Does it really matter that much what Obama says about Iran?

Tue, 06/23/2009 - 1:30pm

I'm beginning to think that the real Obama effect is the process by which any issue, international or domestic, comes to be discussed primarily in terms of how it relates to the president.

I'm glad Obama publicly stated his support for the protesters in Iran today. It was the right thing to do. But I don't really anticipate either action significantly changing the dynamic of the situation in Iran. It's not as if the demonstrators were waiting for Obama to tell them they are "on the right side of history.” And the Iranian government obviously doesn't really care much about winning Obama's approval.

When Fox News's Major Garett asked Obama "What took you so long?", I had to wonder what he (or John McCain) thinks would have transpired differently if Obama had made a similarly strong-worded statement a week ago. 

I haven't yet seen any indication that the Iranian opposition really wants Obama to say more. Mousavi's international spokesman may have criticized Obama in an interview with FP last week for comparing Mousavi to Ahmadinejad, but he never said that more vigorous support would be welcome, despite how some others have characterized the statement.

The heads of a number of states, including France, Germany, and Canada, have already publicly questioned the elections results and voiced support for the protesters, but I haven't seen any examples of opposition leaders or protesters mentioning this support. 

On the other hand, the argument of Obama's defenders that stronger support would imperil the protesters seems a little unconvincing as well. Iran's leaders have never lacked for pretexts under which to blame foreign meddling for internal dissent. The government was blaming the U.S. for interfering in this election before Obama had said a word. I'm not sure I understand why they're any more or less likely to crack down or make concessions based on what the U.S. president says. 

The fact of the matter is that the United States doesn't have a whole lot of diplomatic leverage or ability to influence what's going on in Iraq right now. The Obama administration still has to face the question of whether the likely fraudulence of Ahmadinejad's victory should change the approach to nuclear negotiations, but that seems like a question that can be addressed down the road. This latest round of the engagement vs. confrontation debate is becoming becomign increasingly tiresome and less pertinent to events outside the beltway. 

(For the record, inviting Iranian diplomats to a White House Fourth of July party is a terrible idea. The White House might not be able to talk the regime out of abusing their own people, but that doesn't mean they should have them over for barbecue.) 

Joshua Keating | Permalink | | Comments? Login or register
( filed under: )


Advertisement

 

I commend Foreign Policy for

by AllanGreen on Wed, 06/24/2009 - 10:41am

I commend Foreign Policy for boasting three authors, who had questioned Obama's insanity on Iran, and have made proposal comments on how to do more. Laura Rozen, David Rothkopf, and Daniel Drezner. History will remember, that you stood on the side of right, and used your brains, while others waffled.

I think it's patently clear that Obama has failed on Iran. He apologised for 1953, the next president will have to apologize for 2009! This time around, we are complicit in a new blood bath.

To support his inane position, the media has been allowed to ignore, and refuse, and confuse the cause of Freedom in Iran, by

>1) Claiming there was no difference between Moussaiv and Ahmedi-nejad.
2) That the election was disputed
3) That our intervention, would only undermine the chances of success.

I've addressed the first in my comments on foreign policy. Now I'll address the second two ,briefly, with a few quotes. I crossposted this comment in a few other authors blogs here, and I apologize if this is inappropriate, and understand any deletion (at least keep one up, please).

About the election. In What We Can Do In Iran by Bernard-Henri Levy summarizes what is known so far.

this election had, in every way, only the appearance of democracy

This is a fact eloquently presented by Hitchens in his latest column, and seconded by traditional non-interventionists such as Juan Cole on his Informed Comment website, and even by Justin Raimondo at Antiwar.com. It's a fact. Shame on Obama and the media, for suppressing it. Sarkozy acknowledged it last Monday.

More from Levy:

The other fact, however, is the desire for change on the part of a substantive fraction--and perhaps even majority--of Iranian society.

Democracies must take initiative.

Finally, the third certainty is that as a result, the initiative more than ever must be taken by democracies.

Democratic obligations

Let's summarize. From these three certainties, considered together, arises a clear obligation: aiding and strengthening, with all our might, the Iranian civil society in revolt. We have done it in the past with the USSR. We eventually understood, after decades of cowardice, that totalitarianism, in its eventual state of putrefaction, was only strong from our weakness.

Not only do democracies have obligations to help the People of Iran, but here are just some of the basic tools at their disposal:

Dan Senor of the CFR, suggests in the Wall Street Journal

First, Mr. Obama should contact Mr. Mousavi to signal his interest in the situation and Mr. Mousavi's security. Our own experience with dissidents around the world is that proof of concern by the U.S. government is helpful and desirable.

Mr. Obama should deliver another taped message to the Iranian people. Only this time he should acknowledge the fundamental reality that the regime lacks the consent of its people to govern, which therefore necessitates a channel to the "other Iran." He should make it clear that dissidents and their expatriate emissaries should tell us what they most need and want from the U.S. This could consist of financial resources, congresses of reformers, workshops or diplomatic gatherings. The key is to let the reformers call the shots and indicate how much and what U.S. assistance they want. Simply knowing we care, that we are willing to deploy resources and are watching their backs -- to the extent we can -- often helps reformers.

As with Ukraine and the Soviet Union before, Mr. Obama could at least make it clear that the U.S. will separate the issues of engagement and legitimacy.

Engagement without an effort to talk to the "other Iran" would not only be a travesty but tactically foolish as well.

Third, the president should direct U.S. ambassadors in Europe and the Gulf to meet with local Iranian anti-regime expatriates. From London to Dubai there are large Iranian communities throughout Europe and the Persian Gulf. The symbolism of this would be powerful, but this should be more than just a photo-op. Expatriates tend to know far more about their countries than even our intelligence experts -- and they could help guide efforts to aid reform.

Fourth, additional funding should be provided immediately for Radio Farda, an effective Persian-language radio, Internet and satellite property of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty. Farda helps Iranians get the information and analytical context that is often denied to them by their own government.

Fifth, the administration should take steps to give Iranian reformers and dissidents a level playing field with the regime in the battle of ideas. Just as providing photocopiers and fax machines helped Solidarity dissidents in communist Poland in the 1980s, today's reformers need access to the Web and other means of communication. Grants should be given to private groups to develop and field firewall-busting technology.

Now for the bridge from virtual to real-

Money should be appropriated for an NGO-run "open window" platform that enables a wide variety of indigenous voices to be carried on radio, blogs, video clips and other media. This can take the form of satellite and terrestrial broadcasting and other information tools to provide Iranians with anonymous communications and access to Internet, television and radio content that their government attempts to deny them. The president should also call a White House meeting of the CEOs of Facebook, Twitter, Google and other video-sharing and social-networking companies. Entrepreneurially minded high-tech companies can manage this project better than the government. Many of these CEOs are strong supporters of Mr. Obama; they should be brought on board to help make his foreign policy succeed. In the meantime, the president should order the military to make some of its EC-130 "Commando Solo" aircraft, which serve as flying television and radio stations, available to enable reformers and protest leaders to speak directly to the Iranian people.

On FP's own blogs,
none other than David Rothkopf stated

We need a forceful message that countries that violate the basic rights of their citizens should expect to pay a price for such behavior in the international community.

They could have said… ideally in chorus with our allies… that the international community was disturbed by apparent irregularities, that any recount or investigation should be made by objective observers, that the suppression of peaceful protests would be viewed with great concern, that Iran would jeopardize its talks with the international community if it undertook violence or condoned voter fraud, that nuclear weapons agreements depend on trust and that countries that seek such trust must act accordingly, that while we seek to maintain engagement, there are limits to what we will tolerate and that we reserve all our options to advance our interests. They could have convened a meeting among like-minded countries to discuss options, sent an envoy, formally postponed further discussions of the nuclear issue until this situation was clarified. They could have raised a doubt in the minds of the leaders in Tehran about how we would react in the face of a crackdown, that there might be consequences.

America's allies can also play a more direct role, Caroline Glick of the Jerusalem Post reports that Israel

has significant capacity to help the demonstrators. It could use its communication satellites to break through the communications blackout the regime has attempted to enforce. Its Internet capabilities can be offered to the protesters to reopen closed networks. Israel could temporarily expand its radio broadcasts into the country and allow its airwaves to be used to broadcast events on the ground in real time so that protesters won't have to rely on word of mouth to know what is happening or where things are leading.

Israel can also further support Moussvai by taking on the Ahmedi-nejad regime directly. As she notes, if the Pasderans are

preoccupied with domestic dissent, they will have less time to devote to Hamas and Hizbullah. If they are busy quelling armed insurrections by Kurds or Azeris or Baluchis, they will have less time to devote to negotiating the purchase of the S-300 anti-aircraft system with Russia, or keeping tabs on their nuclear scientists. Strategically, Israel stands only to gain - either marginally or massively - from the ayatollahs' discomfort.

Note the obvious benefit to Israel:

Were Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu to publicly announce Israel's support for the protesters, Israel would stand to gain politically in a number of ways. First and foremost, it would be doing the right thing morally and so would earn the respect of millions of people throughout the world who are dismayed at their own governments' silence in the face of the brave Iranian protesters risking their lives for freedom.

And yes - its 100% MORAL.

Although I generally refrain from commenting using other's quotes in place of my text, I sincerely hope these quotes illuminate some of those who just can't get their heads around "Well How can We do Anything" gibberish and crap.

Personally, I say we send in special units to assassinate senior Iranian leadership, and foment direct revolts and revolution. It's now or never. If the regime wins, it will be more motivated than evere, to get nukes and kick our ass. Russia also needs to pay a penalty, for lending a hand to the bloody thugs. Caspian or no caspian.