6/12/09

Iranians have turned out in huge numbers to vote in their presidential election today. Results will not be known until tomorrow and there is a possibility that neither main candidate – President Ahmadinejad nor former Prime Minister Mir Hussein Moussavi – will get 50 percent of the vote, requiring a run-off election next Friday. No matter the outcome, the energy and tone surrounding the election has been unprecedented. The major storyline thus far has been the tremendous outpouring of support  for challenger Mir Hussein Moussavi. His supporters, drawing heavily from young voters and women, have loudly proclaimed their desire for change within Iran. While emphasizing economic reforms and political and personal freedoms, his supporters have also repudiated the approach of Ahmadinejad and expressed their desire for improved relations with the west – particularly with the United States. President Obama’s election, and his efforts to engage the region and establish a relationship built on mutual respect, have resonated. As Nick Burns observed, Obama’s calls for engagment have put Ahmadinejad on the “defensive prior to the election.” Yet conservatives who once longingly looked for democracy to emerge in Iran are now changing their tune in an effort to salvage their discredited hard-line approach toward Iran, arguing that the presidency is irrelevant and the outpouring on the streets doesn’t matter because the elections are not entirely free and fair. However, elections – even if Ahmadinejad wins – should only bolster Obama’s efforts to engage Iran, since it is clear that there is a large segment of the Iranian people – as well as reformist political leaders – seek dialogue with the United States.  Engagement with Iran has no guarentees of success, and one election will not change Iran’s underlying foreign policy aims, but the past eight years of a hard-line policy that sought to isolate Iran have certainly failed.

Unprecedented enthusiasm in Iranian presidential elections has led to strong calls for change in not just domestic policy, but foreign policy. Tens of thousands of Iranians streamed to polling stations this morning, in an election that the New York Times described as “widely seen here as a referendum on the hard-line policies of Iran’s president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.”  While Iran’s dismal economic performance has been a top issue, international issues have also played heavily, with challenger Mir Hossein Moussavi expressing a willingness “to push for Iran to embrace President Barack Obama's offer of dialogue after a nearly 30-year diplomatic freeze,” according to AP.  For many Iranians, there is a sense that the elections and the Obama administration’s offer of a new relationship of “mutual trust” and “mutual respect” represent an opportunity to shake off Iran’s negative international image – an opportunity facilitated in no small measure by the Obama administration’s change in policy.  In an interview with al-Jazeera English, Moussavi remarked that “the taboo in this country (Iran) about talking to America has been broken.”  The New York Times described Adel Shoghi, a clerk at a car-manufacturing company who favored Moussavi, in part “because Mr. Ahmadinejad worsened Iran’s pariah status internationally.”  “Rogine Behtoub, 24, a teacher, said she came to the polling station at the Hosseiniyeh Ershad mosque in north Tehran to vote against Ahmadinejad.  ‘I'm not coming here to vote for anyone. I'm voting against someone. I want a change in the situation. I want better relations with the outside world,’ Behtoub said,” reported the Los Angeles Times.  These developments stand in stark contrast to conservative arguments that Obama’s efforts would strengthen hard-liners in Iran. Conservative Bill Kristol said, “He's [Obama] kowtowing to a regime that is anything but republican, implicitly forswearing any plan--any hope--of regime change to free the Iranian people. [NY Times, 6/12/09. AP, 6/12/09. Al-Jazeera English, 6/11/09. LA Times, 6/12/09. Bill Kristol, 3/30/09]

Obama administration’s outreach efforts have put Ahmadinejad on the defensive and strengthened calls for dialogue and engagement within Iran. Nick Burns, who served as the State Department’s number three official in George W. Bush’s second term, observed yesterday that the Obama administration’s early actions have helped to create space for such sentiment.  According to Burns, Obama has “effectively has put Ahmadinejad on [the] defensive prior to this election because of our ability now to open up the vista for the possibility of negotiations.”  The President first signaled this shift through rhetorical gestures, most dramatically though his message for the Iranian New Year: “My administration is now committed to diplomacy that addresses the full range of issues before us, and to pursuing constructive ties among the United States, Iran and the international community…The United States wants the Islamic Republic of Iran to take its rightful place in the community of nations. You have that right – but it comes with real responsibilities, and that place cannot be reached through terror or arms, but rather through peaceful actions that demonstrate the true greatness of the Iranian people and civilization... So on the occasion of your New Year, I want you, the people and leaders of Iran, to understand the future that we seek…It's a future where the old divisions are overcome, where you and all of your neighbors and the wider world can live in greater security and greater peace.”  A series of more substantive actions have taken place s well, including a brief meeting between Afghanistan & Pakistan Special Representative Richard Holbrooke and Iran’s deputy foreign minister, as well as an announcement that the U.S. would rejoin the UN’s ‘P5 + 1’ talks over Iran’s nuclear program. [Former Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs Nick Burns, 6/11/09. President Obama, 3/19/09. NY Times, 4/01/09. State Department Spokesperson Robert Wood, 4/08/09]

In a 180 degree shift, conservatives who once called for support for Iranian democracy are now dismissing the importance of the elections in order to support their hard-line agenda.  Conservative commentators are suddenly dismissing the role of the Iranian presidency and the importance of the democratic impulses that we are seeing among the Iranian people.  As the Washington Times writes in an editorial today, “It doesn't really matter who wins today's presidential election in Iran. No matter the outcome, Tehran's foreign policy will not change and the nation's people will remain oppressed.” Yet when conservatives were advocating a hard-line approach towards Iran they touted a different line.  In 2007 Kristol described Ahmadinejad as “president of a terrorist regime which is right now responsible for the deaths of American soldiers on the field of battle.”  And a 2005 Heritage Foundation report said the ascension of Ahmadinejad, “who has publicly criticized past Iranian concessions, has further undermined the prospects for diplomatic success.” As progressives have argued for years, the president of Iran, while important, does not control Iranian foreign policy. Control is held by the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khomenei. This continuity, however, means that the Obama administration should pursue its policy of engagement no matter the outcome of the election. [Washington Times, 6/12/09. Bill Kristol, 9/20/07]

Conservatives dismiss unprecedented public engagement in the Iranian in order to support their hard-line agenda. While the elections in Iran are far from being free and fair, as candidates for office must support the regime, this election season has clearly promoted democratic impulses and movement among the people of Iran. As Les Gelb, president emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations, writes, “Whatever happens this time, Americans will finally be able to see clearly that Iran is not a monolith totally dominated by crazy clerics dedicated to Western destruction.” Yet conservatives are trying to dismiss the unprecedented political engagement in Iran in order to advance their own hard-line agenda that rests on portraying Iran as a monolithic regime dominated by irrational figures. Former Bush administration official Elliot Abrams dismissed the reformist movement today saying, “[t]here is no chance for voters to register their opposition to the theocratic system or tell the ayatollahs to go back to the mosques.” However, the New York Times documents voters using the options available to them to register their views: “[l]ess than two months ago, it was widely assumed here and in the West that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Iran’s hard-line president, would coast to another victory in the elections on Friday,” but “[a] vast opposition movement has arisen, flooding the streets of Iran’s major cities with cheering, green-clad supporters of Mir Hussein Moussavi, the leading challenger.” There has been a strongly worded televised debate, protests in the street representing both sides, an organized movement by former President Rafsanjani to counter any voter fraud, and an increased participation among human rights and women’s rights organizations. [Elliot Abrams, NY Times, 6/12/09.  Heritage Foundation, 12/14/05. NY Times, 6/11/09. Les Gelb, 6/10/09]

Regardless of the outcome of the elections, the U.S. must continue its policy of engagement, which can reverse the failures of the Bush administration and has broad domestic support.  While many in the media have determined that the Iranian elections are a “test” of Obama’s engagement strategy, this is not the case. The Supreme Leader, not the elected president, is the primary overseer of Iran’s foreign policy. Both leading candidates have endorsed elements of Iranian power which the US finds objectionable.  Negotiations will be difficult – in no small part because of how Iran’s hand was strengthened by the mistakes of the past eight years.  In a report for the Brookings Institution, Ray Takeyh and Suzanne Maloney write: “[t]hanks to events of recent years, Tehran now has acquired the means to influence all of the region’s security dilemmas, and it appears unlikely that any of the Arab world’s crises, from the persistent instability in Iraq and Lebanon to security of the Persian Gulf, can be resolved without Iran’s acquiescence or assistance.”  Worse, Iran has drawn closer to reaching nuclear “breakout” capability, now operating as many as 5,000 centrifuges at its central enrichment plant in Natanz. With conservative policies having failed, Carnegie Endowment expert Karim Sadjadpour concludes that “[c]ontinuing to engage Iran—basically trying to open a sustained dialogue with Tehran—is the right thing to do, even if Ahmadinejad is elected.” As the Associated Press reported last fall, five former Secretaries of State; Henry Kissinger, Colin Powell, James Baker, Madeleine Albright and Warren Christopher all agreed that “the next American administration should talk to Iran, a foe President George W. Bush has generally shunned as part of an 'axis of evil.'" Agreement among foreign policy experts is matched by public support.  According to a CNN opinion poll published last week, “[n]early six in ten Americans think that Obama administration officials should hold diplomatic talks with Iran without that country first making significant changes in its policies.”  [Karim Sadjadpour, 6/02/09. Brookings Institution, 12/08. NPR, 3/02/09. LA Times, 12/06/08. AP, 9/15/08. CNN, 4/08/09. Robert Kagan, 3/25/09]

What We’re Reading

The Obama administration has all but abandoned plans to allow Guantanamo Bay detainees who have been cleared for release to live in the United States.

House-Senate negotiators reached agreement on a $105.9 billion wartime spending bill after assurances from President Obama that he will prevent the disclosure of controversial photographs depicting the treatment of detainees held by the U.S. military.

The CIA believes Osama bin Laden is still in Pakistan, and is hoping capture him as the Pakistani military cracks down on the northwestern tribal area.

U.S. general David Petraeus said that the past week showed the "highest level of security incidents" in recent Afghan history with attacks rising to record levels not seen since 2001.

The UN Security Council is expected to adopt tougher sanctions targeting North Korea's ballistic missile programs. Meanwhile, South Korea is preparing for a possible third nuclear test by the North, despite looming U.N. sanctions.

NYC officials conducted an exercise involving hundreds of police officers and FBI agents simulating a terror attack on the city.

Suicide bombers attacked a mosque and a religious school in Pakistan Friday, killing at least five people including a prominent Muslim cleric, Sarfraz Naeemi¸ who had recently condemned the Taliban.

Former President Jimmy Carter reiterated that there can be no peace between Israel and the Palestinians without involving the militant group Hamas.

Binyamin Netanyahu is reportedly ready to endorse a “two-state solution” in a speech this weekend, but he may stall on American demands to freeze Jewish settlements in the West Bank.

The incoming US general in charge of troops in Afghanistan, Gen Stanley Chrystal, says his priority will be to review all NATO operations in a bid to reduce civilian casualties.

Commentary of the Day

Senator John Kerry (D-Mass) wrote in support of the Enhanced Partnership with Pakistan Act and the Kerry-Lugar Bill, which would invest $1.5 billion per year for the next ten years in the country.

Joe Klein argues that the US should start talking to Hamas.

According to Fared Zakaria the single most important place where Obama can have a transformative impact within the Muslim world is Iraq.

The foreign minister of Saudi Arabia, Prince Saud al-Faisal, discusses President Obama’s Cairo speech and its implications.