Right Web

Tracking militarists’ efforts to influence U.S. foreign policy

Cautious U.S. Response to Iran Election Crisis

As President Barack Obama takes a wait-and-see approach to the violent aftermath of Iran’s contested election, U.S. neoconservatives are pushing the administration to demonstrate support for the protestors in Tehran.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

(Inter Press Service)

As protests over Iran’s disputed June 12 election rage on, Washington continues to react cautiously, reflecting intense uncertainty both about how much support to give Iranian demonstrators and about how the escalating crisis may affect President Obama’s hopes of engaging Tehran in serious negotiations.

Although many beltway anti-Iran hardliners want Barack Obama to make an unequivocal show of solidarity with Iran’s anti-government protesters—including imposing new economic sanctions against the Islamic Republic—Obama has so far declined to express outright support for the thousands of Iranian citizens who are protesting against Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his backers.

This course of action, many analysts say, reflects the political reality that strong U.S. backing for the protesters might prove to be more curse than blessing, since it could allow the Iranian regime to portray the protesters as agents of a hostile power, thus legitimizing continued crackdown.

“This is an issue that is going to be fought by Iranians; there’s nothing to be gained by external forces coming into this or trying to influence the outcome,” said Gary Sick, a veteran Iran analyst at Columbia University who also served on the National Security Councils of former Presidents Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan.

“That would be a terrible mistake, and no matter what was said or done by the administration, it would be interpreted as intervention and would actually undercut severely the position of the reformists as they would be tagged as ‘tools of the West,'” Sick said in a June 15 interview with the Council on Foreign Relations.

But the upheaval in Iran nonetheless poses an additional hurdle for the Obama administration’s attempt to engage the Islamic Republic diplomatically regarding its nuclear program.

While it is not clear that the election and its aftermath alter the basic strategic calculus on the nuclear issue—a central issue in Obama’s engagement strategy—they almost certainly will alter Washington’s political balance of power, by bolstering anti-Iran hawks and undercutting domestic support for engagement.

“A shamelessly engineered [Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad election victory would doubtless magnify already rather significant popular American qualms about negotiating with parties like the Iranian president,” warned Wayne White, a former top Middle East analyst at the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research.

“Even more importantly, this also would likely eat into Congressional support for U.S.-Iranian dialogue,” he wrote.

Already, many hawks have seized upon the disputed election—and the widespread belief that the results were fraudulent—as proof that Iran’s leadership is too aggressive and unreliable to be engaged.

“The vote should prompt Mr. Obama to rethink his pursuit of a grand nuclear bargain with Iran, though early indications suggest he plans to try anyway,” the Wall Street Journal’s neo-conservative editorial page complained on June 15.

The Journal suggested that Obama should send a message by “remov[ing] his opposition” to pending legislation that would impose sanctions on companies exporting refined petroleum products to Iran.

Meanwhile, Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-CT), widely regarded as a neoconservative on foreign policy issues, called on the administration to “speak out, loudly and clearly, about what is happening in Iran right now, and unambiguously express their solidarity” with the protesters.

However, with the situation in Iran in flux, for the moment most observers in Washington, including the administration itself, are taking a “wait-and-see” approach.

It remains unclear how much support the protesters have, whether a planned review of election results by Iran’ Guardian Council may alter the official outcome—and whether the election was, in fact, stolen in the first place.

Obama told reporters on June 15 that he was “deeply troubled by the violence that I’ve been seeing on television,” while offering reassurances that “it is up to Iranians to make decisions about who Iran’s leaders will be” and that the United States “respect[s] Iranian sovereignty.”

“To those people who put so much hope and energy and optimism into the political process, I would say to them that the world is watching and inspired by their participation, regardless of what the ultimate outcome of the election was,” Obama continued, “and they should know that the world is watching.”

Obama also pledged to continue his engagement strategy regardless of the election results.

“I’ve always believed that as odious as I consider some of President Ahmadinejad’s statements, as deep as the differences that exist between the United States and Iran on a range of core issues, that the use of tough, hard-headed diplomacy—diplomacy with no illusions about Iran and the nature of the differences between our two countries—is critical when it comes to pursuing a core set of our national security interests,” he said.

That assessment appears for now to reflect the majority view, at least among Iran specialists and most of Washington’s foreign-policy establishment.

“I think that the diplomatic outreach should continue as it started,” wrote F. Gregory Gause, a Gulf specialist at the University of Vermont, at the Foreign Policy website. “American interests here are not about Iranian domestic politics. They are about Iran’s role in Iraq, Afghanistan, the Gulf, the Arab-Israeli arena, and the nuclear program.”

“America deals with all sorts of governments whose domestic arrangements are, to put it mildly, less than compatible with American ideals. (The Saudis are Exhibit A),” Gause added.

But even some conservatives more closely associated with the realist wing of the Republican Party who have strongly supported engagement have said that the regime’s behavior in the last few days has given them pause.

“Washington now faces a newly fractured Iranian polity ruled by a leadership that is willing to jettison its own institutions and legitimacy in its determination to retain absolute control,” according to Suzanne Maloney, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and former State Department Iran specialist who still backs diplomacy.

“That does not bode well for Iran’s capacity to undertake serious talks and eventually engage in historic concessions on its nuclear program and support for terrorism,” she said.

Wayne White, another consistent engagement backer, also suggested that the continued silence of Obama and other western leaders carried its own risks.

Their failure to speak out, he said, “is sending [an] unfortunate signal, especially to the many protesters evidently disappointed that the international community has remained so silent, [and] giving the impression that … it probably will be business as usual with Tehran once the dust has settled.”

“[T]here is every reason to believe … that at the end of these unpleasant events, Ahmadinejad will be president and Iranian hardliners in power perhaps more confident and brazen in their behavior than before,” White wrote on June 15.

Meanwhile, neoconservative hardliners have taken the election crisis—and the internal conflicts within the regime that it exposed—as an opportunity to press their own nightmare scenarios.

“The danger … is that if the regime ever collapses under its own weight, the ideologues who would have custody over the nuclear program might decide to launch, figuring both that they’re not long for the world anyway and so have nothing to lose,” Michael Rubin of the American Enterprise Institute told National Review Online.

Jim Lobe and Daniel Luban write for the Inter Press Service and PRA’s Right Web (https://rightweb.irc-online.org). Lobe blogs on U.S. foreign policy at http://www.ips.org/blog/jimlobe.

Share RightWeb

Featured Profiles

Jon Lerner is a conservative political strategist and top adviser to US Ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley. He was a key figure in the “Never Trump” Campaign, which appears to have led to his being ousted as Vice President Mike Pence’s national security adviser.


Pamela Geller is a controversial anti-Islam activist who has founded several “hate groups” and likes to repeat debunked myths, including about the alleged existence of “no-go” Muslim zones in Europe.


Max Boot, neoconservative military historian at the Council on Foreign Relations, on Trump and Russia: “At every turn Trump is undercutting the ‘get tough on Russia’ message because he just can’t help himself, he just loves Putin too much.”


Although overlooked by President Trump for cabinet post, Gingrich has tried to shape affairs in the administration, including by conspiring with government officials to “purge the State Department of staffers they viewed as insufficiently loyal” to the president.


Former Sen Mark Kirk (R-IL) is an advisor for United Against Nuclear Iran. He is an outspoken advocate for aggressive action against Iran and a fierce defender of right-wing Israeli policies.


A military historian, Kimberly Kagan heads the Institute for the Study of War, where she has promoted the continuation of U.S. war in Afghanistan.


A “non-partisan” policy institute that purports to defend democracies from “militant Islamism,” the neoconservative Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD) is an influential base of hawkish advocacy on Middle East policy.


For media inquiries,
email rightwebproject@gmail.com

From the Wires

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Other than the cynical political interests in Moscow and Tehran, there is no conceivable rationale for wanting Bashar al-Assad to stay in power. But the simple fact is, he has won the war. And while Donald Trump has reveled in positive press coverage of the recent attacks on the country, it is clear that they were little more than a symbolic act.


Print Friendly, PDF & Email

The reality is that the Assad regime is winning the Syrian civil war, and this matters far less to U.S. interests than it does to that regime or its allies in Russia and Iran, who see Syria as their strongest and most consistent entrée into the Arab world. Those incontrovertible facts undermine any notion of using U.S. military force as leverage to gain a better deal for the Syrian people.


Print Friendly, PDF & Email

An effective rhetorical tool to normalize military build-ups is to characterize spending increases “modernization.”


Print Friendly, PDF & Email

The Pentagon has officially announced that that “long war” against terrorism is drawing to a close — even as many counterinsurgency conflicts  rage across the Greater Middle East — and a new long war has begun, a permanent campaign to contain China and Russia in Eurasia.


Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Revelations that data-consulting firm Cambridge Analytica used ill-gotten personal information from Facebook for the Trump campaign masks the more scandalous reality that the company is firmly ensconced in the U.S. military-industrial complex. It should come as no surprise then that the scandal has been linked to Erik Prince, co-founder of Blackwater.


Print Friendly, PDF & Email

As the United States enters the second spring of the Trump era, it’s creeping ever closer to more war. McMaster and Mattis may have written the National Defense Strategy that over-hyped the threats on this planet, but Bolton and Pompeo will have the opportunity to address these inflated threats in the worst way possible: by force of arms.


Print Friendly, PDF & Email

We meet Donald Trump in the media every hour of every day, which blots out much of the rest of the world and much of what’s meaningful in it.  Such largely unexamined, never-ending coverage of his doings represents a triumph of the first order both for him and for an American cult of personality.


RightWeb
share