Updated, June 18, 1:30 p.m. | Tamim Ansary, author of two books on the Middle East, has joined our discussion. He argues that the U.S. can promote its interest in Iran best by doing least.
On Wednesday, as thousands of protesters continued to fill the streets in central Iran, the state-run media reported that the Iranian Foreign Ministry expressed displeasure at “interventionist” statements by American officials. President Barack Obama said earlier this week that he was “deeply troubled by the violence” in Iran and that democratic values needed to be observed. But he also said that it would be counterproductive for the United States “to be seen as meddling.”
He has come under some criticism for not calling the landslide victory of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad a fraud. Senator John McCain, for one, said, “He should speak out that this is a corrupt, flawed sham of an election and that the Iranian people have been deprived of their rights.”
Should President Obama speak out more forcefully against the Iranian authorities and their tightening control of the press and the protesters? Or are there good reasons to be more cautious?
- Fariborz Ghadar, Center for Strategic and International Studies
- James Phillips, Heritage Foundation
- Sandeep Baliga, Northwestern economist
- Mehdi Khalaji, Washington Institute for Near East Policy
- Tamim Ansary, author
Meddling Won’t Help
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.
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.
Speak Truth to Power
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.
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.”
The president should denounce the regime and its suppression of the opposition.
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.
Dangers of a Weak Dictator
Sandeep Baliga is associate professor of managerial economics and decision sciences at the Kellogg School of Management at Northwestern.
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.
If we respond with our own saber-rattling, this is more likely to inflame the situation than ever before.
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.
Let Protesters Know the U.S. Cares
Mehdi Khalaji is a visiting fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.
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.”
President Obama should make it clear in his public statements that there is a big difference between a President Ahmadinejad and a President Moussavi.
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.
Let’s Just Watch
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.
At the moment, Iran is going through a convulsion generated by its own issues.
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.
Comments are no longer being accepted.