Obama's Problem in Iran Lies Not In the Past, But in the Present

It took President Obama two weeks of intensified government repression against protesters in Iran before he moved from cautious commentary to describing the crackdown "violent and unjust."

The acknowledged elephant in the room preventing a more robust American response to the Iranian crisis is the US and British organized coup in 1953, which overthrew the nationalist Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadeqh and brought the 33-year old Shah, Mohammed Reza Pahlavi, back to the country as unchallenged ruler. The coup was motivated by Mossadeqh and the Iranian Parliament's decision to nationalize the British controlled Anglo-Iranian Oil Company in 1951, and the fear that Soviet-inspired communists might take over the government.

Certainly the American-sponsored overthrow of Mossadeqh, and our subsequent whole-hearted support for the Shah's brutal rule, are ignominious chapters in the history of US foreign policy.

But however blameworthy, does a coup now fifty-five years and fourteen administrations in the past and support for a ruler overthrown thirty years ago really disqualify the United States from standing up forcefully for democracy in Iran today?

It's highly unlikely.

President Ahmadinejad and Ayatollah Khameini are not scared of the United States; they are scared of their own people's desire to live in a country more like the United States. In fact, in poll after poll Iranians have revealed themselves to be among the most pro-American and pro-democracy people in the Muslim majority world.

The Iranian government needs little excuse to beat, jail, and kill its citizens. It's doing a thorough enough job without US interference, and seems poised to do more, although if it goes too far it risks "losing legitimacy in the eyes of its own people," as the President explained it at a June 25 press conference.

President Obama clearly knows this. And he also knows the real reason why he can't be too forceful in supporting the millions of Iranians demanding to have their votes counted. The problem is not with Administrations long past, but with the policies of the current Administration.

The fact is that America counts as its closest allies in the Middle East regimes who routinely rig elections -- that is, when they bother even to have them -- producing governments that have far less legitimacy than that of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's today.

Indeed, across the Middle East and North Africa, the substance of Obama's foreign policies remain strikingly similar to, and in some cases more aggressive than, those of President Bush. Saudi Arabia remains our most crucial Arab ally despite the fact that its government is among the world's most repressive and undemocratic (about which Obama has had nothing to say since becoming President).

Rather than encourage Arab democrats, the Obama Administration is improving ties with Libya and returning an Ambassador to Syria, where today we're courting Bashar al-Assad as a "key player" in the region, despite Syria's abysmal record on human rights and democracy.

In Cairo, where the President made only a fleeting allusion to democracy during his "historic" speech last month, President Hosni Mubarak won his most recent reelection bid by deploying the usual assortment of undemocratic techniques. Then he jailed his main opponent, Ayman Nour, for more than three years for election fraud just to make sure everyone got his point.

Yet the Obama Administration, like its predecessors, regularly celebrates him as a key ally and a crucial mediator in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. (When will Obama learn that Mubarak's interest is not in peace, but rather in an unending peace process that insures his continued relevance and billions of dollars in no strings attached American aid?)

Whatever his dislike for Ahmadinejad and Iran's support for Islamist militants Mubarak, and his son and potential successor Gemal, are likely breathing easier now that the protests have seemingly been repressed. If young Iranians had succeeded in overturning a repressive and authoritarian system through massive non-violent protests, why wouldn't young Egyptians have followed their example as soon as a suitable opportunity arose?

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who defies American wishes in the Occupied Territories without fear of suffering anything more than a mild rebuke, must also be wiping sweat from his brow. Imagine the inspiration Iran's people power movement might have given to Palestinians to finally throw off the shackles of both a co-opted, corrupted and incompetent Palestinian Authority and the useless and ineffectual violence of Hamas, and take matters into their own hands. Imagine the site of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians, men and women, children and old people, marching to the so-called "separation wall" or innumerable Israel check points and, like East Germans a generation ago, dismantling them apart brick by brick through disciplined non-violent action.

And now imagine what would happen if, instead of staying on the sidelines in Iran while playing softball with Israel and trying to woo other autocratic regimes into our orbit, President Obama could look the Iranian leadership in the eyes and make the same demand of them that he should be making of all the leaders of the region: democratize and grant freedom to the people under your control.

At least then the brave Iranians risking their lives for democracy, and the long-repressed peoples of the region more broadly, would know that the United States stands up for them.

Ultimately, it is the reality of the Obama Administration's support for a discredited status quo across the region, and not the actions of the Eisenhower Administration half a century ago, that makes it impossible for the United States to play a forceful role advocating for democracy in Iran at this crucial moment in the history of the Islamic Republic, and ours as well. The question is, does Obama have the courage to challenge our own system that Iranians have demonstrated in fighting to change theirs? And if he doesn't, do the rest of us?

Comments

[Skepticat]

All that being more forceful would do would be give credence to the ayatollahs claims that their opponents are tools of the great satan. With 70% of the population born since 1979 - and facebook, twitter, the net, and picture-cell phones of the modern era versus 14th century fundementalism - the Mullahs are living on borrowed time. Many younger Iranians may like western lifestyle - but might also suspect that Iraqi well being was not the primary reason their neighbor was invaded.

[Mark Levine - Huffpost Blogger]

this is true. there is little obama can say now. that's my whole point. had he begun his administration with real support for democracy and human rights across the board in the region, he'd have been better placed to support the demonstrators. would that support 'mean' anything in the short term? no. but it would have had a long term impact, and would have set the tone. look at honduras. look at what's happening now in china. if the US, and western powers more broadly, really supported democracy globally, it would be a lot harder for regimes to act repressively with impunity.

[chlai88]

Poll after poll indicates Iranians are pro-American and pro-democracy. Sounds like the CIA intelligence justifying the invasion of Iraq. The kind of Iraqi ambivalence towards the US greeting the troop withdrawal in Iraq shows a much more realistic scenario. They may like America but they will certainly not be enthused if we overstepped our boundaries and "meddle" in their affairs or in Iraq, even plant troops there. Don't forget also that a large segment of the Iran population is still very conservative ( just like back home ) and supporting Ahmadinejad. People in that part of the world are nationalistic and religious and will defend their sovereignty and culture passionately. This dynamic alone will make sure that we will never be greeted as liberators with the same love as the Europeans. We tend to be too full of ourselves and often missed the mark in our judgement of others. Obama's strategy may not be idealistic but it's realistic. We always tend to forget that as important as democracy is to us, the livelihood of Iranians are more important to them, What is best for Iranians is only for Iranians to decide as it is their country. In this case, there is also near unanimity in iran even from the reformists that any interference there is not welcomed.

[Mark Levine - Huffpost Blogger]

you're assuming that being conservative means not supporting democracy. this is not the case. in fact, many conservatives have been disgusted by what's happened. but again, this is not about who won, it's about how the government has responded to the protests. And where did i suggest that this should be an excuse for the US to meddle or invade? that's ludicrous. but we can be honest with everyone and actually support democracy.

[S1m0n]

It's not just that the US is backing dictators while preaching democracy, it is also the case that the US is actively subverting democracy in its continued support for Fatah, losers of a fair election, against Hamas, the party that won.

[Mark Levine - Huffpost Blogger]

very true, but it's not just hamas. i was in isr/pal in the 90s and the cia was meeting with israeli and palestinian security services regularly to subvert activists, the pal. legislature, etc. hamas is just the latest and not even most egregious example.

[S1m0n]

The mass uprising of Palestians (tearing down the instruments of oppression with their bare hands!) occurred back in 1987. It got nowhere.

[Intelligentia]

Obama has no problems in Iran. He was that smart not to take the bait! Keep doing what you're doing Mr. President. Iranians will work out their political problems.

[Cameleon]

Upon reading your article, I have reason to believe tha Mr. Obamas reins are being pulled, in all seriousness. That is that Komeni might "Drop the other shoe". That is the little known "Chad incident" that this great nation had eight years ago. How many Iranians Know about that, when for days we had no President.

[noneIn2008]

The biggest problem for Obama is the line "it was Bush's fault that Ahmadinejad was elected" did not poll very well. It's time to move to the next set of excuses.

[RedneckDem]

As long as Islamic rule supercedes any constitutional freedoms they desire, there will be no democracy. Several generations of Iranains are beginning to understand what they want for themselves and their gov't. Education, technology and progressive thinking will allow even more generations to follow until critical mass. Any military intervention by the US at any point along this metamorphosis will be counter productive, no matter how well intentioned. We could basically just keep progressing as we are and help the Iranians thru easy to access technology by proxy.

Another thing, do not confuse democracy with free market capitalism, which our country has proven to be self defeating.

[Mark Levine - Huffpost Blogger]

you are right except that islam does not necessarily have to be against democracy. the iranian regime reminds me more of cuba, china or the eastern bloc countries than a true theocracy. it's very much about 'the revolution'. the similarities in the language are striking.

[ywcachieve]

Mr Levine, President Obama DOES NOT have problems in Iran. Iran is a sovereign nation. And our government is respecting that.

[edg1]

Perhaps President Obama needs to visit Palestine and standing near the abominable edifice, cry out "Mr. Netanyahu, tear down this wall!"

[Mark Levine - Huffpost Blogger]

absolutely.

[Squaker]

You seem to be leaving out some key events in US-Iran relations

Obviously supporting Sadaam when he invaded Iran, killing millions of people, was not that long ago
And then we have current policies that are against the people of Iran as well
Our country officially appropriates money for the destabilization of their country, even funding anti-iranian terrorist groups, such as "Jundullah."
They know this in Iran, We are not going to be able to trick them into not knowing it

As for Obama's rhetoric on their election. I think he's been surprisingly good. It might be hard to tell from American media coverage, but Ammadinjad most likely won their election. So taking the side of the losers wouldn't do us much as far as gaining our credibility that we will support Iran having a self-determined democracy

[johnsonc20]

Thanks for pointing out what should be obvious to us. We assume the necessity of supporting dictators and oppression in other, "strategic," areas and destroy our credibility in calling for human rights and political freedom in Iran, Darfur, Burma, etc.

[EngineerBill]

Two points.
Obama 's muted response is a recognition of our weak hand. In other words what can we (the U.S. Govt.). do if the Iranian government successfully and brutally suppress this movement? Also Obama keeping a low profile makes it more difficult for the Iranians in power to credibly blame the U.S. for this uprising.

2nd point. you wrote this
"...Palestinians to finally throw off the shackles of both a co-opted, corrupted and incompetent Palestinian Authority and the useless and ineffectual violence of Hamas, and take matters into their own hands. Imagine the site of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians, men and women, children and old people, marching to the so-called "separation wall" or innumerable Israel check points and, like East Germans a generation ago, dismantling them apart brick by brick through disciplined non-violent action."
Most Israelis and indeed most Jews pray that this would happen. Why? The Palestinians embracing non-violence would mean the end of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Done, fini, over, kaput.

[Mark Levine - Huffpost Blogger]

yes and no. as long as the occupation is so inexpensive to maintain, a tiny percentage of the country's gdp, no matter what palestinians do it's less trouble to keep the occupation than bring on a near civil war to remove the settlements. that's the real problem. but a mass nonviolent movement would help. but keep in mind that israel has done everything possible to make this movement impossible to create. they've exiled, jailed and killed numerous palestinian non-violent activists over the last 40 years, as they much prefer violence.

[califlefty]

Obama's coterie of foreign policy advisers came to Washington thinking that our problems with Iran were largely self-inflicted and that various forms of conciliation such as Obama's New Year's greetings to "the Islamic Republic of Iran", the disavowal of regime change as a U.S. objective and offers of direct talks without preconditions etc. would mollify the mullahs. Whatever we may think of the Bush foreign policy on Iran, Obama has been shortsighted and arrogant to believe that either bellicosity or our dismissive attitude is why the mullahs hate us, and that we can or should be more "humble" and conciliatory. Iran's response to our "open hand" is now written in red in the streets of Tehran. Wasn't it obvious that Obama simplistic policy was a non-starter when faced with the fanaticism? It is a common failing of the naive and inexperienced, no matter how good-hearted, that recognizing evil is a problem for them. How long will it take until Obama learns the lesson that any attempt to reconcile with the mullahs while they butcher their own people is a ridiculous notion? Let us pray; soon, soon.

[RiyazGuerra]

"...does a coup now fifty-five years and fourteen administrations in the past and support for a ruler overthrown thirty years ago really disqualify the United States from standing up forcefully for democracy in Iran today?"

This is really laughable...OF COURSE IT DOES!!! Just because you are so far removed from the conflict doesn't mean the weight of certain (bloody) events is the same for you as it is for the Iranians. 55 years means there are people who have lived through the revolution still alive today. If you are going to pull that kind of argument you could at least wait until a generation or two has passed.

[califlefty]

In that case.... blame Jimmy Carter.

[RiyazGuerra]

This is not about placing the blame on one administration or another as perception of America is based on a 'cumulative' level of policy spanning several administrations.

I don't really care for playing a game of 'which political party to blame'...unlike you obviously do.