The New Neocon Assault On Obama and Iran
Dwight Eisenhower refused to do it. John F. Kennedy didn't do it. George H.W. Bush didn't do it. Were they betrayers of freedom?
The "it" in question is, of course, going to the mat against dictators to support upheaval against them. In 1953 Eisenhower remained passive as East Germans rioted in June against the communist regime in the wake of Stalin's death. Three years later he remained mum when the Kremlin quashed the Hungarian revolution. Five years later Kennedy did nothing to prevent the construction of the Berlin Wall. Bush moved as quickly as possible to restore good relations with China after Tiananmen Square. In each case, an American president adopted a prudent course that evoked cries of a sellout among conservatives.
Since the Iranian protests began, the right has been assailing President Obama for acting like an appeaser toward Tehran. Senator John McCain said on MSNBC that Obama "should speak out that this is a corrupt, fraud, sham of an election." House minority whip Eric Cantor said, "The Administration's silence in the face of Iran's brutal suppression of democratic rights represents a step backwards for homegrown democracy in the Middle East." William Kristol, drawing on Leo Amery's famous statement in September 1939 in parliament to Neville Chamberlain, "Speak for England!" declared, "Speak out kindly and gently. But speak out. Speak for liberty. Speak for America." And Jonah Goldberg complained in the National Review that "the new American colossus stands all but silent, her beacon dimmed, her luster tarnished. Please, Mr. President, prove me wrong. Stop voting 'present' on democracy."
Perhaps no one has offered a more comprehensive attack on Obama, however, than Robert Kagan.
Writing in the Washington Post today, Kagan denounces Obama for taking a cautious approach toward Iran: "His strategy toward Iran places him objectively on the side of the government's efforts to return to normalcy as quickly as possible, not in league with the opposition's efforts to prolong the crisis." As Kagan sees it, Obama is following a realist strategy that seeks to recognize the legitimacy of the Iranian regime in exchange for a deal on nuclear weapons. Obama's strategy, Kagan says, is to deflate the opposition. He doesn't want upheaval, Kagan further alleges, but a regime he can do business with.
There was someone else besides Obama, however, who previously endorsed a strategy of talking to the regime. He wrote in the Washington Post on December 5, 2007: "There's no reason the United States cannot talk to Iran while beefing up containment in the region and pressing for change within Iran. As for what's in it for Iran: If Tehran complies with its nuclear obligations; ceases its support for terrorist violence; and treats its people with justice, humanity and liberalism, it will be welcomed into the international community, with all the enormous economic, political and security benefits this brings." The writer was Robert Kagan.
Kagan had it right. There was, and remains, no reason not to talk with the regime and, at the same time, to be prepared to bolster sanctions against it--which, by the way, is pretty much what the Obama administration has been doing. Now that the protests have begun, the administration, like pretty much everyone else, has been caught by surprise. Kagan sees a grand design of hoping for a return to normalcy in Tehran where none exists. "Obama's policy," Kagan says, "now requires getting past the election controversies so that he can soon begin negotiations with the reelected Ahmadinejad government." But the Obama administration was itself aware that it might fail to reach a deal with Iran. What makes Kagan so sure that it is fixated with ensuring stability in Tehran?
Anyway, Obama's refusal to egg on the demonstrators is wise for several reasons. First, the American government (as opposed to American culture) carries no weight in Iran. It doesn't have a historical record, but a rap sheet that would simply undermine any protests by allowing the Mullahs to portray the protestors as the puppets of a foreign regime. Second, Obama would be acting irresponsibly to encourage resistance that could end in massive bloodshed. But he has (slightly) deepened his sympathy for the demonstrators by expressing "deep concerns about the election." Third, the power struggle in Iran itself remains opaque. Whom, precisely, should Obama ally himself with--Mir Hossein Mousavi, himself the former creature of the Ayatollah Khomeini?
It's one thing to accuse the administration of being too cautious in supporting human rights abroad. It's another to claim that it actively wants dictatorships to remain in power.
First, the American government (as opposed to American culture) carries no weight in Iran.
It goes beyond that. Open US support for any individuals or parties in Iran would actually make it worse for the people the US is trying to support, and brand the people as agents of America. Obama can help them best by expressing general support for the principle that people's voices should be heard, and then otherwise staying out of it.
There are encouraging developments in Iran that point toward the possibility of a peaceful and constitutional resolution of the crisis, with Khamenei perhaps gone, and a monitored re-vote of the election. It could get even better. Ahmadinejad can be constitutionally removed by a new Supreme Leader and disqualified from running again.
June 17, 2009 11:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
No they need some bussed in Republicans outside the Grand Ayatolla's residence screaming "Let Us In ! Let Us In!" Now that's democracy in action.
June 17, 2009 11:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Those people are already there (and expressing their phony outrage and half-hearted support for MA at his "victory rally").
June 17, 2009 11:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
And let's remember who put us in the position of being universally hated by Iranians, leading to the 1979 hostage crisis: the war-loving RIGHT who sent the CIA to depose an Iranian leader and set up our puppet, the Shah.
GOP foreign policy hasn't changed in decades and it's what destroyed any goodwill that developing nations ever had toward the US. Pick a developing-world right-wing dictator, any right-wing dictator; he's probably one of the guys installed/supported by Eisenhower, Nixon, or Reagan. (Heilbrunn makes an interesting point above ... Eisenhower wouldn't meddle in European governments, hey, they're almost like us, right? But those brown people in developing countries, why, they needed our HELP and all.)
But hey, why try to rebuild our international reputation now? Forcing ourselves on everybody else has worked SO well in the past -- Chile, Nicaragua, Iran ... It's not like wholesale international resentment of our meddling has ever affected our status, our foreign policy or our lives. /sarcasm
June 17, 2009 11:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
Eisenhower on the Suez Crisis:
"How could we possibly support Britain and France, if in doing so we lose the whole Arab world?
June 17, 2009 7:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Pres. Obama is performing like a Cirque de Soleil acrobat and the insane right would rather have a bull in a china shop. Rest of world saying been there, done that, no thanks.
June 18, 2009 2:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
A political party couldn't be more mindless than the Republicans are now if they made stupidity their raison d'etre.
Their position on Iran would play into the hands of the forces of repression by enabling them to point to Mousavi as a puppet of the US. It is as ridiculous as advocating a government spending freeze at a time when businesses aren't investing and consumers aren't spending.
It would be really nice to have two sign political parties. Alas.
June 17, 2009 11:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
Don't underestimate the byzantine scheming of the neocon crowd. A bald US claim of election fraud would be a powerful tool for Ahmadinejad, and might ensure his victory. But that seems to be what the neocons want.
Posturing a champion of democracy and being able to bomb Iran? Priceless!
June 17, 2009 12:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Perfect.
June 17, 2009 1:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Rethuglicans would be criticizing Obama no matter what he said or did regarding Iran. It's just more of "the party of no"--and hearing McCain rant on this morning on CNN-my God I am glad he did not win the election!
June 17, 2009 12:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
I totally agree with the main thrust of this article that Obama speaking out against the Iranian government and in favor of the protests "would simply undermine any protests by allowing the Mullahs to portray the protestors as the puppets of a foreign regime." Although if this thing gets really bloody we'll have to say/do something, but this is not the time.
I'm baffled by the other two arguments at the end of the article though. I think that simply looking at Mousavi as Khamenei lite or IRGC lite misses the point and plays into rightwinger and Khamenei's hands. Iran is not going to just suddenly adopt U.S.-style democracy--that's not realistic and is that even what the Iranian people want? I don't expect an Iranian leader to be a flower child, but surely a moderate open to dialogue is better than a firebreather like Ahmadinejad or his IRGC ilk. Most nations are born in violence. Surely the fathers of the Islamic Revolution were no Washington and Jefferson, but that's not the point. What if the U.S. hadn't made common cause with Stalin. Mandela did not endorse the past, but realized the need to move forward. Begin and Sadat looked beyond the past to make peace, surely that was the right decision. The past should not foreclose the future. And maybe Mousavi has changed or sees things differently now.
Another point: "Obama would be acting irresponsibly to encourage resistance that could end in massive bloodshed." I don't support violence or resistance as an ends of themselves, but I think Patrick Henry had it right-"give me liberty or give me death." It kind of reminds me of how some say we shouldn't make a big deal of Darfur because it could undermine the North-South peace agreement...so allow one genocide to avoid another--not a perfect analogy, but peace at any cost is a dumb idea. You have to work for peace, but it shouldn't be at any cost.
June 17, 2009 11:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Your Thomas Paine quote actually supports one of the reasons why Obama should NOT comment...for him to invoke Paine, it would be "Give THEM liberty, or give THEM death"...which is clearly unhelpful to any resistance movement.
June 17, 2009 2:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey, as I read Owen's last paragraph I started mentally composing a response and then I see that you already said exactly what I was thinking. That leaves me only one choice, I declare what you said to be brilliant, BRILLIANT!
June 18, 2009 11:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
You say:
"It kind of reminds me of how some say we shouldn't make a big deal of Darfur because it could undermine the North-South peace agreement...so allow one genocide to avoid another--not a perfect analogy, but peace at any cost is a dumb idea."
I say:
"It kind of reminds me of how some say we shouldn't make a big deal of ISRAELI CRIMES IN GAZA because it could undermine the TENUOUS "PEACE" between Israel and Fatah...so allow one genocide to avoid another--not a perfect analogy, but peace at any cost is a dumb idea."
June 17, 2009 11:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
The subject was the Iran, but you've taken a page from the Ahmadinejad/obstructionist playbook in bringing up Israel. In response:
-I'm all for investigating Israeli actions so long as we investigate Hamas too.
-And the numbers being talked about in Gaza are I think about 2,000 and most of the dispute is over who's a combatant and who was unarmed. I'm not saying that 2,000 Palestinians don't matter, but that's a drop in the bucket compared to the over a million killed in the Sudanese Civil War and hundreds of thousands in Darfur.
June 17, 2009 12:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, you are saying that 2,000 Palestinians don't matter.
Now, if it had been 2,000 Jews.....
June 17, 2009 1:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Go yell at MJ for a while.
June 17, 2009 3:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nah, it's easier to respond to a twit like you.
June 17, 2009 6:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
The stance Obama has taken is in our country's best interests. Any overt U.S. meddling at this point would lead to nationalist resentment in Iran, and the instant undermining of the opposition movement.
The neo-cons in the U.S. are as discredited as a marriage vow at a Gingrich wedding. Their advice regarding Iran is counterproductive, and would clearly not serve America's best interests.
The Post doesn't print dating advice from Monica Lewinsky... so I don't see why they print foreign policy advice from the neo-cons. Mystery to me.
June 17, 2009 11:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
The best way to get the crap beat out of you is to take a side in a fight that is not yours to begin with. You will have both sides going after you.
C
June 17, 2009 12:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
I usually use restrained language even for RFepublicans -- and have criticized others for name-calling. But in this case 'brainless homicidal idiots' is restrained.
Will someone please get up and ask -- or post an ad in small-city papers (my favorite tactic for getting our voice actually heard by other than ourselves) how we would have felt if Ayman Al-Zawahiri were to have made comments about our election -- or to have backed protestors against the Bush side in 2000?
It's redundant, yes, but while Iranians like Americans in general, they fear our government. Some of this is the same sort of 'endtimes nonsense' that is as common in Islam as it is in Christian Fundementalism, but there are 50 years of reasons why they feel justifdied. Mossadeqh, supporting the Shah, supporting Saddam, and the saber rattling from the Republicans in the last election.
In fact, comparing McCain's "Bomb Iran" to some of al-Qaeda's threats against the US is not out of line if you can see it from an Iranian perspective.
June 17, 2009 12:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let's bomb Iran. We need a war hat trick!
June 17, 2009 12:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why weren't the neo-cons concerned about the same election fraud in Florida in 2000?
They're only concerned about other people's election fraud?
These guys are nothing but morons with glasses.
June 17, 2009 12:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, they will love the Iranian's crys for "freedom" until a truly democratically elected government in Iran demands its rights to enrich uranium. Then, the neo-conman will go back to bashing the Iranians again.
June 17, 2009 1:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Come on. It's not "the same thing." It is different in conditions, magnitude, and meaning. To think otherwise is reductionist, narcissistic (it's always all about us).
June 17, 2009 3:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
They never give up trying to foment a war with Iran. These people give me the creeps.
June 17, 2009 1:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
There is now an adult in the White House, and the neocons who have the emotional maturity of an adolescent are having a fit. They want their idiot man-child back!
A note to neocons. "Diplomacy" doesn't mean ordering everybody to do what you want them to do. Figure that out, and maybe you'll figure out why your foreign policy approach has failed again and again.
June 17, 2009 1:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
These are the same maroons who said the Iraqis were going to welcome us with flowers. Why does anyone still listen to them?
June 17, 2009 1:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe we should get really tricky and endorse Amnadinejad and the Supreme Leader. Then everyone in the middle east will hate them even more.
Every time a neocon encounters a situation they don't understand their solution is to start dropping bombs. The fact that these guys don't even know who's who over there doesn't preclude them from vociferously advocating American involvement despite an abundance of analagous historical examples of previous medling that indicate it would be exactly the wrong thing to do.
June 17, 2009 1:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe they'd like to bring back some sorta Iran-Contra-like intervention scheme. It worked so well for the Reaganauts.
June 17, 2009 1:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Today we can thank Obama for democracy surge we are seeing in the streets of Tehran. This follows from what Bush offered the Iranians. During his reign he and Rice continually threatened the Iranian people with war. This provided Ahmedinijad with an external threat to consolidate his power. Those forces in Iran who opposed his repressive regime were paralyzed from engaging in political opposition. If they tried they would be immediately branded as tools of US imperialism. In fact many of these forces were Iranian nationalist who believed they had the right to develope nuclear power and would resist American and Israeli demands that they stop.
So one may ask: how did Obama empower these forces in Iran to now oppose Ahmadinijad? Simple answer. His speech to the Iranian people a few months back, his speech in Cairo and his general statements that he wanted engagement and not war has convinced Iranians that today they can oppose the local antidemocratic forces without being considered lackeys of US imperialism.
It seems so obvious today. As long as the US threatened the Iranian people (Bush and Rice policy for the last 8 years) they had no choice but to back their nation. Same thing happened in Russian in 1941: once Germany invaded their land every Russian patriot was compelled to resist. Even if that meant backing Stalin.
June 17, 2009 10:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
While I value Obama's wait-and-see, don't-let-them-use-America-for-ammo approach, I'm at least a little troubled that the President hasn't made a statement affirming his (or his country's) commitment to having the will of the Iranian people honored.
I write more on this over at ObamaPundit:
http://www.obamapundit.com/?p=293
June 18, 2009 11:45 AM | Reply | Permalink