6/18/09

In the last few days, a prominent faction of conservatives has attacked the Obama administration's approach to Iran. Robert Kagan even argued that Obama's lack of tough talk clearly indicates he doesn't care about the demonstrators and democracy. These attacks are rooted in theneoconservative theory of democracy promotion: that tough American talk backed by the threat of force - in the case of Iraq, the actual use of force - and intrusive American intervention was the best method to promote democracy in the Middle East. Yet instead of emboldening reformers and moderates, their approach backfired spectacularly: Hamas won the Palestinian elections, Hezbollah rose in prominence and power, chaos reigned for years in Iraq, and hardliners in Iran were strengthened. While talking tough may feel good, it does not always serve American interests or the interests of people struggling to change their own societies from within.Instead, democracy promotion experts and Iran advocates alike suggest a measured approach - one that expresses support for Iranian sovereignty AND the human rights and democratic aspirations of the demonstrators.  In their effort to score cheap political points, some conservatives have been willing to predict that demonstrations would fail and make public statements that play directly into Ahmadinejad's hands.  Suspicion around the US' role and motives in Iran remains high. Although it is less satisfying than chest-thumping public pronouncements, for the sake of the demonstrators and American national interests, a more low-key approach remains the right way to go - especially as long as the situation inside Iran remains so fluid and unclear.

Obama administration takes cool-headed, pragmatic approach to supporting Iranian's democratic rights, a policy backed by democracy promotion experts.  With demonstrations in Iran growing every day, Americans are sympathetic to the strong show of democratic impulses by the Iranian people.  In its response, the Obama administration has elected to let the Iranians take the lead, supporting their democratic impulses while keeping from meddling in Iran's internal affairs.  Democracy promotion expert Jack Duvall, President of the International Center for Nonviolent Conflict, explained that this approach is consistent with the most effective means of promoting democratic values in such highly delicate situations as Iran: "He shifted the frame from [the question of] 'were the elections fraudulent' to 'what's the responsibility of the Iranian government for peaceful dissent? That lays down a marker going forward: this is how we're assessing you. He doesn't have to send that in a giant shell shot out of a Howitzer, but it's a matter of record."  Thomas Carothers, a democracy specialist with the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, remarked on the sensitivity demanded by the situation: "We can't ignore democracy issues, and can't ignore their impact, but they also put the U.S. in a very delicate position."  Carothers also notes the need to keep  what is happening in Iran as "an Iran-versus-Iran political conflict. The U.S. may have its sympathies but it's not behind a particular political force. We might support them in their struggle to make sure their voices are heard and respected, but we're not funding them, we're not their paymasters or their political directors and so forth." The substantive action taken by the administration seemed to reflect this nuanced approach - respecting the pledge of non-interference in Iran's internal affairs, while throwing support behind dissident voices.  The New York Times reported that on "Monday afternoon, a 27-year-old State Department official, Jared Cohen, e-mailed the social-networking site Twitter with an unusual request: delay scheduled maintenance of its global network, which would have cut off service while Iranians were using Twitter to swap information and inform the outside world about the mushrooming protests around Tehran." [Washington Independent, 6/18/09.  NY Times, 6/17/09]

The Iranian regime is desperate to accuse the U.S. of interfering - doing so would play into the regime's hands and would hinder the democratic movement.  John Kerry writes in today's New York Times that, "[w]atching heartbreaking video images of Basij paramilitaries terrorizing protesters, we feel the temptation to respond emotionally. There's just one problem. If we actually want to empower the Iranian people, we have to understand how our words can be manipulated and used against us to strengthen the clerical establishment, distract Iranians from a failing economy and rally a fiercely independent populace against outside interference. Iran's hard-liners are already working hard to pin the election dispute, and the protests, as the result of American meddling." Iran's accusation of meddling has already begun.  NPR reports that "Iran's leadership on Wednesday accused the United States of instigating political unrest after last week's disputed election ... Iranian officials summoned the Swiss ambassador - who represents U.S. interests in Iran in the absence of formal diplomatic ties between Washington and Tehran - to complain about 'intolerable' meddling by the United States in Iran's internal affairs, the country's state television reported."  And the New York Times reports that "[i]n a televised address to the nation Saturday night, Mr. Ahmadinejad called on the public to respect the results, and he also denounced foreign diplomatic and journalistic criticism. 'All political and propaganda machines abroad and sections inside the country have been mobilized against the nation,' he said." And the Christian Science Monitor writes that "[s]tate news services reported that the Revolutionary Guards had acted against 'deviant news sites' backed by the US, Britain, and Canada that were encouraging unrest." [John Kerry, 6/18/09. NPR, 6/17/09. NY Times, 6/15/09. Christian Science Monitor, 6/17/09]

Neocons, stuck in the Bush-era mindset, continue to advocate a reckless hard-line approach that calls for meddling.  Throughout this entire crisis, many conservatives, including John McCain, have used this as an opportunity to advocate their hard-line approach to democracy promotion that has failed over the last eight years.  McCain, for example, said yesterday, "I do not believe that the president is taking a leadership that is incumbent upon an American president, which we have throughout modern history, and that is to advocate for human rights and freedom." 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."  And Robert Kagan says that Obama's "extremely guarded response to the outburst of popular anger at the regime has been widely misinterpreted as reflecting concern that too overt an American embrace of the opposition will hurt it, or that he wants to avoid American 'moralizing.' (Obama himself claimed yesterday that he didn't want the United States to appear to be "meddling.")  But Obama's calculations are quite different. Whatever his personal sympathies may be, if he is intent on sticking to his original strategy, then he can have no interest in helping the opposition. His strategy toward Iran places him objectively on the side of the government's efforts to return to normalcy as quickly as possible, not in league with the opposition's efforts to prolong the crisis." Danielle Pletka of AEI, actually called the demonstrations a failure - a position only the Iranian regime might agree with. "Five days later, the uprising is little more than a symbolic protest, crushed by the elite Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps." Yet yesterday tens of thousands of people took to the streets again and much of the reporting indicates that the demonstrations are gaining steam, contrary to attacks claiming that Obama's measured tone is undermining the protests. [USA Today, 6/16/09. CNN, 6/17/09. Danielle Pletka and Ali Alfoneh, NY Times, 6/17/09. Robert Kagan, 6/17/09. Bill Kristol, 6/14/09. John Kerry, 6/18/09. NSN, 1/29/08]

The Bush Administration's neoconservative attempts at promoting democracy in both Iran and the broader Middle East have been a complete catastrophe.  In Iran, dissidents viewed Bush's support as so toxic that they implored congress to stop enabling the Administration's efforts.  Fearful that a 2007 Bush plan to set aside $75 million to promote democracy in Iran could have severe repercussions, Iranian dissident journalist Akbar Ganji took the remarkable step of imploring that Congress ban such assistance.  Writing in the Washington Post, Ganji said, "Of course, Iran's democratic movement and civil institutions need funding. But this must come from independent Iranian sources. Iranians themselves must support the transition to democracy; it cannot be presented like a gift...So here is our request to Congress: To do away with any misunderstanding, we hope lawmakers will approve a bill that bans payment to individuals or groups opposing the Iranian government."  Despite calling for elections in Palestine, the Bush administration was caught unprepared for the possibility that Hamas would triumph over Fatah.  The Atlantic noted that "when Hamas upset Fatah in January's Palestinian elections, the radical Islamic group's victory seemed to catch American policy makers entirely off guard. But they wouldn't have been so shocked if they'd taken a look at a polling analysis carried out just before the election by the State Department's intelligence service... While the State Department didn't go so far as to predict a Hamas victory, its analysts did describe the race as 'neck and neck,' with the Islamist group only two points off the lead. The analysis also cited a decade's worth of polls showing Hamas steadily gaining the trust of Palestinians while the ruling party's support diminished, and noted that corruption (an issue on which Hamas enjoyed a huge advantage in public confidence over Fatah) was the most-cited concern of voters leading up to the election." Once it became clear that Hamas had won, the administration began "revising its attitude toward Palestinian democracy," throwing its policy toward the region into confusion. [Akbar Ganji, 10/16/07. Washington Post, 5/18/08. The Atlantic, June 2006] 

What We're Reading

A Global insurance fraud scheme is discovered that provided North Korea's leadership with hundreds of millions of dollars in hard currency.

A suspected US drones strike against a purported Taliban hideout in northwestern Pakistan killed 8.

A suicide car bomber killed Somalia's security minister and at least 19 others in an attack attributed to al Qaeda.

The internet has provided the world with an unprecedented looks at the continuing unrest in Iran as journalists and reporters continue to be kicked out of the country.

A last-minute amendment in the House rolls back defense cuts desired by Sec. Gates and President Obama, and would restore $368.8 million towards the purchase of 12 F-22s in fiscal year 2011.

As Russia and China urge North Korea to return to international disarmament talks, a Japanese news report said the regime plans to fire a missile in the direction of Hawaii.

As Mexico's midterm elections gear up, one of the prominent campaign slogans is vouching for Mexican voters to "voto en blanco," or vote for nobody.

According to the Government Accountability Office, the US has failed to curb arms flow into Mexico due lack of a co-ordinated US strategy.

A report by Amnesty International says Zimbabwe is still suffering "persistent and serious" human rights violations. These accusations flourish as Prime Minister Tsvangirai is tours  foreign capitals seeking the $10bn of aid needed to stabilize the country's economy.

Commentary of the Day

Iranians express their belief that the United States should avoid involvement in the Iranian elections due to fears that any action would be used as a pretext by Ahmadinejad to blame the protests on "outside enemies."

Joe Klein provides an insider's take on the situation in Iran, reporting on what he saw during his ten days in the country.

In a piece titled "With Iran, think before you speak," John Kerry rebukes McCain and the neoconservative criticisms of Obama's reaction to the elections.

While the world's attention is on Iran, Pakistan struggles through a chaotic summer facing an escalation in hostilities on many fronts.