iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Shirin Sadeghi

Shirin Sadeghi

Posted: June 14, 2009 11:26 AM

Post-Election Iran: What America Must Do Now


When the streets fall silent in the next days and the dissidents once again head underground, the Islamic Republic of Iran will still be standing, buoyed by the last vestiges of a revolutionary platform: anti-Americanism.

In 1979, when the Islamists overtook the popular revolution and established an irreversible Islamic Republic, they made all range of promises - women's rights, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, open government, freedom, freedom, freedom. They also promised to keep the West, and particularly the United States, out.

Today, the freedoms have vanished without possibility and all that is left is anti-Americanism and the irony that America has inadvertently contributed so much to keeping the Republic intact.

Think back to the eight years of war with Iraq that fueled the martyrdom theme that sustained a fledgling and flailing young Islamic Republic who by the estimation of most Iranians had veered considerably from the path of the peoples' revolution. The United States support of that war is public knowledge now - whether it was backing Saddam Hussein in his early efforts to take advantage of an Iran overcoming revolutionary chaos, or helping supply Iran with the weapons it needed to steal the lives of millions.

Think of the past and current sanctions which have so damaged the Iranian public. They have played no small part in the economic problems faced by Iranians today, preventing ordinary people from conducting independent business, directly creating price increases for foreign imported products, preventing important international scholarly exchanges, and further isolating the Iranian people from the world . The sanctions have allowed the establishment total control over revenues, income, imports and exports - they've been a blessing beyond recognition for the clerics and their colleagues.

And what of the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Israel and Palestine? They have strengthened Islamist fervor throughout the region, labeled the United States as evil-doers, and created exactly the type of instability and division that the Republic thrives on.

Crisis mode is the Republic's autopilot and having an enemy which for many years has somehow justified retaliatory Iranian rhetoric in the eyes of millions of people worldwide who suffer US-backed dictatorships and wars has been the icing on the cake.

The decision to declare Ahmadinejad President is based largely on the fact that the Republic does not want to negotiate with America - that it quite likes being denounced by the United States.

But it is undeniable that continuing to isolate Iran is the best thing the Obama administration can do to ensure the Republic's continued survival.

Ahmadinejad's divisive rhetoric thrives on the notion that it would look terribly embarrassing for Obama to negotiate with him. But if the Obama administration is on a path toward improved relations with the Muslim world, it must improve its relationship with Iran. Publicly, not behind closed doors.

First off, America must distance itself from discussions of sham elections - the American government's legitimacy to condemn stolen votes has not yet recovered from its own sham presidential elections of recent. It is actually not the place of the United States government to question the domestic elections of any nation - this is internal interference and it doesn't look good on the diplomatic or impartiality scales. It also further validates Ahmadinejad's insistent claims of US plans for regime change.

It must cease talk of new sanctions and gradually see out current sanctions.

It must not underestimate the shrewd capability and organizational strength of the clerical system - a network that is centuries in the making and has successfully guided Iranian leaders of all stripes long before the ulema first established themselves as purveyors of the state religion of Iran some 500 years ago.

It must cease talk of war against Iran and condemn fanatic rhetoric of that kind from any nation. This talk is aggressive posturing which only elevates Iran's credibility amongst the millions upon millions of Islamists, Muslims, and non-Muslim third-worlders who have turned to Iran as the strongest voice of opposition to American hegemony.

It must engage in face-to-face dialogue with Iran. Distant criticism and transoceanic discourse make both sides lose credibility, fashioning a wild west stand-off out of what should be diplomatic talks.

Overall, the United States must give the Republic less excuse for legitimacy in anyone's eyes.

The Republic requires American antagonism to uphold its regional influence and its stranglehold on the Iranian people - the United States should deprive it of this gift. Both the United States and Iran need each other, but only one is a superpower. While the clerical dictatorship in Iran is stronger than ever, what is even stronger today is the public's will to be rid of it.

Don't think for a minute that Iranians actually believed that Mousavi is a reformer - they were so desperate for a chance at peace of mind - however little and temporary it might have been with a Mousavi win - that they were willing to go along with the charade. The landslide win was just a slap in the face to anyone who actually thought that even a miniscule window of opportunity would be possible.

The public isn't stupid - it is at its wit's end.

In Iran today, daily life is a complex psychological battle for dignity. What you wear, who you associate with, what you say and do either inside or outside your own home - all of these things are under government control and take a daily toll on the public's livelihood and serenity.

The people are so hopeless that they were willing to show support for Mousavi - a man known for upholding the values of a Republic that has systematically deprived Iranians of basic civil rights; a man who, as senior adviser to President Khatami stood by as the second "cultural revolution" of the late 1990's and early 2000's swept students off the streets, shut down semi-free newspapers, terrorized dissidents, and paved the way for the so called "hardliners".

If the Obama administration is truly supportive of the Iranian people and their real desire for change, at the very least it will stop providing the Republic with anti-American fodder. Instead, it will engage in dialogue with Iran toward the one goal it actually can achieve, eliminating the last bastion of the Republic's revolutionary zeal: the American threat.

When the streets fall silent in the next days and the dissidents once again head underground, the Islamic Republic of Iran will still be standing, buoyed by the last vestiges of a revolutionary platfo...
When the streets fall silent in the next days and the dissidents once again head underground, the Islamic Republic of Iran will still be standing, buoyed by the last vestiges of a revolutionary platfo...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 250
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (7 total)
10:17 PM on 06/15/2009
And what of Iran's wars? Why does Iran involve itself in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Turkey and Gaza? The Iranian Republic is not some innocent who is victimized by US foreign policy. The Iranian government is highly sophisticated and is trying (very successfully) to become a regional super power. If the Iranians want freedom from the Ayatollahs then take it as the Ayatollahs did. Stop putting everything on the US.
05:25 PM on 06/16/2009
You don't get it it do you? It IS too Zen for Americans.

Less bullying and posturing Iran will probably cause them to cut back on their support of those fighting us. It will weaken the position of the Iranian politicians who are aggressive towards the USA.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
MrBadger
07:42 PM on 06/15/2009
Good analysis and on the money. The less we meddle or even sound like it.

But it's a hard pill for the Neo Cons to swallow. I'm actually more than mildly surprised that the last administration didn't start a war with Iran before they left office. The financial meltdown may have actually saved us from that.
07:52 PM on 06/15/2009
agreed...I think we should just shut up...the more we say, the more the hardliners use it as an excuse to tell the people that we wanted chaos for their country instead of peace.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
alkamm
Brevity is the soul of lingerie.
09:43 PM on 06/15/2009
Depends on who "we" are. If we're like Jimmy Carter and the one great thing he did, we'd stand for human rights over the thugs in power. Despite their beards, and their robes, and their exalted head gear, they are spiritual frauds.

Just because George Bush's condemnation would have rang hollow doesn't mean that this country can't support human rights for this miserably ruined country. Something along the lines of a revolution that's gone bad, a speech supporting free speech, you know, the real America, not the conspiratorial behind the scenes corporate dupes we have been for so long.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
07:39 PM on 06/15/2009
Since when did America cared about democracy, it took almost a billion dollar between obama and john Mccain this past election. when the average person has a shot at the presidency then you can call it democracy.
07:53 PM on 06/15/2009
if you have a great solution for this country, hey I will vote for you no matter if you are red or blue
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
alkamm
Brevity is the soul of lingerie.
09:45 PM on 06/15/2009
By rejecting money from big lobbyists and corporations, Obama was scorned as an unrealistic idealist by the Clinton crowd. He got his money from the people in the first great democratically financed campaign that met and exceeded the big pockets donations of the corporate masters.
02:50 PM on 06/15/2009
"First off, America must distance itself from discussions of sham elections - the American government's legitimacy to condemn stolen votes has not yet recovered from its own sham presidential elections of recent. It is actually not the place of the United States government to question the domestic elections of any nation - this is internal interference and it doesn't look good on the diplomatic or impartiality scales. It also further validates Ahmadinejad's insistent claims of US plans for regime change."

I agree with this. Especially considering there has been no hard evidence put forth (as of yet) to prove that the elections were a sham, I am getting irritated with all of these pundits on CNN and MSNBC claiming that the election in Iran was fraudulent.

Not saying that it wasn't, but how about let's have some definitive proof first before we have pundits on TV claiming it is almost certain that the Iranian election was a farce?

The most I have heard by way of "proof" is that Mousavi lost his hometown.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
12:14 PM on 06/15/2009
Shirin Sadeghi: "Instead, it will engage in dialogue with Iran toward the one goal it actually can achieve, eliminating the last bastion of the Republic's revolutionary zeal: the American threat." A well stated conclusion.

We have to be realist. We, the Americans, have nurtured the Iranian mistrust of USA by eight years of President Bush's misguided foreign policy. Who supported Ahmadinejad during this last Iranian election? Please read:

Oscar My Friend, the English Teacher

http://stmichaeltraveler.wordpress.com/2009/03/17/iran-my-friend-oscar/

"My focus this time was Tehran, the area around the great Bazaars, and Shehre’ Reye. These sections of the city were untouched by the modernity; a reminder of the great disparity in the distribution of the wealth among the people. These southern parts of the city were home to the majority of the people crowded into very small quarters, narrow streets. Majority of these people were deprived of the most basic essentials of life. Iranian revolution, 1979, was a consequence of the misery of these Iranian people. Iran was a bipolar society, the very rich and many very poor people. "

President Ahmadinejad supporters are from the same poor people. Mousavi's support came from better educated, the middle class, and younger generation.
12:07 PM on 06/15/2009
Outside of what is decided by the United Nations, the United States needs to pull back all sanctions and all communications leaving Iran and the rest of the world to thier own policies.

We can no longer act as the "Global Police". This is precisely why we are experiencing the circumstances we currently have. We are impugned by helping and impugned by not helping. Time to concentrate on our own Country which President Obama is doing quit artfully.

Made in America, purchased by Americans.......

TS
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
chriss0114
the meanderings of a madman
01:09 PM on 06/15/2009
I think what she is saying is that the Ayatollahs really control everything thing and either candidate in office changes little

but that the voice of the people about which puppet they chose is bout what little dignity they supposedly have have in their supposed democratic process for presidential election
11:40 AM on 06/15/2009
America must resist the urge to interfere. The people have taken to the streets of Tehran. Let this all play out.
12:30 PM on 06/15/2009
agreed...
12:30 PM on 06/15/2009
agree
03:09 PM on 06/15/2009
100% aggree
11:16 AM on 06/15/2009
Wasnt it the US that brought the Ayatollahs to power by backing the shah? What the US needs to do is stop meddling in other countries political affairs. How can the US criticize Iran and we cant get ourselves together? 2001/2004 elections, diebold machines, gerrymandered voting districts, give it a break! We cant talk about Iran!
12:07 PM on 06/15/2009
No. The CIA aided the people who brought the Shah into power in 1954. In 1979 the Ayatollahs came to power after the Shah, a secular monarch, was overthrown. Then 50 American hostages were held by members of the Revolutionary Guard for over a year until minutes after Ronald Reagan was sworn in. Probably more than any other, the hostage crisis, which received unprecedented coverage for the time, sealed Jimmy Carter's fate: losing the presidency in 1980.
02:27 PM on 06/15/2009
Thanks for proving my point, pal. The CIA didn't "aide" anyone they took it upon themselves to meddle in another country's affairs. The ayatolllahs are a direct result of American intevention in that nation. we caused Iran to be the nation it has become. I know the history, I am trying to illustrate a point and you did it for me. If you actually believe the CIA was somehow "helping" this nation you are mistaken. The hostages were yet another result of the US "helping" the shah with his nice little savak! So, yes! The US helped the Aytaollahs into power.
06:38 PM on 06/15/2009
The United States aided the Shah - AND we helped overthrow Batista in Cuba so Castro could come into power. Where were the other countries when Bush came into Power (by dubious accounting).
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
chriss0114
the meanderings of a madman
01:05 PM on 06/15/2009
don't forget arms for hostages-reference Iran/Contra-

the deal that after Iraq went to war with Iran, Iran wanted to release the hostages but the Reagan campaign was afraid that may push Carter over and help him win the election

so they arranged a deal where the Iranians would hold the hostages until after his inaguration in exchange for weapons
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
10:41 AM on 06/15/2009
Great read, thank you Ms. Sadeghi.

The best thing we can do for the Iranian people is stop rattling the saber at them, discourage Israel from the same, and tell them "Yeah we re-elected a reactionary bonehead too .... but it gets better, we'll work on that with you."
10:18 AM on 06/15/2009
ahmadinejad blamed bush-cheney for both mosque bombings & a shootout at his polling office last week. it is only a matter of time bush-cheney will be blamed for elections meddling in iran.
12:09 PM on 06/15/2009
No he didn't. As much as I despise Ahamdinejad (and Bush and Cheney), he did not say that. Don't spread lies to advance ridiculous memes.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
clsmithj
Wanna Raise Some Hell
08:09 AM on 06/15/2009
The same way the world responded to America following the 2004 election.
06:43 AM on 06/15/2009
Although this journalist is correct in what she is saying (And I agree), for the WH this is not about the rights of citizens and doing what is correct. The WH wants a govt. that is favorable to the US and will do as it is asked--One that will allow military bases on its land and Big Oil to come in and pollute the land and rape the environment. Never believe for one second it is about freedom for Iranian citizens. What goes on in that country (And any others) is none of our business. We have brought chaos everywhere we have left foot prints and military intervention. We are our own worse enemy.
12:11 PM on 06/15/2009
Upon what basis do you claim the US wants bases in Iran. No one has ever stated that. We will be removing bases from Iraq as a part of the SOFA (Status of Forces Agreement). I think you are confusing Obama's policies with policies of some, but not all, previous American administrations.
06:11 AM on 06/15/2009
No doubt the GOP will want to bomb them. The GOP always wants to bomb.
02:27 PM on 06/15/2009
Just listen to the conservative blowharts on the radio: they're already "debating" whether the US or Irsael should bomb Iran.
05:53 AM on 06/15/2009
In the final analysis people get the government they deserve. The Iranians will have to sort out their own mess.
03:20 PM on 06/15/2009
Amen
photo
PoliSci2008
Independent
03:45 AM on 06/15/2009
Whew! I was relieved reading your very good article and agree with you. I thought this was another called for US to denouce the election.