Right Web

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

Washington Failing to Understand Iran’s Opposition

The Arab Spring is spurring some neoconservatives to dust off their theories about how Iran’s “Green Movement” would benefit from U.S. military action against Iran, despite the fact that rights leaders in Iran argue that armed intervention would merely play into the regime’s hands.

Print Friendly

Inter Press Service

The popular uprisings that have brought turmoil to Arab countries across the Middle East and North Africa have also underscored Washington's dearth of knowledge about forces on the ground in authoritarian states in the Middle East. One of the largest questions bedeviling policy makers has been the composition of various emerging opposition movements.

The same uncertainty, meanwhile, has been plaguing those in the U.S. dealing with policy questions around Iran for decades, most recently with Iran's embattled Green Movement. Nearly two years since a popular protest movement in the wake of a disputed presidential election, Washington still wonders: Just what exactly is the Green Movement? (For more on the Green Movement, see Jack Ross, “Iran’s Bizarro Green Movement,” Right Web, March 1, 2011.)

The sudden and vocal opposition was immediately fêted in the West, especially in capitals, as a viable opposition to not only re-elected hardline President Mahmood Ahmadinejad, but also the regime as a whole, with Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei even targeted by protesters' slogans.

Though the movement was beat back by the authorities' brutal crackdown, causing some to question its viability, many in the West continue to celebrate Iran's Greens, often ascribing their own views to the larger, disparate opposition.

"The Green Movement seems to be a collection of hopes and dreams of Iranians outside of Iran and policy makers here in the United States," said Nagmeh Sohrabi, an assistant director at Brandeis's Middle East studies department.

The exiles and policy makers – among whom, Sohrabi points out, are many who don't want a military solution to Iran's nuclear stand-off with the West – base their characterisation of the movement as "what they want it to be and don't take into account the reality on the ground."

While most conferences about Iran in Washington tend to draw their expertise from the city's naval-gazing think tanks, at last week's conference at George Washington University, where Sohrabi spoke, most of the panelists throughout the daylong event were Iranian academics from outside the beltway.

With a granular knowledge of the politics and people of their land of origin, the academic experts – credentialed by means other than how many times pundits quoted them or their contacts with policy makers – delved seriously into questions about Iran that usually get short shrift in Washington. Their studies of and contacts in their own country of origin uniquely positions them to answer broad questions about the Green Movement.

Sohrabi proposed that Washington's discourse tended to be limiting instead of taking a broader approach: "There are multiple ideas of what the Green Movement is. We need to be more careful about what it is and what it isn't. That doesn't mean that it can't be all these things at the same time."

Hawkish pundits have also been among the chief cliques in Washington assigning their own motivations and aspirations to the Green Movement writ large.

For example, senior fellow at the Progressive Policy Institute Josh Block, promoting a new Iran task force he co-chairs, has displayed this tendency. Block, for most of the previous decade, served as the ubiquitous spokesperson for the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), an organising hub of the U.S. pro-Israel lobby that has consistently pushed for harsher economic measures against Iran.

Contrary to some neoconservative hawks like Reuel Marc Gerecht of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, Block acknowledged, in an interview with the Washington Post, that a threat of or an actual military attack on Iran could be damaging to the country's opposition.

But Block also told neoconservative Washington Post columnist Jennifer Rubin, who supports attacking Iran and downplays the repercussions for the opposition, that he is certain what the opposition movement seeks: "It seems obvious the Iranian people want regime change. They voted that way in 2009." (Block did not respond to a query for clarification.)

Block's analysis of the vote and its aftermath capture none of the nuance presented by Iranians and Iranian-Americans at George Washington last week.

Shirin Ebadi, an Iranian human rights lawyer and Nobel laureate who is now based in the U.S., spoke directly to these issues in her keynote address at the conference.

"Within (the Green) movement, people with different ideologies exist," Ebadi said. "There are different groups. Some think we have to throw the regime out. But some others think this will not be possible without bloodshed, so the best thing is to do is use the present constitution."

"The Green Movement is a democratic movement, not ideological," she said.

Indeed, those Block cited who voted in the election – as opposed to an overlapping set of people who marched in the post-election protests – were the ones who voted for Reform candidates. Iranian politicians in the Reform camp are exactly those who Ebadi mentioned who seek to make changes within the framework of the existing constitution.

Ebadi did note that that more Iranians associated with the Green Movement are shifting into the regime change camp because of the intransigence of authorities to respond to the Reform camp's demands, but this transformation is far from complete.

Only the sort of projection Sohrabi discussed could account for Block's assessment that not just protesters but Iranian voters in the 2009 election voted for regime change. The leading opposition candidate in the race, former Iranian Prime Minister Mir Hossein Moussavi, ran on a Reform platform.

Even as she sees the shift in the Green Movement, Ebadi herself still believes that the constitution has provisions that, if enforced, could enable reforms and that outright regime change would likely bring violence she seeks to avoid.

Furthermore, Ebadi warned against threats of military action against Iran, let alone an attack.

"The worst solution is a military attack. Remember that democracy is not merchandise to be exported to a country," she said. "Democracy cannot be purchased and sent to another country. For these reason, wars and military attacks of non-democratic countries should be forgotten. The dictators actually like to be attacked by foreigners so, under the excuse of national security, they can put away their opposition."

Ali Gharib writes for the Inter Press Service and is a contributor to Right Web (http://www.rightweb.irc-online.org/).

Share RightWeb

Featured Profiles

Rep. Liz Cheney (R-WY) has been an outspoken proponent of militarist U.S. foreign polices and the use of torture, aping the views of her father, Dick Cheney.

United against Nuclear Iran is a pressure group that attacks companies doing business in Iran and disseminates alarmist reports about the country’s nuclear program.

John Bolton, senior fellow at the neoconservative American Enterprise Institute and the controversial former ambassador to the United Nations under President George W. Bush, has been considered for a variety of positions in the Trump administration, including most recently as national security adviser.

Gina Haspel is a CIA officer who was nominated to head the agency by President Donald Trump in March 2018. She first came to prominence because of accusations that she oversaw the torture of prisoners and later destroyed video evidence of that torture.

Rep. Mike Pompeo (R-KS), President Trump’s nominee for secretary of state to replace Rex Tillerson, is a “tea party” Republican who previously served as director of the CIA.

Richard Goldberg is a senior adviser at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies who served as a foreign policy aide to former Sen. Mark Kirk (R-IL).

Reuel Marc Gerecht, a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, has been advocating regime change in Iran since even before 9/11.

For media inquiries,
email rightwebproject@gmail.com

From the Wires

Print Friendly

Hardliners at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies are working overtime to convince the Trump administration to “fix” the nuclear agreement with Iran on the pretext that it will give the US leverage in negotiations with North Korea.

Print Friendly

North Korea and Iran both understand the lesson of Libya: Muammar Qaddafi, a horrifyingly brutal dictator, gave up his nuclear weapons, was eventually ousted from power with large-scale US assistance, and was killed. However, while Iran has a long and bitter history with the United States, North Korea’s outlook is shaped by its near-total destruction by forces led by the United States in the Korean War.

Print Friendly

Europe loathes having to choose between Tehran and Washington, and thus it will spare no efforts to avoid the choice. It might therefore opt for a middle road, trying to please both parties by persuading Trump to retain the accord and Iran to limit missile ballistic programs and regional activities.

Print Friendly

Key members of Trump’s cabinet should recognize the realism behind encouraging a Saudi- and Iranian-backed regional security agreement because the success of such an agreement would not only serve long-term U.S. interests, it could also have a positive impact on numerous conflicts in the Middle East.

Print Friendly

Given that Israel failed to defeat Hezbollah in its war in Lebanon in 2006, it’s difficult to imagine Israel succeeding in a war against both Hezbollah and its newfound regional network of Shiite allies. And at the same time not only is Hezbollah’s missile arsenal a lot larger and more dangerous than it was in 2006, but it has also gained vast experience alongside its allies in offensive operations against IS and similar groups.

Print Friendly

Donald Trump should never be excused of responsibility for tearing down the respect for truth, but a foundation for his flagrant falsifying is the fact that many people would rather be entertained, no matter how false is the source of their entertainment, than to confront truth that is boring or unsatisfying or that requires effort to understand.

Print Friendly

It would be a welcome change in twenty-first-century America if the reckless decision to throw yet more unbelievable sums of money at a Pentagon already vastly overfunded sparked a serious discussion about America’s hyper-militarized foreign policy.