and was rebuffed.”
Michael Crowley here:
http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_plank/archive/2009/03/20/obama-s-shrewd-message-to-iran.aspx
Worth thinking about.
Eric,
I just want to reiterate what Ben said: I’m not a “neocon” or what have you. I believe in soft power, I support diplomcy. And I still have faith in team Obama’s ability to correctly deal with the Iran question.
I just worry about the Obama administration making a bad compromise with the IRI that leaves democracy and human rights completely off the table in the name of “realism.” What I was also trying to accomplish was to show that any realist approach to Iran should be informed by the IRI’s domestic vulnerabilities and by an appreciation for the aspirations of Iranian dissidents, human rights advocattes, labor unions, student protesters, religious minorities, women, etc. etc.