We Can't Turn Our Back on Iran

As the protests in Iran over the recent election results continue, an opportunity for the United States to strongly support democracy and women's rights was sadly lost this week. This week President Barack Obama proclaimed that there was not much difference between Mir Hussein Mousavi and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad when he stated: "Either way (the United States is) going to be dealing with an Iranian regime that has historically been hostile to the United States, that has caused some problems in the neighborhood and is pursuing nuclear weapons." Yet, with respect to women's rights -- one of the key issues for reform minded Iranians -- this is absolutely not the case.

Mousavi campaigned on restoring women's rights in Iran and promised during the campaign that, if elected, he would "reform laws that are unfair to women" and disband the so-called "morality police" force who regularly arrest women they view as inappropriately dressed. Zahra Rahnavard, Mr. Mousavi's wife, who is something of a feminist icon in Iran, said during a campaign rally for her husband:

"We should reform laws that treat women unequally. We should empower women financially; women should be able to choose their professions according to their merits, and Iranian women should be able to reach the highest level of decision making bodies."

When thousands of Iranian women are risking their lives, and literally could face arrest or execution, to rally for an overturn of the election results in Iran, it is disheartening and deeply disappointing that our President has not struck a firmer tone of support for protesters in Iran who are marching peacefully for freedom of speech, women's rights, democracy and transparent elections.

While President Obama and his advisors state that they do not want to "meddle" in internal Iranian affairs, and while we all know the cold harsh political reality that Obama wants to preserve his ability to negotiate with Ahmadinejad over nuclear weapons, we cannot sacrifice the very ideals that we are trying to promote throughout the world. It is hardly meddling to issue a strong statement of support for the protesters who are trying to reform the oppressive regime in Iran.

We have to remember that women face not only real discrimination in Iran but also persecution just for trying to peacefully exercise their rights. Numerous Iranian activists who have worked on women's rights initiatives, such as the campaign to collect one million signatures demanding an eradication of discrimination against women in Iran, have been arrested and imprisoned. Women are forced to wear the hijab and the morality police have arrested many women if they are not properly covered.

Legally, men in Iran have the sole right to divorce and to have custody. In court, a woman's testimony is equal to half that of a man and men can forbid their wives from working outside the home. While the government has now technically disavowed stoning, it nevertheless exists in the penal code as punishment for women who commit adultery.

The fact that women, and men, are turning out in droves day after day to protest the election results and the oppressive regime in Iran, deserves our support. When we look back at how other Presidents have used strong rhetoric to promote ideals that the Unites States is trying to promote (whether it be Kennedy's famous 1963 "Ich bin ein Berliner" speech or Reagan's "Tear Down that Wall Mr. Gorbachev"), we have seen US Presidents insert their beliefs and ideals to promote change. While clearly President Obama must tread carefully with regard to the ultimate goal of getting Iran to stop its nuclear program, we cannot turn our backs on a historic opportunity to have a reform minded movement in Iran that ultimately may be our best hope of producing a solution on the nuclear issue.

Comments

[elbank]

Julie,

We all share your desire for reform in Iran. Iran is a beautiful culture that is being repressed by an extreme religious sect -- not representative of modern Islam -- perhaps the most abhorant of which is its repression of women.

However, in my view -- and it seems to be the weight of informed opinion -- President Obama has acted in the situation brilliantly. He is not turning his back on Iran or the protesters. In fact he is giving the most support possible in the situation, by not visibly taking sides -- as doing so would surely detract from the authenticity of the movement.

We can dream that this movement could turn into a real revolution -- and sooner or later it likely will. However, its greatest possibility lies in its not being branded a U.S. affair.

Last, it is my view that the diplomacy advanced toward the Islam communities to date -- including his resounding speech in Egypt -- has given the courage to the opposition in Iran to speak out as they have done, and surely will continue to do.

We have not turned our back on Iran. And, I am certain that President Obama will have plenty more to say at the appropriate time.

[jacomay]

No of course there should not be any military action. But at least condemn the human rights violations and violence against the protesters and lack of media access.

[JanSP1971]

Really just what would you like President Obama to do, invade Iran like GWB did in Iraq? We all know just how well that has all worked out.

[tyruler]

This column is an outrage. It is not in the United States predisposition to judge other nations policies or dictate their politics. Our elected officials are not judges to interfere in other sovereign nations affairs, esp. regarding "morality."

Republicans and Democrats action against Iran is more of convience since they are "our enemies" than of moral courage. US lacks credibilty on human rights when it tortures and imprisons Muslims, invades Muslim nations, and now selectives condemns Iran but not the undemocratic regimes of Egypt or saudi Arabia.

[jacomay]

Obama must act now. He cannot sit on the sidelines and just wait this out. Leadership means taking a stance. If we had just sat by during other similiar situtaions like the fall of the Berlin war what kind of example would we have set?

[tyruler]

If we hadn't taken sides, the Berlin wall would still have fallen sooner or later. The communism model was on borrowed time. Taking sides has been the cause of all the problems in the Middle East. Enough. Obama did the right thing.

[tyruler]

Obama shouldn't interfere. Leave the Muslim world alone!!!

[TomTheAlmostUgly]

"Obama must act now. He cannot sit on the sidelines and just wait this out. Leadership means taking a stance. If we had just sat by during other similiar situtaions like the fall of the Berlin war what kind of example would we have set?"

Khamenei and Ahmadinejad are hoping and praying that Obama will "pull a Bush" and invade; that way, they can paint Mousavi and his fans as US stooges. So Obama's "acting now" would be counterproductive. Besides, thanks to Bushie's antics, the US military is exhausted and overtaxed, and is in no shape to enter Iran.

[pgunn01]

We are not in a position to press anything on Iran right now. First, until and unless we can heal the rift between the countries, any attempt to tackle them on issues will fail, and will likely backfire against any cause we might want to be involved in. Iranians still remember the United States as the country that overthrew an elected government in the 1950s.

Second, being directly involved in their presidential elections is about the worst issue we could choose to involve ourself with. No nation appreciates when others become involved in matters like this - imagine if Germany or Canada had made strong comments during Bush v. Gore.

Until and unless we have leverage, it would be foolhardy and counterproductive for the US to take much of a role in this conflict.

[BillZBubb]

Obama isn't equating Moussavi and I'mADinnerJacket in order be able to later negotiate with the latter. He is wisely not endorsing Moussavi's side because to do so would give the conservatives in Iran an easy propaganda victory against Moussavi and his supporters. The religious conservatives would tie Moussavi to the US--that would be the kiss of death.

Obama is playing it just right. Support democracy, support people's right to peacefully protest, and support fair and open elections. The right wing in Iran can't use that against Moussavi, since they pretend to be for those things as well.