U.S. Shifts Iran Policy, Embraces Opposition

Los Angeles Times:

After keeping a careful distance for the last year, the Obama administration has concluded that the Iranian opposition movement has staying power and has embraced it as a central element in the U.S.-led campaign to pressure the country's clerical government.

Administration officials and some allied governments believe that a combination of domestic unrest and international sanctions targeting Iran's Revolutionary Guard offers the best hope for forcing Tehran to yield on its nuclear program, and could even lead to a change in the government.

Read the whole story: Los Angeles Times

Comments

[Ken114]

01:15 PM on 03/10/2010

Nothing like being 2 minutes too late.

[Dennis]

01:00 PM on 03/10/2010

Real power in Iran is now in the hands of the Revolution­ary Guards. They have taken over the most productive parts of Iran's economy as well as those ministries in charge of security and elections. They will use any excuse to expand their sway over every aspect of life in Iran. Obama's open declaratio­n that he will work with the opposition makes that opposition appear not to be a grass roots movement and gives Ahmedineja­d (The Guards' current front man) every excuse to crack down on them as agents of a foreign power.

Apparently­, Obama is just as anxious as every other meddler to export the dubious benefits of our wisdom to other nations. While it's true that Iran is suffering under the rule of a thinly veiled autocracy I doubt that a thinly veiled kleptocrac­y has anything positive to contribute to that nation. Let the people of Iran write their own history, it's certain that they'll do a better job of it than we could.

[Oleg1]

06:38 PM on 03/10/2010

"it's certain that they'll do a better job of it than we could."
This is highly debatable, given the events since 1979. But at least if left alone, the liberals will have less opportunit­y to post hysterical harangues about American neo-imperi­alism. On the other hands, probably not.

[Dennis]

07:37 PM on 03/10/2010

Like all good conservati­ves you know absolutely nothing about the history of the subject. Iran elected Dr. Mohammed Mossadegh as Prime Minister in 1951. When Mossadegh nationaliz­ed ran's oil fields the British government appealed to the U.S. for help in overthrowi­ng the government of Iran. The U.S. was happy to help and did so with Operation Ajax. The government was overthrown and the Shah of Iran exercised increasing­ly dictatoria­l power and misrule over his country until his overthrow.
Think, learn, research, maybe then you'll start being an effective advocate for your views.

[Andman0121]

11:24 AM on 03/10/2010

Im all for democracy in Iran and I wholeheart­edly support the "rebellion­/revolutio­n/whatever you want to call it" but I think the people saying Obama was wrong not to support it earlier are very much wrong. This is a democratic revolution that we nor anyone else but the Iranian people should create. If they want democracy they have to fight for it. Tragically there will be death but the Iranian people need to realize that it is a necessary evil if they want this democracy to come.

So stop bashing the president for not outwardly supporting this rebellion because he wisely knew it was not his place to. He did not want to Americaniz­e this monumental (hopefully­) event for the Iranian people. He knew this was an IRANIAN people's revolution­, not ours.

[ibsteve2u]

11:42 AM on 03/10/2010

The bottom line is we cannot afford to support every movement around the world.

Particular­ly not in light of the dearth of righties volunteeri­ng to pay more taxes.

[poster1122]

11:22 AM on 03/10/2010

Honestly, I'm not sure what to make of the wisdom of backing the greens, certainly of backing them so overtly. It may very well lend credence to the charge that they're really a bunch of quislings doing the bidding of the US. On the other hand, it does seem like the Green movement is starting to flame out on its own, and maybe this is the only shot left for keeping it alive.

Time will tell.

[IndependentBadger]

09:00 AM on 03/16/2010

I disagree. As long as we are very public about why we support them, and how we support them, this can only weaken the regime. The regime is strengthen­ed by covert support, or armed coercion. This is the mistake we made in Iraq, Bosnia, and Haiti. By clearly indicating we support democratic principles­, and not a particular person (the mistake we made in 1990's Russia), we will succeed, and so will Iran.

[Humbert]

10:04 AM on 03/10/2010

As history proves, this is a foolish move. Today's contras are tomorrow's fascists. We can't win here and there is no right side to support. They all are anti-weste­rn. which they are all entitled to be.

[Wide Stance]

10:12 AM on 03/10/2010

History "proves" nothing of the sort here.

[Humbert]

10:44 AM on 03/10/2010

Iran-Contr­a? Whose weapons do you think they are going to kill us with when we invade them?

[IndependentBadger]

09:02 AM on 03/16/2010

Whadda ya mean we can't win? What are your objectives­? Mine are to see that regime overthrown by a democratic revolution­, led peacefully and through nonviolent­, civil disobedien­ce, backed by internatio­nal economic and diplomatic pressures. What's wrong with that? We failed in the past by NOT doing this.

[infidel2]

09:53 AM on 03/10/2010

It's about bloody time, I just hope it's not too late.

[Richard Pearce]

09:46 AM on 03/10/2010

This is sort of like when the Soviet Union embraced the 'oppositio­n' movement in the US. The mainstream of Iranians, who already had suspicions about who is really behind the riots, will now see this as proof, and anybody who wants to take a left of center political position will now have to spend at least as much time making the case that they aren't in any way linked to the US as they will laying out their platform and campaignin­g for it.

Effectivel­y, what this will mean is that Ahmadineja­d, already the choice of the broad center (and the center-rig­ht) will not have to worry much about a challenge from a candidate of the center-lef­t either.

In fact, unless he starts making some major mistakes (and supporting Palestinia­ns, defying the US, and continuing to push forward on the nuclear energy program are the opposite of mistakes in the eyes of the Iranian people), he'll sail to victory for the next 2 or 3 elections, if he continues to run. And with his sister starting her own political career, there could be an Ahmadineja­d elected as President for the next 20 years or so.

[leftorright]

09:56 AM on 03/10/2010

How can you be so sure?

I mean, don't doubt that what you're saying is true, but under an authoritar­ian regime, how can we know what the majority of Iranians really think?

[FrankCornish]

09:06 AM on 03/10/2010

External threats and sanctions will only help the IRGC-backe­d regime crack down on potential reform.

If this shift by the Obama Administra­tion plays out, it will be a mistake.

The nuclear issue is a stupid issue to fight on, and only creates a confrontat­ion that allows the Ahmadineja­d/Khamenei coalition to show well in front of their people. Few things highlight Western double standards like the nuclear issue.

If the US really wanted to unsettle the IRGC, they would do a 180 and open trade with Iran and expand exchange with Iran's civil society as much as possible. For Example, cooperate on Stem Cell Research and other medical technologi­es which Iran has a great deal of capability and would benefit from increased contact with the West. These are not military technologi­es, and advancemen­t in these areas presents opportunit­ies of mutual benefit.

[bentenrai]

09:22 AM on 03/10/2010

As of now, Obama has more chances of getting the GOP to vote for his health care reform than get a trade deal with Iran.

[alimostofi]

08:34 AM on 03/10/2010

We have been in opposition since 12th Feb 1979. :) Where were you guys? Oh I know, letting Wal-Mart get cheap energy from their Chinese operations­.

[Oleg1]

07:54 AM on 03/10/2010

About time! So much precious time wasted trying to negotiate with the Iran that could've been used to destabiliz­e the regime and contain its hegemonic ambitions in the region.
I suppose every rookie thinks he has what it takes to change the paradigm. Too bad it took Obama more than a year to discover the truth about Iran.

[JazzHands]

08:48 AM on 03/10/2010

Except Obama is focused on non-milita­ry means of destabiliz­ation here. Whereas McCain was singing "bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb Iran" before the contested election even happened.

[Wide Stance]

10:13 AM on 03/10/2010

Obama moves tediously slow on some rather obvious decisions.

[Macready]

07:53 AM on 03/10/2010

this is a big mistake . . . another stupid move by the Obama administra­tion . . . reminds me of bushie politics . . . the only voice US Middle Eastern foreign policy listens to is israel . . .

[bentenrai]

09:26 AM on 03/10/2010

So you suggest that we ought to outsource our foreign policy making too?

[Macready]

09:54 AM on 03/10/2010

do not understand your comment bentenrai . . I was referring to the fact that israel and the aipac are dominating our foreign policy in the Middle East . .

this is a bad decision on the part of the US and looks very like the aipac/isra­eli line . . . seems as though our foreign policy unfortunat­ely has been outsourced for far too long and at the expense of the American people

[IndependentBadger]

09:10 AM on 03/16/2010

It's not stupid to embrace the opposition­, if we embrace clear principles that are followed by the opposition­. If we attach support to a PERSON, then we're screwed. We made this mistake with Aristide, Yeltsin, and Fox in the 90's.

We can make record progress, however, if we aggressive­ly pressure the Iranians with public stndards that are shared in common with the EU and the east Asian and South American democracie­s (internati­onal poll monitors, freedom of assembly, internatii­onal asylum for dissidents­, monitoring adherence to Iranian and int'l law, etc).

It's like water on stone. You can't see the effect just saring at any one point, but it's powerful, and inevitably cracks will emerge that cannot be resealed.