- Daily Beast: Azadeh Moaveni reports that “in conversations with friends and relatives in Tehran this week, I’ve heard the opposite of what I had expected: a resounding belief that this time the United States should keep out.”
- National Review: Rich Lowry writes, “Say this for him: Barack Obama is not making Jimmy Carter’s mistakes in Iran.”
- The Anonymous Liberal parries the continuing calls from some conservatives that Obama needs to speak up more on Iran:
- Los Angeles Times: Babak Rahimi, an Iranian scholar now living in the United States, has been back in Iran since late March studying “the presidential elections and how Iranians perceived the electoral politics.”
- Commentary: Michael J. Totten writes, “This strange meme in many media reports that Ahmadinejad has a ‘base’ of support in the countryside is not only wrong, it’s backwards.”
- Informed Comment: Juan Cole on Mir Hussein Moussavi’s call for a rally today to mourn the protesters killed so far in the uprising: “Mourning the martyr is as central to Iranian Shiite religious culture as it was to strains of medieval Catholicism in Europe, and Mousavi’s camp is tapping into a powerful set of images and myths here.”
- CQPolitics: David Corn passes on the comments from an Iranian in Tehran, who is posting to a listserv Corn is also a member of: “The discipline and self-control of demonstrators over the last several days, even after fatal violence on June 15th, was inspiring to watch and to be in!”
- New Republic: Michael Walzer writes that when “reading about the mass demonstrations in Iran, my first thought isn’t about what the U.S. government should do or what President Obama should say. It is about what the rest of us should do and say.”
I heard these sentiments, remarkably thoughtful for such a passionate moment, echoed from many quarters. President Barack Obama’s outreach to Iran, and his offer of a mutually respectful dialogue, has raised the possibility of better relations for the first time in years, and many Iranians worry that a false step might jeopardize that prospect altogether.
Carter arguably didn’t do enough to support an Iranian government faced with a popular revolt; Obama isn’t doing enough to support a popular revolt against an Iranian government. Carter’s foreign policy was achingly idealistic; Obama’s foreign policy is cold-bloodedly “realist.” Ultimately, though, both presidents share a deep naiveté, even if it has slightly different iterations. For all the talk of Obama’s realism, he is pursuing a policy driven by a fantasy about international affairs—that all disputes can be resolved through negotiations and governments can be talked out of their interests.
I have no doubt that the Obama administration is doing whatever it can, quietly and behind the scenes, to aid the reformers (such as their request to Twitter the other night to delay scheduled maintenance). But jumping into the fray publicly would so obviously be counterproductive that you really have to wonder whether conservatives want the reformers to succeed. It strikes me as bizarre, too, that conservatives are suddenly willing to ascribe so much magical power to Obama’s words, as if a public show of support would somehow inspire the Iranian reformers to double their efforts. How is that belief at all consistent with the relentless criticism from conservatives of Obama’s Cairo speech? Has Obama suddenly developed new powers of persuasion and inspiration that conservatives all believed he was lacking a few weeks ago? Can he now will the Iranian Mullahs into submission by the sheer power of his eloquence?
One major claim of those in power is that although there is some dissent in the cities, the countryside voted solidly for Ahmadinejad, which accounts for his win. But in my preelection fieldwork in a number of southern provinces, I observed major tensions between provincial officials — especially the local imams — and the Ahmadinejad administration in Tehran. I saw far lower levels of support for the president than I had expected. In fact, I heard some of the most ferocious objections to the administration in the rural regions, where the dwindling economy is hitting the local populations hard. As one young Bushehr shopkeeper put it: “That idiot thinks he can buy our votes. He does not care for us.”
The uprising we’re all watching on YouTube is taking place inside Ahmadinejad’s “strongholds,” such as they are.
Ahmadinejad is a “conservative” in the relative sense of the word, as he resists any and all reform of the 1979 revolution. He is not, however, a conservative in the traditional sense. Khomeinism and radical Islamism are 20th Century totalitarian ideologies. Traditional village people, conservative as they may be, have little use for them.
Today’s protesters are wearing green, which symbolizes Mousavi’s descent from the Prophet Muhammad. . . . But now Mousavi’s his supporters are also sporting black ribbons to indicate that they are in mourning for the fallen. Typically, the dead will be commemorated again at one month and at 40 days. In 1978 such demonstrations for those killed in previous demonstrations grew in size all through the year, till they reached an alleged million in the streets of Tehran. Since the reformists are already claiming Monday’s rally was a million, you wonder where things will go from here.
When an AN supporter appeared, they were confronted not with boos or hisses, but with a silent sea of hands in the air with the v for victory sign. I was proud to be there. One of the reformist clerics just before his arrest said “I have only just now realized how far behind our supporters we actually are.” Of course the pro-electoral recount side are outflanked organizationally: without an organization or means of communication or accessible leaders it’s not clear how much further the demonstrations can go. No objectives can be discussed or developed, and no planning can be coordinated. One cannot even tell if communications - such as the printed flyers yesterday, apparently from Mousavi, telling people NOT to demonstrate - are genuine or not. But then consider what is being achieved despite all these disadvantages! And it has become clear that this election struggle can have very wide implications for the entire political system.
We boast of our lively civil society, and those of us on the liberal left call ourselves internationalists. So let’s use all our organizations and associations to act internationally–in support of liberals and leftists, friends of democracy, wherever they are. Confronting mass protests in Iran, where at least some of the protesters, perhaps many of them, are our political friends, let’s help them through our parties, and unions, and religious groups, and magazines. Let’s write about them, publish their stories, raise money for their activities, condemn their arrests, hold meetings, sign petitions, picket Iranian embassies in every country where we can mobilize the picketers. Let’s explore every possible means of agitation and advocacy on behalf of our principles and our friends.
From 1 to 25 of 32 Comments
The Mullahs are extinct ca. 2009
— Shah’s GhostI hope this a great revolution to change hearts, minds and souls of Iranians about freedom, democracy and justice but also a lesson for other people in closed societies.
I think it is always good to remember words of wisdom in time of crisis to make better judgement and position ourselves positively. No better person than Hazrat Ali regarded Hero of Islam said:
“No honour is like knowledge. No belief is like modesty and patience. No attainment is like humility. No power is like forbearance. And no support is more reliable than consultation.”
— BondObama is damned if does and damned if he doesn’t intervene somehow (?) in the Iran crisis. No wonder Presidents slowly lose touch with the voices that don’t reflect their own instincts; it starts with the cynicism that comes with the realization that EVERYONE has an opinion on EVERYTHING just to garner a bit of the spotlight, especially these days on the Right. It would be wonderful, I bet, for him to just block it all out and create “the bubble” so many Presidents develop, a bubble that seems to be transparent but its interior is mirror-like. Suggestion, Mr. President: Keep reading Lincoln.
— Ben DaggettEric,
US MUST remove sanctions, change its behavior towards Iran and terminate any sort of threat, real or perceived, and enter into open and genuine in-good-faith bi-lateral negotiations to untangle six decades of misadventure in Iran.
— Hassan AzarmI guess now the Israel lobby in the US cannot continue to portray Iranians as fundamentally hostile to democracy and modernism.
— NeilI repeat:
I, for one, am glad to see the days of ego-tripping American cowboy interventionist self-righteous bloviation go away. The Bush administration gave up the moral high ground on our behalf some time ago. For President Obama to wag his finger at Iran’s dictators might satisfy neo-con chicken hawks, but would be foolish, childish and impolitic.
If anyone in the world doesn’t realize that Iran is being run (and ruined) by theocrats and thugs then they are either in a coma or running North Korea. Spare us the indignant piety of Senators Kyl, McCain, Kristol and all the rest of the neo-con right wing pontificators. They should know that American “support” of the protestors won’t help the Iranian protestors, even if it helps certain Americans feel better about themselves.
Try this thought on for size: Contrary to the right wing neo-con world view, what is happening in Iran isn’t about America’s goals and aspirations … this is about the goals, aspirations and will of the Iranian people. This battle in the war for Iran’s future will be won or lost by the Iranian - not the American - people.
If those who reject the oppression of the present regime win the support of those with the guns then it’s game/set/match. If not, then it’s Tiananmen redux.
— jonscottThe Iranians are very sensitive about US interference in their internal affairs. Any action by our government that could be construed as interference would be used by the hardliners to undermine the reformers. All we can do is express the hope that the will of the people will be determined by an accurate counting of the votes. We have to treat the election as an internal Iranian issue.
— FourierBTW, it is interesting that our conservatives consider Obama naive because he believes that negotiations can achieve results. Who has been more naive than the neocons who thhought that all problems, including Iraq and Iran, could be solved by military force.
The President is smart to stay out of this. This is what a revolution is supposed to look like–organic, arising from its own culture and events, and not imposed or incited from outside.
— VEHThink of how this story might have been different had Bush acceded to Israeli requests last autumn to provide military support for bombing Iran. I voted for Obama, but I give Bush credit for that decision. Israeli interest in demonizing Iran so that its nuclear facilities will be bombed is about to collide with American interest in encouraging moderate governments in the Muslim world. It will be interesting to see how that collision plays out in this country. Even if Ahmadinejad prevails we are on notice of a friendly, moderate majority that is likely to prevail in the long run, provided we do not do something to push them back into extremism.
— F. Gordon AllenA closed mouth gathers no feet!!
— robert rostandJonscott says:
If those who reject the oppression of the present regime win the support of those with the guns then it’s game/set/match. If not, then it’s Tiananmen redux.
This is half true. Popular uprisings succeed by winning support of those with guns (Russia, 1917) or by convincing the leaders of those with guns that killing a large fraction of their citizens is not really a good option (Germany, 1989). There are many more examples of both paths.
— WallyStrongly in agreement with all of the remarks, above. I’d like to suggest that there is a certain political worldview (broadly overlapping with but by no means limited to conservative and neoconservative approaches) that sees force as the only instrument of change in the world. This was the Bush model. It failed. Obama is experimenting with a different approach, and so far I believe he is on the right track. To overlook the history of American “misadventure” (quoting another poster, above) in Iran would be the height of recklessness. This calls for a flexible approach that errs on the side of caution and restraint. Let me close by quoting the response of an Iranian friend of mine when I asked him how for his reaction to Obama’s statement on Iran on Monday:
“I am so happy and grateful! The way that he addressed and respected Iranian people choice and election and try to staying away is SO WISE! Our government wants US to make a move and then relates every rally and movement to US tricks for revolution in Iran and get the chance to start killing people officially! Very wise and great approach from Obama… Read More! I am so glad he said to the youth that the US is watching and hearing our voice. Wise choice from American people for their election! Now the US and Europe are showing support for democratic movement in Iran and US, specifically Obama, knows that people in Iran still remember 1953 coup formed by CIA to screw our democracy movement and he tries to show the respect. I think this is what Iranian people expect from him.”
— DOSDuring the election, many supporters of John McCain said he would not be another Geroge W. Bush or Dick Cheney. His remarks about US involvement in Iran’s current situation (as well as many others since the election) have put the lie to that proposition. He is showing his true ridiculous neo-con colors at last.
— Timothy O’BrienOur False Prophet appears to have no idea what a golden opportunity he is passing up… overthrow this evil regime without firing a single shot… get their Armageddon-inspired nuke program off the world stage… and free 30 million people all at one time.
But the boy wonder is too stupid to see it… or somehow just doesn’t care?
And isn’t this what George W Bush told you was going to happen in the Middle East after the liberation on Iraq?
Maybe that’s why Barack Obama has so little apparent interest in finishing the job in Iran… no matter how much it benefits the US and free world.
http://reaganiterepublicanresistance.blogspot.com/
— Reaganite Republican ResistanceExcuse me, but this discussion is silly.
Social and political upheavals that result in improvements have prerequisites that just aren’t there. Anything leaders of any other country say or do is truly irrelevant until those prerequisites are satisfied. These prerequisites have to add up to a situation where even those who rule realize that even they are unhappy with the status quo.
What have we here? An oil exporting country that can support all it’s people’s day to day needs, run by a lot of fat and happy old clerics who are complacently satisfied with themselves, and some affluent and eager middle class types who are very unhappy but not really suffering very much in the rest of their lives.
The biggest problem that they have is the trouble that comes from anarchy and civil unrest. This is about an election? Unless the government goes paranoid and starts rounding people up in the thousands and torturing them and killing them, a crack down is not likely to result in circumstances that will lead to further disorder and a collapse of the system, so the protesting will diminish to nothing.
What happened after the Chinese crushed their young people’s uprising in Beijing? The system repressed individual liberties but it went right on going. That’s what is going to happen in Iran.
Of course the clerics might over-react, use terror to restore order, and create what they don’t have, conditions for their people to reject them and throw them out.
— Progressive GadflySo how do we strike the blow, Mr. Reaganite Republican Resistance?
Can’t invade and install one of the Shah’s descendents. We just don’t have enough troops to spare.
How about surgical strikes aimed at Republican Guard centers in populated cities, Maybe a shock and awe attack on Qum? Maybe netanyahu would help us out on this?
Sure there will be some collateral damage but I am sure that the Iranians will thank us as they bury their dead in a new world of freedumb!
— Wonks AnonymousA simple rule for any action:
If you want in, you must commit to stay in until it ends. If you want to get into a fight, fight until you win; no halfway effort. There is no way we want to fight in Iran. So make soft barks and growl. Irani people themselves generated this unrest and they will finish it themselves. We have tolerated and even supported worst dictators.
Staaaay Out!
— Potomac WonderfoolThe one can do no wrong.
— annbierNo, I take that back. I was horrified to learn that he is not giving primary health care to domestic partners. What is he giving them? A hearty handshake?
This is an Iranian problem and we are much much better off working from behind the scenes. I can just see the most radical elements in Iran hoping that we can once again become meddling ugly Americans… the enemy used to again divide and conquer the nation and neutralize the reformists.
— helenKeeping Twitter alive was a master stroke. “Finishing the job” would be another disaster. Good work President Obama.
Bravo Barack! The ones with the most to lose here are the clerics. You talked about the old “damned if you do…” line, but I think the people with everything to lose are the clerics themselves. Let’s look at this:
— kellyWho certified the bogus election that made this guy the winner? Who are they appealing to for fairness in order to achieve fairness in the election? If they grant the recount, then won’t they be admitting they made a mistake, thus tearing down that wall of infalibility that allows them to keep their exalted positions. However, if they refuse to agree to the will of the masses then they will be looked upon as unfeeling and unresponsive to the very people they have vowed to take care of, the people they claimed to have conducted the original revolution of 1979 for.
Silence is golden Mr. President. Maybe the regime won’t self-destruct like the cable networks kept flashing across the screens last night but the old Iran is definitely on the way out.
@ #14– I’m confused, is “finishing the job” in Iran doing what is in the Iranian people’s interests, or those of the U.S. I assume from your post that you’re one of those “bomb ‘em ’til we get what we want” types. Those in the know understand that aggressive U.S. action at this time would only undermine the reformers. Whose side are you on, anyway?
— BradWe have not business meddling in another countries’ internal affairs. We’ve done it too many times and our meddling has never brought positive results all around.
— okieWe are in Iran if only as an example of a secular state that protects the rights of all to express the most violent and insane beliefs.
— Morton KurzweilReaganite Republican Resistance -
the devil is in the details. Overthrowing Hussein was supposed to be “easy,” too….
I suppose it all seems easy when you’re sitting comfortably at home, letting others do the dying.
— DCIt’s fascinating how we think that we can muscle our way into this mess and “fix” it, whatever fixing means.
Somehow we keep on deluding ourselves that in every country there is a critical mass of pro-American population who need to be empowered to help look after our interests.
— Ajit