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

[Gorsegrower]

Empty wagons make the most noise.

[mountclemens]

Superficial.

It's easy to agree with Mr. Zogby's post. OK, what our president has SAID is good. But that's not enough. What has our president DONE, and what is he DOING. If you don't have any information about back-channel and clandestine-service (exa. CIA) actions in Iran, then you're post is very nearly useless.

Leaders know that what is said for media consumption is often merely political posturing. Actions are way louder than words.

Here's a link to help add some depth to your thoughts. Read it skeptically, and read some comments, and follow some links.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/keith-thomson/the-cias-role-in-iranian_b_220217.html

Sincerely.

[blindjester]

Unless you're CIA yourself, then your guess is the same as anyone else's.

[mountclemens]

I didn't write an article about a subject and get accepted by and posted by HuffPost. Mr. Zogby did. I didn't offer a "guess," as you say. I simply stated a couple of general facts as a foundation from which to see the Zogby post as superficial.

By the way, did you follow the link? Or are you a common knee-jerk defender of someone who has more fame over someone without fame?

I'm tempted to look at your history of comments, but now I'm going to make a guess: That would be a waste of my time.

Our democracy needs to be improved. That means better-educated citizens, more citizens who can think fairly and deeply about important things.

I doubt that blind jesters will improve our democracy. We do need jesters, though. Jesters such as Bill Maher and Jon Stewart are great.

[kev1000]

How can something be nearly useless? You either have a use for it, or not.

[mountclemens]

You think usefulness is like pregnancy -- you are or you aren't?

How about this: a small window pane is better than no window at all. A small window pane that has a small piece broken out is useful against entry by birds, big insects, and you; but it's only slightly better than nothing when trying to keep out cold air. Are you getting the idea of degrees of usefulness?

If it's freezing cold out, do you have a use for a sweater? Is it less useful than a thick coat?

A HuffPost article about one side of a two-sided story may be somewhat useful. A HuffPost article about one side of a 4-sided story is nearly useless. If you're still with me, you might want to read my comment again.

BTW, I apologize for the typo in my original comment: "you're post" should be "your post."

[hopefullee]

This was an excellent blog, Mr. Zogby. I agree completely. And I'm bookmarking the page so that next time I hear "Obama should do more", I can point them here.

[timjames]

Just to qualify things a bit, I completely agree with Mr. Zogby that Obama is doing the right thing by resisting any kind of engagement with the Iran election while at the same time espousing the principles of democracy our society prizes. It would be wrong to denounce a leadership structure for which noone knows any better alternative in that region.

But to suggest that McCain would not have had a similarly tempered response is speculative and (perhaps as intended) an insult. McCain is a leader in the Republican party with years of experience on the ground and in government - always working for America. The more you equate him with the likes of Limbaugh and O'Reilly, the more you will be surprised at the swingback of leadership from the right.

[JoeSchmuk]

You jest, surely.

McCain has amply demonstrated his lack of tempered response. One has only to recall such nuanced beauties like 'bomb bomb Iran' and his recent inflammatory and evidently ignorant remarks regarding Iran's internal politics to realize that his years of experience both in government and on the round have really only furthered the American people in one regard: the self interest of John McVain. Oh that he would just shut up, go away, and take his naive yet self proclaimed well intentioned daughter with him.

[exhale09]

McCain's "years of experience" resulted in his lock step support of George W Bush and his decision to make war on Iraq, and we all know what an expensive, in American blood and treasure, disastrous and unnecessary decision that turned out to be, and which has us mired down in a situation both militarily, and "legally" as far as the detainees at Abu Graib and the entire torture issue is concerned, weakening our military and our moral standing in the world...wh­ile still draining our tax dollars at a time of economic crisis here at home....si­x years later and counting.

McCain's "years of experience" also resulted in his incredibly bad judgment during the Russia/Georgia incident, when he immediately went off half cocked with his knee jerk "political campaign posturing" stoking the fires of discourse with Russia and misrepresenting many of the facts of the incident.

and then of coarse, McCain's unforgettable, incredibly un-statesmanlike, juvenile behavior of singing bomb bomb bomb Iran at a public event.....­SUGGESTS MOST CERTAINLY that John McCain "would not have had a similarly tempered response"

[Taxi]

McCain is a relic.

A disemboweled voice in the attic.

We live in the 21st century.

He doesn't.

[gro]

The Iranian opposition is not much less conservative than the election thieves. Neocon fantasies that you so accurately dismiss as infantile and ideological, cannot imagine anything except black or white.
Thank goodness for Juan Cole's Informed Comment and Phil Lang's Sic Semper Tyrannis!
Most analysis in the media is a waste of time.

[admiralj]

The old saying "The right man for the job." Well we have that in President Obama. He has been right on track with the approach he has taken with Iran.
The neocons (and others) have wanted to continue what the failed Bush/Cheney policy's gave us. Can you imagine if Sen. McCain had won? He wouldn't have been singing (use the Beach Boys tune),
BOMB, BOMB,BOMB.­...BOMB, BOMB IRAN.
He would be doing just that.

And what would that get us?

I vote to stay with the one that put on a thinking cap.

[outnow]

Nasser in Egypt became popular by preaching Arab Nationalism to the Arab World with new listeners using inexpensive transistor radios made in Asia.

Rednecks in America used AM radio to get Rush Limbaugh's hate message out to rednecks.

Getting a message out is a function of technology. Now we have Twitter for communicating in Iran.

The message is the medium. Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Paine used the printing press for distributing pamphlets. These pamplets were a very large factor in the revolution against the British.

I don't see the "Reformer" as having reformed himself but having a real choice for the Iranians would be a nice thing. The political spectrum in Iran is narrow due to pre-electoral vetting - much like our own vetting that screens out anybody but the most conservative candidates who will serve the interests of the financiers­.,

[S1m0n]

Nonetheless, I suspect that before Cairo, and definitely before Obama, Ahmadinejad's claimed victory percentage might have seemed much more plausible.

[llisa]

I agree. Our president is cool. And I mean that in the level-headed, thoughtful, patient sense.

And in the totally awesome sense.

[alexa07]

I agree with you, but I wish President Obama & Hillary Clinton would admonish the IDF much more vigorously for their atrocious behavior during the war on Gaza; that they would be much more insistent about the effects of the siege on Gaza; Caterpillar demolitions of Palestinian homes of long standing in Jerusalem; the settler rampages on the West Bank against Palestinian farmers & kids going to school; the actions of the IDF during peaceful demonstrations & bullying, mocking, taunting behavior of Israeli border guards in official uniform to young & old alike. Why would our leaders tolerate such behavior from anyone, much less a "respected" ally & friend?

[USA1776]

Thank you. Can you start going on the cable and network political talk shows? The Christian Right is so delusional and misinformaed on the Arab and Muslim worlds. Reza Aslan is making numerous appearances and is so helpful right now.

[SeaBlood]

I shudder to think what would have happened had Obama NOT won in November '08 ! The opposition is truly brainless and ruled by emotion rather than reason------unless they are, in fact, rational but highly evil.Shudd­er the thought!

[Justiss]

Excellent article by a man (James Zogby) that knows the region and the people in it better than most of the so-called experts that have been parading themselves on CNN Fax NBC and other media outlets.
Only a handful of of people interviewed in the last two weeks actually made any sense, and they were American Iranian affiliated with US universities, the rest of the so-called experts were affiliated to an agenda either for or against the government of Iran.

[ModernTimes1]

Ahamadinejad and Ayatollah Khamenei demand manual recount of Holocaust victims.
Why can they agree to a recount of an election in their own country?!

[Hass]

There's no actual evidence of fraud in the Iran elections. Every claim about vote rigging has a perfectly reasonable and rational counter-claim. See IranAffairs.com for more FACTS about the alleged election fraud in Iran.

Don't believe what you're told. THINK: WHY WOULD THEY RESORT TO FRAUD when the opposition leader, Mousavi, is very much a regime insider and hardly a threat to the system?

[DAE]

Honestly speaking, don't care whether it was fraud or not. Down with the dictator.

[ram1952]

Those are noble sentiments! Hope you have recovered from those serious injuries you suffered when you were demonstrating on the streets during the Bush administration's eight-year rape of American democracy. Take care of your health. We need frontline leaders like you to fight against the dictators wherever they may be, in this world or in other galaxies.

[S1m0n]

There's no evidence either way. The same leaders who have declared the vote accurate are also making statements we KNOW to be false, so we have no reason to believe their word on the election. We do know that they have declared a victory that a great many of their citizens do not believe, and that they have also designed an electoral process in which it is not possible to verify the results. In fact, in which no attempt was made at even the basics of democratic integrity, like controlling ballot boxes and counting votes in the presence of witnesses of each candidate.

[Veronica]

Well then, get your ass to Tehran and say that to the protester's faces. Go ahead. You obviously know better than they do. People are being beaten, tortured and shot for demonstrating against the election results and your view is constricted by your preference for certain "experts" and their "facts" over those of others. It's almost as if you had no clue that Mousavi is widely seen as being much more friendly to the US than what Khameini would like, keeping Iran in a perpetual state of conflict with the US is a great way to keep the populace in line. Nope, Mousavi is a "regime insider" so there couldn't possibly be any reason for fraud, could there?

[1dogs2]

Common sense, a lifetime of watching election results at home and abroad, and the regime's admission that in at least 50 jurisdictions, the turnout was significantly higher than 100% is good enough for me. They would resort to fraud because they wished to avoid a run-off between Mousavi and Ahmadinejad, who is Khamenei's man, and because Khamenei has a history of "issues" with Mousavi.