The Iran and Obama Dance

This week, after 30 years of low-profile, back-door meetings, the United States government is openly meeting with the government of the Islamic Republic of Iran.

A relationship that never ended is publicly renewing its vows to much fanfare, but the main topic at hand, and the circumstances surrounding this new willingness to publicly "engage," are set to lead the Obama administration down the same path as his predecessor, a path at which the awkward Obama-Sarkozy-Brown media spectacle in Pittsburgh hinted: futile threats that hurt the Iranian people far more than the Iranian government.

But perhaps there's the rub.

By meeting at this time, and with a government whose electoral legitimacy is doubted by significant numbers of its own electorate, the Obama administration and its allies are indicating that they will look the other way at the dire circumstances of the Iranian people because Iran's strategic importance and regional influence are sorely needed.

It's not Obama's fault that Iraq and Afghanistan happened, but it will be his fault if he rushes into a threat-laden, pseudo-engagement with Iran at this historical crossroads in US-Iran relations.

This summer's significant events in Iran -- rife with authorized gang rapes of young street demonstrators, imprisonments and killings of suspected dissidents and threats to their families -- have undoubtedly impacted the Obama administration's plans for engagement with Iran. To overlook this and instead maintain the pre-Iran-election engagement time line is not prudent, and worse, it is dangerous.

The now weakened and openly factionalized Iranian government, courtesy of the blood and tears of millions of Iranian people, was a gift to America's Iran policy. Balancing on one leg, the Iranian government was wavering on a significantly reduced footing of regional and international legitimacy and support. Recall that even many of Ahmadinejad's allies were hesitant to congratulate him on the election. The Iranian government's biggest and most threatening opponent was no longer the US government, but the Iranian people.

Instead of grasping this opportunity to stand by the Iranian people and to position itself as a wiser, more legitimate, and less threatening regional authority, the Obama administration has stepped in to reinvigorate the Iranian government's most appealing scenario: that of the formidable opponent of modern-day Western imperialism. And not just any imperialism, but one which targets some countries' nuclear programs while ignoring other countries' nuclear bombs.

Ahmadinejad is back to square one, and it has emboldened him, to the dismay of so many Iranians who poured into the streets this summer.

This week's meeting, overshadowed by threats of "crippling" sanctions and Iranian isolation, will be Obama's gift to a government that -- despite all appearances -- is desperately in need of a power boost of exactly the nature that George W. Bush handed it for 8 years: antagonism, isolation, and America's behind-the-scenes pleas to negotiate Iran's help with its pesky neighbors.

Obama should have adjusted his timetable, and re-evaluated the current situation in Iran.

Economic sanctions and war will continue to hurt the Iranian people, not its government, instead perpetuating a waning government whose bid for existence has a shaky moral compass. Further, these threats will not configure into any enduring solutions to regional problems.

An undisputed and law-abiding Iranian government can, as it once was, be a helpful ally to the United States in the region. Iran's current problems, thus, lie more in the fact that it has little regard for international law, than in its nuclear ambitions.

The best and most effective answer to the Iran problem -- as it has always been -- is wise diplomatic pressure that doesn't isolate Iran and its nuclear program, focusing more on the international laws and guidelines that Iran is not following, rather the nuclear ones that it is. This type of substantial and beneficial engagement non-threateningly respects Iranian sovereignty, while also requiring the Iranian government to meet its obligations to international law, including in areas that apply to the inherent rights of its people, if it intends on being a participant rather than an outcast in world affairs.

De-roguing Iran is possible without sanctions and war and impossible without openly addressing Iran's failure to behave like a legitimate and law-abiding member of the international community.

Today's Obama has the moral authority to do this -- certainly moreso that his predecessor ever did.

Obama must now pause, reflect and take advantage of this summer's events to not only make way toward actual regional solutions, but to resolve one of his biggest problems: a fanatic Iranian government whose answer to Western imperialism is ideological expansion.

 

Comments

[raskefing]

The people of Iran will not be better off under an American supported government vs their present one.
Americans are under the illusion that their have freedom in the US, this only seems so .
Americans are very submissive to their government and have been good consumers and very malleable supporters of the Military Industrial Complex and their very profitable wars.while handing over all their constitutional rights to the Oligarchy that controls America.
As soon as Americans wake up to their sheeple status and begin to protest, we will see on American soil the same oppression by the police and army as in Iran !
The Patriot Act and the Repeal of the rule against use of the Army on American soil was just preparation !

[BradSmith]

The second problem with this Blog is that it assumes that Iran is somehow breaking international law. It says so more than once. This is NOT true. They have not invaded any nation in many centuries, they are in complience with the NPT. They have done nothing in violation of international law.

As for rhetoric, yes they use some strong rhetoric, the US government does the same on an almost daily basis as does Israel. Both the US and Israel have the ability to wipe Iran off the face of the Earth. At most Iran would be able to inflict a small amount of damage.

[BradSmith]

First of all this blog suggests that it is somehow our business what happens within the borders of Iran. We have no moral standing to be telling them anything. We have done more damage to their neighbors and them than their own government has. The US Government put in the Shah over an elected leader, the US government put in place Saddam in Iran and armed him with WMD's and sent him after Iran. The US Government has invaded two of their neighbors and theatened Iran with force over and over.

The US Government is in no position to tell the Government of Iran anything, not one single thing.

[rlugbill]

I say we should invade Iran. That way instead of having two wars, we'd only have one. War would stretch from Iraq to Iran to Afghanistan.

Iran must feel left behind not to have its own war against America.

I think we need to spread more wars to more countries and make the wars more unified. Simply fighting here and there in different countries isn't an efficient strategy.

Did Alexander the Great skip countries? Did the Romans? You can't just make wars in different countries and forget about the land between them.

This way, we can keep the supply lines going between our different wars. Only this way can we spread war more effectively.

[Mason]

I'm certainly disgusted with Israel's Zionists and their claim that anyone who disagrees with them is antisemitic. They have so much influence over our foreign policy in the Middle East that sometimes I think we do what they tell us to do even if it's against our interests to do so.

I firmly believe that our natural ally in the Middle East is Iran and we should be working toward normalizing relations, cooperating with each other, and engaging in mutually beneficial economic actions. I agree that we should not be doing anything that empowers hardliners and stiffens its government's resolve to suppress domestic dissent. Isolating Iran is not only unwarranted and counterproductive, it's stupid.

There isn't any evidence that Iran is building a bomb and it has a legal right, pursuant to a treaty, to develop nuclear technology for peaceful purposes. The Bush-Cheney Administration knew about the "new" facility at Qom and didn't complain about it, so I'm willing to accept that Iran acted in good faith and will permit a UN inspection. I believe Obama abused the situation to look tough and distract the public from his embarrassing humiliation at the hands of General McChrystal and Secretary Gates who are publicly pressuring him into ramping up the war in Afghanistan and Netanyahu's refusal to yield on settlements

Yet another example of spineless and counterproductive behavior by Obama.

[Dan OBrien]

A thoughtful piece in general. But a few points ...

The Islamic Republic of Iran's ambivalence towards "international community" is borne by the latter's highly partial and chequered history in the region. When Iraq attacked Iran in 1980, the West and the USSR, spoke much but did nothing. In fact, they by in large supported Sadam with cluster bombs, chemical weapon ingredients, economic aid, and military intelligence. The 2002 invasion of Iraq on false grounds also demonstrates the inconsistent application of international law in the region.

Anti-Iranian policy is institutionalised in the United States across parties. It is decades old, dating from the US Embassy hostage crisis in Tehran, November 1979. The current Iran trade prohibition policy dates from the mid-1990s and was instated under Clinton.

You correctly state that ratcheting up the rhetoric will get the US nowhere. It is worthwhile mentioning that an Israeli or US military strike is completely against US interests in Iraq and Afghanistan and is now more than ever highly unlikely.

As Titra Parsi argues, the nuclear issue is the wrong card to play. Obama should hammer on about human rights, or complete lack thereof, in Iran. He should shine a light on the regime's terrible track record against its own people.

[RickO]

This recent flap seems like a plausible act of retribution by Iran against its own people.

Iranians protested widely and created a lot of trouble for the rulers, who eventually got their way regardless but are still tainted by the aftertaste of the popular uprising. There is still a lot of dissent and these medieval mullahs don't like it.

What the Iranian leadership needs to do is rally popular support so they've got this building out in the desert with a target on the roof and as soon as it becomes a big news item, they pop off a missile test, basically a medium-range middle finger that can apparently reach Israel. The Israelis aren't known for putting up with that and will take out the inert building in the desert (like they did before) and Iran is now awash in flag-waving nationalism.

Just another day in the middle east.

[TheMediaRanger]

The mistake that most Western powers make, especially those with a history of imperialist designs in areas like Africa, the Middle East and Southeast Asia, is a failure to recognize when a country is trying to implode and regenerate itself. Iran has signaled this very action with the mass demonstrations and withering of traditional alliances following last year's elections, as well as the gradual dilution of theocratic political power. Every country needs to remake itself from time to time, and when Iran has completed its own makeover, we'd be wise to be in the hearts and minds of its people rather than the sights of its guns. That's not fear or weakness; that's reaching out with an offer to live peaceably for another few thousand years.

[DCBarrister]

The bottom line?

President Obama wants to look cowboy tough so he tried to toe the line with Bush's "git da terrirsts" policies, and Iran seized an opportunity to show the world just how inexperienced and starry eyed Obama really is.

It worked.

Keep the change.

Hillary 2012

[robbep]

I saw her the other day talking about Iran and she had her cowboy boots on also. There is not much difference btwn the two on this one so electing her ( nvr going to happen) wld not change one thing.

[Khirad]

"[T]he Obama administration has stepped in to reinvigorate the Iranian government's most appealing scenario: that of the formidable opponent of modern-day Western imperialism. And not just any imperialism, but one which targets some countries' nuclear programs while ignoring other countries' nuclear bombs."

Nailed it.

You're still in my top five as favorite Huff bloggers, Shirin. Keep up the great work!

[nachladis]

First of all, I don't think we should fear any country because they have nuclear wepons. They will never be used! We definitely should not go to war over a country aquiring them. They are only for threat and not for use. If Iran were to fire a nuclear wepon at us, they know the consequence... complete destruction of Iran! There are those who do fear this with every freightened bone in their body, however. This is why I came up with a solution. Iran says that it wants nuclear capabilities for energy purposes only. If they are really serious about this, then why don't we (by we I mean the U.S.A., Britain, Isreal, Russia, China, etc.) offer to help build the reactors for them. This way they do not have the capabilities to build a nuclear wepon and we look like the peace maker throughout the world. If Iran were to deny our offer or accept our offer and then still try to build nuclear wepons, we could go to war with them and perhaps because we tried so hard for peace, we may be in the position to build a strong coalition.

[koppenberg]

While it makes sense to offer to help build nuclear power facilities for them, refusal of such help is not a sufficient cause for war, especially if you think we should not go to war over a country acquiring nuclear weapons in the first place.

Also, we tried that with North Korea and it's gotten nowhere, whether in preventing their development of nuclear weapons, improving relations, or building a strong coalition against them.

[robbep]

Why shld we build facilities for them when they can build it themselves? Contrary to what we have been told the Iranians are not in violation of the Non Proliferation Treaty bcz THEY reported to the appropiate authorities that this facility was being built way before they were required to. What you saw from Obama was pure AIPAC directed theatre. This country is being put under pressure from Israel to provoke a war with Iran and unfortunately our media and some famously liberal blogs are behind this as well. http://www.examiner.com/x-25059-Nonpartisan-Examiner~y2009m9d30-Irans-Nuclear-Program-Iran-truthful-in-treaty-compliance-USIsrael-lying-in-treaty-violation

[S1m0n]

There's still no evidence that Iran is behaving anything but responsibly. And by 'no evidence' I mean "none". Years of inspections have uncovered nothing. There is not a scrap of evidence that Iran has a nuclear weapons program, and the nuclear program they do have is one they are, by international treaty, fully entitled to have, no matter whether Israel or the United States likes it or not.

And we've seen this movie before. Iraq, too, was accused of having a nuclear weapons program, and accused loudly and long. The accusations never stopped, even though the iAEA had been on the ground for years in Iraq, and just like Iran, found nothing. The only consequence of this unbroken streak of failure an a new and expanded list of inspections demands. When these too, came up dry, there were yet more demands.

We now know that this was because there was nothing to be found. Iraq was telling the truth the entire time, and it was our leaders who were lying when they claimed to have proof positive that the WMDs were there after all.

Now Iran's in the same boat. Logic tells us that it is impossible to prove the absence of anything, but nothing short of such a proof will suffice to call of the dogs. It's a perfect catch 22.

[robbep]

Thank you for comment. When the Israeli government tells us that Iran is not a threat and the American media keeps saying it is you know that someone wants to make some money off of a conflict with Iran. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mj-rosenberg/israeli-government-iran-n_b_289775.html Israel and the US both have a AIPAC problem.

[Alanlak]

Can you say "oil?" Can you say "more US military bases?" I knew you could.

[Ergon]

Yes I feel sorry for the Iranian people, but this scenario is exactly what I tried to warn many commentators about:
All this bombast would make the government stronger, not weaker.
The Iranian people are going to be thrown under the realpolitik bus.

[Khirad]

When I agree with you, I agree with you.

[Ergon]

Thanks, and you're definitely a step above the 'Ergon is in the pay of the IRI thugs' crowd;)

[WorkingClass]

The United States should drop the pretense of hegemony in the middle east. Negotiate agreements and treaties with Iran that benefit both countries. This is the way to support the people of Iran AND the people of the U.S. Wars and sanctions benefit no one.

If you are living in fear of the Persian people or the government of Iran, get help. You have a psychiatric, not a political problem.

[sparafucilli]

How ironic. Countries, including America, that once argued (pre WW I Le Hague conferences) how disarmament was a matter of sovereignty are now in a position of having to defend the reverse notion when it comes to Iran and nuclear weapons (the possibility only) .

[eweqo]

Anyone who thinks obama will do anything other than appease iran hasn't been paying attention. He is following in carter's footsteps. iran will continue to intimidate its neighbor and use its proxies to spread terrorism. iran wants to destroy Israel and dominate the middle east. russia and china are its allies and they won't be happy until america is in ruins. obama hopes to facillitate that process and thereby gain the approval of the terrorist states.

[icewomancometh]

That is Levi.n, Hannit.y, Limbaug.h and the rest of em talking. Could you please try it on your own without the use of a net.

[S1m0n]

Appease? Give it a rest! There remains, as IAEA head Mohammed el Baradei keeps pointing out, not a scrap of evidence that Iran even has a nuclear weapons program. Iran is fulfilling its obligations under the NPT, and is also fulfilling an expanded inspection regimen which exceeds that required by the NPT. Despite these, not a whisper of a weapons program has ever been found.

So, you need to put up or shut up before you can start talking about Iran being appeased. The NPT, a treaty the US has both signed and ratified, guarrantees Iran the right to do what it is doing, period. Before you can find Iran guilty, you need to come up with at least one piece of evidence that a crime has occurred. You don't have one.

[Khirad]

I would ask you to explain a few points, but it would be futile, as you haven't the faintest grasp of reality.