This is a guest post by ganselmi.
The time for “analyzing” and “reassessing” the situation in Iran is over. The Obama Administration should speak up on behalf of the millions of embattled Iranians confronting the Islamic Republic to demand fairness and the rule of law.
As many Iranian journalists and serious Iran watchers have pointed out, the re-election of Ahmadinejad was far more than a fraud: it was a coup carried out by Ahmadinejad and hardline elements of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC). And in response to Mousavi supporters’ legitimate anger, Ahmadinejad has resorted to the brutal repression widely reported in the mainstream media and on the blogosphere.
Throughout his campaign, Mr. Obama promised a “principled” approach to Iran . Showing solidarity with the protesters in the streets is, indeed, a matter a matter of principle. Mr. Obama enjoys a great deal of moral authority in the Middle East and among Iranians - more so, perhaps, than any US President in recent memory. He should seize on the “fierce urgency of now” to take a resolute stand at this critical conjuncture. Doing so would not damage the credibility or legitimacy of the protesters, as members of the pro-IRI lobby such as Trita Parsi of the National Iranian American Council have claimed. After all, the students themselves have declared that, were Obama to legitimate the “election” results, their cause is “doomed.”
The President cannot ignore this genuine cry for help. But the need to speak up is also a strategic imperative. If the IRGC succeeds in transforming the current uprising into Iran ’s Tiananmen moment, then the Obama administration may have to abandon diplomatic efforts to stop the IRI’s quest for nuclear weapons altogether. As his ruthless behavior in the hours since the closing of the polls clearly demonstrates, Ahmadinejad simply cannot serve as a reliable or rational negotiating partner on the nuclear issue. Furthermore, refusing to speak up would send the worst possible signal to all those who, in fighting for democracy and human rights, look to the US as a source of inspiration. Failure to show solidarity with the Iranian people then, would see the US incurring a heavy cost, both morally - and strategically - speaking.
Well, ganselmi, I know you have posted this quote already in another entry, but I need to have the sad satisfaction to post it again — with an additional sentence that unfortunately answers your piece here:
“I’ve argued for engagement with Iran and I still believe in it, although, in the name of the millions defrauded, President Obama’s outreach must now await a decent interval. I’ve also argued that, although repressive, the Islamic Republic offers significant margins of freedom by regional standards. I erred in underestimating the brutality and cynicism of a regime that understands the uses of ruthlessness.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/15/opinion/15iht-edcohen.html
You see, after a “decent interval” the indecency becomes decent…
Should Roger be allowed to keep his high-salary job and venerable bully pulpit at NYT? How is that fair?
Petra, that’s coherent in what sense? I’d love to see at least a bit of an explication of what you’re imagining.
This is no simple parallel or presumptive and facile analogy, but I can’t help but think of how Chomsky and Herman counseled a decent interval post-April, 1975, in Cambodia. Other situations of note come to mind. Hindsight is 20/20, fine. But do elucidate the opening we are to expect, and do elaborate as to how the present interval reflects very much that can be considered as “decent”. I’d love to be persuaded, upon responsible and well argued grounds however, not a flimsy suggestiveness and based upon imaginatively wishful thinking.
I respectfully disagree. The regime is starting to look ridiculous in its accusations that this situation is fomented by the U.S. And the Iranian people are getting excellent grassroots support worldwide. President Obama is a lightning rod at this moment in time. Should things turn violent, a la Tiannanmen Square, he must THEN speak out. But not before.
Jaybird,
This was posted before President Obama had reacted to the situation in Iran. I actually appreciated very much the message he delivered in his joint press conference with Silvio Burlosconi. Obama effectively balanced the need to remove the US from the equation against the need to make it known where his heart is.
And of course you’ve probably heard how, behind the scenes, the Administration persuaded Twitter to reschedule their regularly-scheduled maintenance in order not to disrupt the Iranian people’s communication among themselves and with the outside world.
It’s amazing how low our expectations are set, even eager to be for this administration. Or, perhaps, not so amazing. Failing to applaud Obama will, perhaps without exception, result in some form of general condemnation from media sources and elsewhere, and how we like to be liked and how we like to distinguish ourselves from those dubious “right wingers.” Sad commentary on how nearly Pavlovian-like and how ready and even eager people are to conform, with only a pretense and show of principled thought to justify that conformity. File under: saving the appearances.
Michael,
What’s Pavlovian about my comment? I had a certain set of criteria in mind for how the admin. should react to the situation. And I explained why they weren’t met at the message delivered at the press conference.
Since then, the regime has cracked down even more forcefully. Hence why in the last 24 hours I’ve been advocating an even louder response. I believe we received that in Obama’s written statement released today:
“The Iranian government must understand that the world is watching. We mourn each and every innocent life that is lost. 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.
As I said in Cairo, suppressing ideas never succeeds in making them go away. The Iranian people will ultimately judge the actions of their own government. If the Iranian government seeks the respect of the international community, it must respect the dignity of its own people and govern through consent, not coercion.
Martin Luther King once said – “The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.” I believe that. The international community believes that. And right now, we are bearing witness to the Iranian peoples’ belief in that truth, and we will continue to bear witness.”
Correction:
I had a certain set of criteria in mind for how the admin. should react to the situation. And I explained why they WERE met at the message delivered at the press conference.
ganselmi,
Apologies.
There is nothing “Pavlovian” about your own remarks whatsoever. I wasn’t intending to comment on your own commentary specifically, I was thinking more broadly, in terms of the commentary I’ve seen in general and relative to Obama’s remarks as applied to both Iran and Israel recently. A couple of other comments herein spurred my remarks, but I should have better edited and clarified my intentions. My fault, so, again, apologies for that lack of clarity.
(I do wonder, more intuitively and tentatively, whether or not you aren’t too readily satisfied with Obama’s comments - I believe his remarks to be tepid, marginal and equivocating, lacking in verve and lacking in a certain commitment - but I was not thinking of you in terms of my more acerbic comment.)
Michael,
The latest statement touches on all the right themes, and benefits from the trademark Obama eloquence to boot. The repeated use of ‘justice’ is key. Of course, I have no idea why he chose to release it as a written statement rather than get on camera. And why it took him 7 hours into the day to deliver it. But there are probably so many complex and sensitive considerations that go into such decisions that I’m not inclined to delve into.
What I have been saying to everyone (my friends, co-workers, etc.) is that the best thing is for American civil society to speak in people-to-people solidarity. That’s a much more powerful force anyway. So, if we really care about this issue, we need to reach out to elected officials, local media, people in our churches, synagogues, university groups, etc. etc. reminding them to not forget the Iranian people.
ganselmi,
We agree concerning the “complex and sensitive” aspect, certainly, and we agree concerning the remarks about “civil society” (i.e. public diplomacy). But public diplomacy and executive and more official diplomacy in general go hand-in-hand, they work best together, not separately, so we disagree concerning the substance of Obama’s commentary as applied to the current regime and as applied to related activities that could be initiated by the U.S. and other western powers (e.g., Radio Free Asia and other broadcasts and funding; bringing together a sanctions alliance with Germany, the U.S. and other nations; more pointed commentary and policies concerning proxies such as Hezbollah and Hamas or even internal oppressive police forces such as the Basji). The best single term I’ve seen applied to Obama’s commentary specifically has been “formulaic,” i.e. lacking any more vital and well tempered subjective connectedness. The worry over 1953/54 strikes me as especially silly, given what actually did occur during that period.
Still, I don’t wish to quibble or argue the point further.
I agree it’s a difficult and complex set of issues that need to be confronted. But “difficult and complex” situations are precisely one of the reasons we have an executive in the first place: to provide more decisive leadership and focus. No one is suggesting we send in armed forces, but there are assertive and decisive measures that can be adopted, that are far short of military engagement. For purposes of analogy, comparing the Carter administration to the Reagan administration vis-a-vis the Soviets is instructive.