Obama and Iran, Considered

During the 2008 election there was a television ad featuring a late night phone call on the White House hot line. "It's 3:00 am," the narrator said, "there's a phone in the White House and it's ringing, something is happening in the world...who do you want answering the phone?"

During the closing weeks of the election while campaigning for Barack Obama, I would refer to this ad, noting "I know who I want to answer the phone at 3:00 am, the one who will think before he speaks and who has the judgment to weigh consequences before he acts." I would also add that when Air Force One landed for the first time in the heart of the Arab world at 10:00 pm, I knew who I wanted to disembark from the plane. "Barack Obama. Not only because of what he would say, but because of the message his election would send to the Arab and Muslim worlds."

During the past few weeks, I was reminded of these observations both by President Obama's remarkable Cairo address, which no other President could have, or would have, given, and by his thoughtful response to the crisis in Iran.

As carefully crafted and smart as the President's messages have been, I was also reminded, in both instances, of the dangers posed by the ideological recklessness of his critics on the right. They attacked the President after Cairo, accusing him of "moral equivalency" (since he mentioned both the Israeli and the Palestinian narratives of suffering) and "weakening America," by apologizing for past mistakes (the 1953 coup in Iran, the Iraq war and the use of torture). They have also attacked Obama's handling of Iran. Led by the 2008 Republican nominee John McCain, these critics have been relentless, accusing the President of timidity and betraying American values.

Let's consider and compare how the President and his critics have responded to the still unfolding drama in Iran.

From the beginning, Obama expressed concern and some doubts about the Iranian election. When demonstrations broke out, followed by violence, the President expressed support for the right of freedom of assembly and warned against violence. And when the violence continued, his language grew stronger, "The United States and the international community have been appalled and outraged by the threats, the beatings, and imprisonments of the last few days. I strongly condemn these unjust actions."

But, he has noted, it is not up to the United States to decide the Iranian election. And he has made clear that his role, as President, is to promote the national security interests of the US with whatever government sits in Tehran and that this requires an effort to engage Iran, if possible, in order to deter that government from developing nuclear weapons which pose a security threat to the entire region.

His critics, who rejected engagement from the outset, now want him to denounce the election and side with the opposition. Simplistically comparing the developments in Iran to the fall of the "Iron Curtain," his critics apparently believe that support from the US will lead to Iranian regime change.

There are two observations that must be made.

The political leaders and commentators speaking the loudest and urging the most reckless behavior have absolutely no clue what is actually happening in Iran. As was the case in Afghanistan and Iraq, everyone with a microphone and TV camera in front of them has now become an Iran expert. But, their badgering of the President is based more on an ideologically based fantasy of "spontaneous revolution," than on reality. It was this identical infantile disorder that led this same crew to believe that the overthrow of Saddam's regime would "cleanse" Iraq and spontaneously bring about democracy, or that elections in Afghanistan would miraculously liberate women and usher in a liberal democracy in Kabul.

Because of their lack of understanding of what is taking place in Iran, they fail to recognize that egging on demonstrators might result in two undesirable outcomes. The demonstrators may feel emboldened, believing that the US will act on their behalf--which it is not able to do--leading to a tragic replay of the Basra uprising of 1991. Or the fact that the regime might use overt signs of US encouragement to stoke even deeper anti-American sentiment, legitimizing an even more ruthless effort to crush the demonstrators.

Given this, Obama's approach has been carefully calibrated to meet the changing circumstances. Clearly there is a dynamic at work in Iran spurred on by a popular internal discontent among some segments of Iranian society and possibly fueled by a division within the country's ruling elites. This must play itself out without external interference, which can only harm and not help the unfolding process.

In all of this, the US must not be seen as an actor involved in the conflict (despite the efforts by hardliners here and there to make it so). Ignoring the goading of his critics, this is the position President Obama has maintained. What he knows is that, at the end of the day, the US will still have to deal with whatever government is in Tehran, and will still be faced with the nuclear challenge and the exporting of violence that makes this government a problem in the broader region.

That is why I remain thankful that Barack Obama won on November 4, 2008.

Comments

[RiyazGuerra]

Don't forget the Kurds James, and the debacle that occurred after the First Gulf War. We egged them on and would not lift a finger when Saddam extracted his revenge.

I'm grateful for writers such as yourself who can see beyond this egoist claims of moral superiority that too many in the US internalize and look at this issue pragmatically while still factoring the human cost to decisions and positions we take as a nation.

I just wonder if the motivation behind Republican leaders is purely political opportunism or merely unintentional demonstrations of their feelings of moral and cultural superiority...

[LateBoomer2]

"Clearly there is a dynamic at work in [some country] spurred on by a popular internal discontent among some segments of [the country's] society and possibly fueled by a division within the country's ruling elites. This must play itself out without external interference, which can only harm and not help the unfolding process."

Wow.

To think, America has come this far, to take such a mature attitude to another country's internal problems.

And to think, the President is actually leading us in this mature response.

Let me just bask in the joy of it for a while.

[LateBoomer2]

"Clearly there is a dynamic at work in spurred on by a popular internal discontent among some segments of

[Macready]

Great blog . . thank you for posting . . . I am with our Prez too . . I think he has handled the situation in Iran very well . . . you are so right no one knows how things will evolve in Iran . . I don't think even the key players actually know what the outcome will be . . .but one thing is certain . .what is happening is internal and we have to stay out of it . . . the arrest of the Iranian staff at the British Embassy in Tehran . . . underscores this . . . interference (which would be stupid because it is an internal matter) would not help the protesters . . . those who protest loudly for Obama to do something are the same corrupt bunch that illegally invaded Iraq . . .

[LMPE]

The neocons who want Obama to invade Iran should go there themselves to try and fight the government.

[Pema]

The Presidents handeling of the Iran situation is responsive, not reactionary.
Many times restraint is what is required, seldom do we need a bit of cowboy diplomacy, generally the axiom of forces creates force is the outcome. We will find ourselves in a military action sacrificing the lives of an unknown number of personel, committing resources when are already strained from the two current wars. How many wars are these critics willing to find us in? Do they not understand that is almost a certainly the outcome?
Dr. Zogby spoke of not understanding the situation in Iran, there is a tone deafness to the mind set of the middle east in this country. This country tends to see actions in the middle east from a ethnocentric view. There is a grave misunderstanding of motive, purpose and goals of middle eastern people and an unwillingness on the greater part of this society to see it as anything that doesnt fit a mentally convient model that we have clung to for decades.

[ModernTimes1]

"There is a grave misunderstanding of motive, purpose and goals of middle eastern people"
Anyone who speaks of "Middle Eastern people" should be automatically precluded from commenting on the subject.

[ModernTimes1]

Maintain sanctions on Iran.
Deny Iran and their proxies influence in the region.
Publish Iranian dissident writings. "Lolita in Teheran" has done more to show the true face of Iranian police state then all of the Ahmadinejad's ravings combined.
Do not respond in kind to Ahmadinejad bating. By ignoring and/or patronizing him you'd enrage him into making increasingly hallucinatory pronouncements.
Maintain contact and negotiate with Iranian government. Don't give away the store.
Exhibit maturity and patience of a superpower.
Iranian theocracy will fall of its own feebleness and failure. With a little help...

[hhkeller]

Women in the middle east need to learn how to shoot.

[ModernTimes1]

To extend this further. If Iranian general populace was better armed, the Supreme Leader and his puppets would be considerably less arrogant in their edicts.

[arvay]

Obama has already played into the right wingers' game plan. Here's what he should have said:

"Americans see what's happening and all decent people have the same reaction. But I'm not going to let Senator McCain and the others push us into a meaningless war of words with the Iranian government, that will only be used to paint the US as interfering in Iranian politics. "

"The real objective of Senator McCain and others like him is to derail our attempts to negotiate outstanding issues with Iran. Senator McCain ran on a warlike policy and the American people rejected him, now he should remain silent and not posture for political points. "

[ModernTimes1]

Ability to craft a meaningful political message obviously eludes you.
President has no need to acknoledge those who are beaten and in minority.

[arvay]

A quick lesson: He does need to acknowledge what happened, otherwise he seems uninformed or uncaring.

But a very low-key response is in order so as not to upset the current moves toward resolution of issues with iran. The Iranian hardliners have just made a fatal error, the revolution will eventually sweep them away. Seventy percent of the Iranian population is under 30. There's nothing we can do to speed the process, and we've just harmed it by giving the hardliners reason to blame us for interfering.

Let's also think about our bona fides to comment.

We give billions every year to Egypt, which routinely tortures opponents and rigs elections.
Saudi Arabia is not exactly a democracy, either, or Kuwait. Do a little research and you'll find that our country has stage-managed many coups and undermined democracy in many places. Remember Allende in Chile? The "removal" of Diem in Vietnam?

We've earned the same right to comment on democracy as Governor Sanford has on matrimonial fidelity.

[Pema]

Arvay, can you run in 2012?

[ModernTimes1]

In Iran or any Taliban controlled area he can run and even win. Just not in any free country.

[arvay]

:-)

[delta7777]

,

Rafsanjani is seeking by revolution to combine his absolute wealth and the power of control by religion to acquire absolute political power. This will result in the equivalent of a Goldman Sachs Theocracy with a "no accountability" Henry Paulson political figurehead.

Such combination is lethal to freedom and true democracy.

This situation is played well by United States factions opposing Obama, who with their power of money and media manipulate the truths of Iran in order to weaken Obama and regain power here.

Halliburton and Bechtel would not suffer from inciting a military approach to Iran.
.

[Jezreel]

Excellent post, Mr. Zogby. Your insights into Middle Eastern issues are well respected. Thank you for sharing with those of us who are following the unfolding events in Iran.

[robbep]

Mr Zogby your reasoned and mature answer is why we will nver see you on tv discussing this issue. Our media seeks sensationalism and reasoned intellectual responses dont attract the ratings they need. Why talk to you when we can get Tommy Tancredo to speak on the issue?

[blindjester]

Actually, I've been impressed with the articulate and knowledgeable people I've seen on TV discussing the situation in Iran. The names I remember for sure are Bobby Ghosh, who has been on Countdown a bunch of times, and Reza Aslan, who I just saw on the Daily Show.

Both of them speak with a great deal of authority on this topic. (Doesn't mean they're right, of course, but I was persuaded to believe them.)

[alexa07]

Look for Zogby's "Viewpoint" every Thursday p.m. on LinkTV (9410 on Dish). Very good discussion with guests from many different perspectives. Takes calls from international viewers.

[wm1066]

I see him on TV alot, your just not getting the right TV stations, his Viewpoint show is quite good.

[LaFilleEnRose]

Along with the right wing critics, I'm appalled by the media, which by using the right's attacks on Obama's Iran stances, created an alternative reality to what was really going on. Daily sharp questions that he wasn't doing enough created an atmosphere that made it appear as if their questions and not happenings on the ground in Iran were causing Obama to be decry violence. Then as the violence became so brutal and Obama was sharp in his decrying it, the press asked new questions suggesting that his harsher comments might be causing the Iranian brutality. Our own media actually started operating like the hardline government in Iran....blaming Obama for their actions. Our media is as bad as Iran's state-run news organizations. Distorting truth and creating false realities for their own purposes, leaving us only slightly better off in being well informed. Our own demonstrations during the W years were barely covered. Our media was in lockstep with W on Iraq war. And now, not caring about what's happening to the people of Iran, they have sunk to a new low. Thank God for some of HuffPo's reporting and for bloggers like yourself. When the traditional media is buried finally, no one will feel any loss. And we all might be better informed.

[Jezreel]

Very well stated, LaFilleEnRose.

[ramblin jack]

America should spend more time on how to clean up its own mess than to involve themselves ina dispute that they have no moral high ground to stand on. Bush stole an election and now Obama wants to indefinately detain people. Just two of the things that have goneon in the last decade. When will America learn they have no moral high ground in many cases.

[Lahonda]

I believe the actual exposure of the Iranians themselves has endeared them to the American public. The aspirations and dreams of these people are much more in tune with western values.

I always lamented the lack of pure exposure the American public experienced during the prior administration. It's easier to fear someone you aren't very familiar with and whose leaders are spreading the same fear to their population.

[urweatherman]

I think that 9/11 was enough exposure for one generation....thank you very much!