6/16/09

The situation in Iran remains fluid; observers agree that no one knows how the situation will end. In size and scope, the demonstrations on the streets are unprecedented in the 30 year history of the regime.  But it is still difficult to characterize them. Some have described them as “revolutionary”, but the protestors insist that they are not trying to overthrow the regime and they are supported by many long serving members of the regime and participants of the 1979 revolution – including Mousavi himself. As the situation changes by the hour, it is essential for the United States to not play into the hands of the Iranian regime. President Obama has the support of bipartisan national security leaders for his measured tone.   He has expressed strong American support for the democratic aspirations of the demonstrators and called for respect for the protesters’s human rights and an end to the violence against them.  Yet he also made clear that the U.S. would not meddle in Iran’s internal political affairs and should not be used as a “political football” by the Iranian regime. Unfortunately, conservative commentators have fallen into the trap set by the Iranian regime, insisting the U.S. get directly involved. Iranian state television even used a Fox News clip - that called for direct action to support the protests - as evidence that the demonstrators were western agitators being supported by the United States. Americans need to realize that anything that can be seen as meddling in Iran will only serve to undercut the demonstrators.

Situation in Iran is evolving rapidly, with uncertain implications.   While it is clear that Iran is experiencing a level of political upheaval unseen since the revolution, little else is definitive. Wire reports, email, and twitter updates are providing a near constant stream of information, but few hard facts about the opaque decision-making of Iran’s religious, political and military leaders.   Established media outlets and bloggers alike have published unconfirmed reports and, as Kevin Drum suggests, it is “far too easy to get caught up in events and see things happening that just weren't there.”  Thus far, the demonstrators have styled themselves as not as opponents of the regime, but as defenders of the 1979 Revolution.  According to Washington Independent reporter Ackerman, “the opposition to Ahmadinejad is portraying him and his supporters as a corrupting figure, eating the Islamic Revolution at its core. They're portraying themselves as somewhere on the spectrum of reformists and restorationists.” Mousavi seemed to take this approach, saying: “I am certain recent reactions are not for me, but it is out of concern for the new political order that is being imposed on our country.”  But Iran expert Gary Sick warns that the situation could move in a new direction: “the situation is certainly not a revolution at this point, but the main players are faced with the decision of whether to push things to the brink, realizing that it could run out of control and perhaps bring down the entire system of Islamic government. In the past, opposition forces have recoiled at that prospect and retreated. It is very likely they will do so again, but they are perhaps closer to the line today than they have been in the entire 30 years of the post-revolutionary experience.” Middle East analyst and former Baghdad Bureau Chief for Fox News Gordon Robison summed up the questions:“It will probably be a while – perhaps quite a while indeed – before anyone outside of Iran’s political and military inner circle really knows what has happened over the last few days. Did the Supreme Leader conspire with President Ahmedinejad or has he been pushed aside, relegated to the status of a figurehead? If this was a palace coup who was behind it? The Supreme Leader? Ahmedinejad? The military? The Revolutionary Guards? We have no way of knowing; and the truth, whatever it may be, is likely to emerge only with the passage of time. That may seem obvious, but it should also serve as a note of caution. Moreover, the situation is still developing and changing. Whatever the behind the scenes truth of today is, things may look very different tomorrow or next week – let alone next month or next year.” [The Cyprus News Agency via the Washington Times, 6/15/09. Kevin Drum, 6/15/09. The Washington Independent, 6/15/09. Gary Sick, 6/15/09. Gordon Robison, 6/14/09]

Obama makes both a thoughtful and forceful response, saying U.S. not meddling in Iran, while confirming U.S. support for democratic values.  In his comments yesterday evening, President Obama said, “I want to start off by being very clear that it is up to Iranians to make decisions about who Iran's leaders will be; that we respect Iranian sovereignty and want to avoid the United States being the issue inside of Iran, which sometimes the United States can be a handy political football -- or discussions with the United States. Having said all that, I am deeply troubled by the violence that I've been seeing on television.  I think that the democratic process -- free speech, the ability of people to peacefully dissent -- all those are universal values and need to be respected.  And whenever I see violence perpetrated on people who are peacefully dissenting, and whenever the American people see that, I think they're, rightfully, troubled.” Responsible bipartisan leaders and senior foreign policy figures have echoed this approach.  The AP writes,  “The ranking Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee sees no reason for the United States to intervene in the Iranian presidential election dispute at this time. ‘Our position is to allow the Iranians to work out their situation,’ Richard Lugar, R-Ind., told The Early Show Tuesday.” Nick Burns, who as Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs was President George W. Bush’s lead interlocutor with Iran, said  “Well, I think, first of all, President Ahmadinejad would like nothing better than to see aggressive statements, a series of statements, from the United States which try to put the US at the center of this, and I think President Obama is avoiding that, quietly rightly. But he also did something yesterday, President Obama, he expressed clear sympathy for the reformers… The United States has to stand up for a moment like this, for people who are on the streets, aspiring for freedom, but he hasn’t gone so far, President Obama, to put the United States in the middle. It’s a balancing act, I think the President has been very effective in maintaining that.” [Barack Obama, 6/15/09. AP, 6/16/09. Nicholas Burns, 6/16/09]

Despite uncertainty and potential blowback, conservatives impulsively react by advocating the U.S. directly intervene on behalf of the demonstrators.  Many conservatives have been advocating the United States overtly support the demonstrations. 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.” John McCain stated that Obama “should speak out that this is a corrupt, fraud, sham of an election.” The National Review writes that Obama should directly call out the regime on the apparently fraudulent election, “President Obama should call them [the regime] on it, lending the opposition his rhetorical support.” But aggressively interjecting the United States into this situation could result in massive blowback and undermine the demonstrators. Trita Parsi of the National Iranian American Council states, “If the administration is saying things or doing things before Mousavi 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.” Reuters adds, “But Suzanne Maloney, an Iran expert at the Brookings Institution, said publicly siding with pro-democracy protesters could undermine them and work against U.S. interests. ‘The only option is to sit back and let them play it out,’ she said. ‘I think that concern being expressed is perfectly appropriate but you don't want Washington on its high horse.’” The conservatives have even created a propaganda tool for the Iranian government.  Nico Pitney of the Huffington Post reported Iranian national television playing clips of FOX News to show that foreign press was trying divide the Iranian people in order to take advantage of the a weakened Iran. [Bill Kristol, 6/14/09. USA Today, 6/16/09. National Review, 6/15/09. Washington Independent, 6/15/09. Reuters, 6/15/09. Huffington Post, 6/16/09]

What We’re Reading

Iran’s Guardian Council said it was ready to order a partial recount of disputed ballots, but was not willing to annul the vote and conduct another election, as opposition candidate Mir Hussein Moussavi requested. Opposition leader Mir Hussein Moussavi rejected the Guardian Council’s decision to facilitate a partial recount of disputed ballots from Friday’s election. Nico Pitney continues to liveblog the situation in Iran.

The first summit meeting of the BRIC group – Brazil, Russia, India, and China – took place today in Moscow. Embattled Iranian President Ahmadinejad attended.

The two US journalists who were imprisoned last week in North Korea have admitted that they entered the country illegally, and have accepted their sentences. 

U.S. nuclear experts said North Korea has made significant progress in its nuclear program, stating that last month’s test had an explosive yield much greater than its first test three years ago. 

Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi has agreed to accept three detainees from the Guantanamo Bay.

To the dismay of many Western powers sitting on the U.N. Security Council, Russia has vetoed a resolution that would have extended a U.N. mission in Georgia.

An audit by the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction and the State Department's Inspector General found that the State Department overpaid the security contractor Blackwater Worldwide by at least $55 million.

U.S. envoy to Pakistan Richard C. Holbrooke has attempted to regain trust within Pakistani refugee populations by convincing refugees that U.S. is on their side.

The number of internally displaced refugees has reached an all-time high of more than 28 million worldwide, according to the UN’s refugee agency. Pakistan and Sri Lanka stand out as two conflict-ridden examples of this growing problem.

Commentary of the Day

David Ignatius discusses Obama’s message to Iran.

The head of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty concludes that the Iranian people want us to engage the Iranian government while also listening closely to the frustration and dismay coming from the Iranian people.

A young Iranian living in Britain says that Iranian youth can no longer be suppressed, and that technology is opening up Iran faster that the regime can contain it.

A New York Times op-ed analyzes the political shuffling between the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Justice in the federal government’s efforts to combat the drug war on the U.S.-Mexico border.

The Moscow Times discusses Defense Secretary Gates’ political maneuvering prior to the U.S.-Russia summit next month.