Iran erupted this weekend following claims from the regime that President Ahmadinejad had been overwhelming reelected. The announcement was met with incredulity given numerous irregularities. Supporters of the main opposition candidate, former Prime Minister Mir Hussein Moussavi, quickly took to the streets in protest. The regime has cracked down brutally, detained many opposition leaders, placed Moussavi under watch, evicted and detained foreign journalists, and attempted to block protestors ability to communicate and organize by blocking text messaging and internet access. Americans are justifiably sympathetic to the Iranian demonstrators.  But an over the top response from Washington would only make the situation worse, as it would serve to further the regime’s line that these demonstrations are illegitimate-American backed efforts to interfere in Iran.  We must not give Ahmedinejad the chance to claim that his fight is with Washington, and not with his own citizens.   Iranian human rights advocates have asked the U.S. to “keep its distance,” a request American conservatives seem eager to ignore as they take to the airwaves calling for aggressive and direct American support for the demonstrators.  Additionally, there are not many levers available to the United States – and those continuing to advocate military action have seemingly not learned that exporting democracy through the barrel of a gun is a disastrous approach.

Instead, the Obama administration should continue to pursue a responsible course that refrains from legitimizing the results, expresses support for the human rights of Iran’s opposition, as well as ensures that the U.S. is not strengthening the regime by being seen as directly meddling. Going forward, the Obama administration must continue its policy of attempting to engage Iran and its people. Past U.S. policy of isolating and threatening Iran completely failed in both weakening Iran and stopping its nuclear program – and only served to strengthen hardliners. As is clearly apparent, the regime feels highly threatened by the prospect of greater openness and engagement with the west. Offering the prospect for greater interaction – far from supporting the regime as conservative critics suggest –would only strengthen those calling for dialogue and – if greater interaction were to occur – would serve to further threaten the regime’s conservative hardliners.

The Obama administration – and Americans across the political spectrum -- can best support Iranian human rights by letting the Iranian people take the lead. Spencer Ackerman reports on the developing U.S. response to the unrest in Iran following elections which were widely criticized as fraudulent: “Administration officials, on and off the record, said that President Obama would offer support for human rights in Iran generally and would not back away from his diplomatic outreach to the longtime U.S. adversary, regardless of the ultimate outcome of the election.”  This policy flows from a concern that aggressive U.S. interference would undermine the Iranian opposition.  According to the Independent, a senior U.S. official emphasized that “it was important to have a policy toward Iran that advanced the administration’s desire for liberalization and human rights in Iran, not one that merely vented American outrage at Ahmadinejad.”  The Obama administration has also expressed concern over the legitimacy of the Iranian elections.  Press Secretary Robert Gibbs raised the “reports of irregularities,” during a White House press conference, while Vice President Joe Biden expressed “real doubt” about the results, and called for a “thorough review of the whole process.”  Conservatives like Mitt Romney have recklessly called for the Obama administration to declare the elections a “fraud,” but human rights groups and other Iranian voices have argued that overt interference would bolster the regime.  Hadi Ghaemi, a New York-based spokesman for the International Campaign for Human Rights in Iran, remarked to the Independent: “I think it’s wise for the U.S. government to keep its distance.”  According to the Independent’s interview with Ghaemi, “any expression of political support for the protesters would only ‘instigate the cry that the reformers are somehow driven and directed by the United States, whether under [former President George W. Bush] or under Obama, and there’s no reason to give that unfounded allegation’ any chance to spread.”  Iran expert and founder of the National Iranian American Council Trita Parsi echoed Ghaemi, saying ““If the administration is saying things or doing things before Moussavi and the opposition figures out what the plan is, then that’s a real problem, because then it seems like it’s between Ahmadinejad and the west and not Ahmadinejad and the opposition. So the administration is doing exactly the right thing.”  [Washington Independent, 6/15/09.  Robert Gibbs, 6/14/09. Mitt Romney, 6/14/09. Vice President Joe Biden, 6/14/09]

Conservatives display stunning hypocrisy on Iran, using elections to push their own extreme agenda.  A week ago, conservatives insisted nothing of consequence was happening in Iran.  In an editorial on Friday, the Washington Times wrote: “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.”  Former Bush administration official Elliot Abrams dismissed the reformist movement, 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.”  These analyses ignored Iranians’ democratic impulses, and particularly the opposition’s explicit calls for engagement with the US.  the elections were “widely seen here (Iran) as a referendum on the hard-line policies of Iran’s president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad,” according to the New York Times, and in an interview before the election, Moussavi remarked that the idea of engagement, advanced by the Obama administration, has meant that the “the taboo in this country (Iran) about talking to America has been broken.”  This weekend, Mitt Romney continued to insist that  “the comments by the president last week that there was a robust debate going on in Iran was obviously entirely wrong-headed.”  But other conservatives switched to a new political ploy – discovering the Iranian people’s interest in democracy and insisting that the US interfere to the detriment of other interests.  Bill Kristol went on Fox News Sunday saying that, “I do want to send money. And I want to tell the Iranians who are on the fence and who do want trade with Europe and do want warmer relations with the U.S., "Look, you've got now to back off or else you don't get anything you want.” [Mitt Romney, 6/14/09.. Washington Times, 6/12/09. Elliot Abrams, NY Times, 6/12/09. NY Times, 6/12/09. Al-Jazeera English, 6/11/09. Bill Kristol, 6/14/09]

The election may change a great deal in Iran – or it may not – but it does not alter the underlying strategic factors which make prospect of engagement with Iran the best policy for America’s interests.  Diplomatic engagement with Iran is the right path in pursuing America’s interests, regardless of the outcome of the election and resulting demonstrations.  As the vice-president said on Meet the Press yesterday, “[l]ook, talks with Iran are not a reward for good behavior. They're only a consequence if the president makes the judgment it's in the best interest of the United States of America, our national security interests, to talk with the Iranian regime.  Our interests are the same before the election as after the election, and that is we want them to cease and desist from seeking a nuclear weapon and having one in its possession, and secondly to stop supporting terror…  It's not being done with a single person.”  Suzanne Maloney of the Brookings Institution goes on to say, “[t]he United States must seek out opportunities for resolving the increasingly urgent impasse over Iran’s nuclear program and addressing the broader array of concerns about Iranian policy. The elections have not changed the fact that negotiations represent the best of a range of unappealing options available to Washington. However, as a result of the increasingly arbitrary actions by Iran’s leadership, the American diplomatic approach has become more complicated and a successful resolution of the three-decade long estrangement becomes unfortunately less likely.” But as the New York Times concludes in an editorial this morning, “[t]he only choice is negotiations backed by credible incentives and tough sanctions. Even if the mullahs had allowed Mr. Moussavi to win, that would still be true.” A 2007 report from the Center for American Progress recommends engagement as an effort to weaken the radical elements of the Iranian government. It says, “We should complement...  containment efforts with sufficient diplomatic openings to engage pragmatic members of Iran’s ruling elite and appeal to the broad masses of the Iranian public in order to isolate and weaken the radical revolutionary elements represented by President Mohammed Ahmadinejad... By rejecting the obviously flawed options, however, and then conducting a sober appraisal of the possible, we are left with our best available option: decisive diplomacy to contain and engage Iran.” [Joseph Biden, Meet the Press, 6/14/09. Suzanne Maloney, 6/14/09. NY Times, 6/15/09. American Progress, 2007]

What We’re Reading

Tensions in Iran simmer as rallies are staged protesting the election results, despite warnings against opposition rallies and the detention of hundreds of opposition leaders. Ahmadinejad appears to maintain support, despite Ayatollah Ali Khamenei’s announcement of an investigation into the electoral irregularities. Most nations stay silent on the issue of acknowledging the results of the election, while Vice President Joseph Biden makes clear that US national interests have not changed and engagement will continue in the future.

Nico Pitney at Huffington Post is distilling news as it happens, including video and twitter feeds from Iran.  Andrew Sullivan is also closely tracking the online coverage.

Russia continues to be assertive against its neighbors as friction with Belarus arises from Russia banning Belarusian dairy products. Meanwhile, Georgia cannot come to an agreement with the Russians over the two separatist provinces Russia has administered since the end of the Russian-Georgian War.

Not much is known about North Korea’s heir apparent as the South Koreans seek guarantees that the US will uphold their security agreement.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu endorses the creation of a Palestinian State, but poses caveats considered non-starters by Palestinian negotiators.

Pakistani security forces acknowledge their intent on pursuing Pakistani Taliban leader Baitullah Meshud.

American contractors held in Iraqi jail were finally transferred to American custody.

German, British and South Korean hostages in Yemen were found to have been killed.

A meeting of G8 nation ministers will discuss stimulus measures amongst the member states.

General Stanley McChrystal takes command of US and NATO forces in Afghanistan.

The British Government announced that it will investigate errors committed during the Iraq War.

The President of Palau urges calm as his nation is poised to accept detainees from Guantanamo Bay while Uighur detainees arrive in Bermuda.

Commentary of the Day

The NY Times, the Wall Street Journal and the Washington Post all discuss the frustrated hopes of the Iranian opposition as the fallout from Iran’s presidential elections continues. Roger Cohen says Iranians will first reflect over the results before they take any action.

Ben Ehrenreich argues that torture has been part of US policy in the past, not making Abu Gharib and Guantanamo historic outliers.

David Makovsky explains why a land swap might neutralize the issues of settlements in the Israel-Palestine peace process.

Wolfgang Münchau at the Financial Times has an overview of the upcoming meeting of G8 nations.