Right Web

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

Will “Changed” Iran Complicate U.S. Engagement?

The Obama administration remains quiet on how Iran’s post-election crisis will affect U.S. plans to engage the Islamic Republic.

Print Friendly

(Inter Press Service)

As doubts persist about the results of Iran’s recent election, the Barack Obama administration remains quiet on how Iran’s crisis will affect U.S. plans to engage the Islamic Republic, which is clearly entering a new and highly uncertain period.

Because incumbent Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, his principal challenger Mir Hossein Moussavi, and Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei all publicly support a peaceful Iranian nuclear program, the Iranian government’s stance on that issue was  unlikely to change much—irrespective of who won the election.

Obama had hoped to engage the Iranian government on nuclear matters by the end of the year. He was reportedly planning to aim much of the diplomacy at Khamenei, who has final say on governmental matters, including foreign policy.

But the protracted wrangling over allegations of fraudulent election results is likely to complicate any effort to meaningfully engage on the issue.

The continuing massive street protests in Iran, with numbers reportedly in the hundreds of thousands, and sporadic violence have made it difficult to predict where things are headed.

If the demands of Moussavi’s supporters are met, another election or a run-off based on reduced numbers for Ahmadinejad could embarrass Khamenei, who endorsed the election results soon after their release.

Khamenei’s future as supreme leader is thought secure, but is also being gently questioned.

“People are already discussing who the next supreme leader will be,” said Hooman Majd, an Iranian-American journalist and author who just returned from an extended stay in Iran, where he was covering the run-up to the elections.

The uncertainty ahead has caused paralysis in Washington, where officials are waiting to see how the disputes shake out.

Obama has made cautious comments supporting Iranian democracy.  On June 16, the president spoke out against the violence unleashed by the government and paramilitary groups on apparently peaceful protestors, but as of June 18 he had yet to call the elections fraudulent or to offer support to Moussavi and his followers.

“I have deep concerns about the election,” Obama said in a June 16 interview. “When I see violence directed at peaceful protestors, when I see peaceful dissent being suppressed, wherever that takes place, it is of concern to me and it’s of concern to the American people.” He also said the election “is ultimately for the Iranian people to decide.”

Hawks and right-wing figures who, even as they call for military strikes against Iran, purport to champion its dissidents and their concerns, continue to encourage Obama to speak out more forcefully in favor of the protesters.

But many Iran experts say that Obama has taken an appropriately cautious position by expressing concern about violence against street protestors and election fraud, while also reiterating his intention to engage Iran irrespective of the winner.

“Obama has taken exactly the right tone,” said Brookings Institution senior fellow Suzanne Maloney at a June 17 Capitol Hill conference on Iranian elections and the nuclear issue sponsored by the National Iranian American Council (NIAC). “He’s expressed some concern about what’s happening on the street, [but says] it’s Iran’s fight.”

“[Obama’s] support for Moussavi would be counterproductive,” she added, noting that the support coming from Washington’s “powerful bully pulpit” can be dangerous to politicians who don’t wish to be closely associated with the U.S. government.

“It’s not productive, given the history of the U.S.-Iranian relations, to be seen as meddling—the U.S. president meddling in Iranian elections,” said Obama, alluding to the Central Intelligence Agency-orchestrated coup that overthrew a secular democratically-elected government in favor of the authoritarian Shah in 1953.

But the neoconservative editorial board of the Wall Street Journal reacted to Obama’s comments with consternation, condemning him for his caution.

The Journal even went so far as to suggest that the Obama administration was hoping for a quick settlement of Iran’s political crisis in favor of Ahmadinejad because it would speed up the resumption of his engagement plan.

Indeed, while ascribing these base calculations to Obama without evidence, the Journal does make a salient point—that had Ahmadinejad lost the election, a transfer of power in Iran would be a lengthy process. An incoming president would not take his post until August, and would then need a transition period during he would assemble the new government .

“There’s been a bit of anxiousness—not annoyance—in the White House that they can’t get on with diplomacy,” said Trita Parsi, the co-founder and president of NIAC.

Even the continued dispute over the election is likely to disrupt progress on engagement.

“If the standoff and infighting goes on, it will paralyze the Iranian system,” said Parsi, who says that won’t bode well for Obama’s plans. Paralysis, Parsi said, is a “worst case scenario” that few in the administration had considered.

Regarding domestic political considerations, Obama may also run into problems if Ahmadinejad survives the challenge and retains the presidency. With the elections widely viewed in the West as completely fraudulent, Obama will need to carefully explain his engagement to Congress and to other constituencies already highly skeptical of Iran’s intentions.

“I think Obama will have more trouble convincing the Hill” and others that the Iranians are trustworthy, if Ahmadinejad is perceived as autocratically clinging to power, said Maloney.

But in the slightly longer term, the changing face of Iran will likely take engagement down a highly unpredictable path. .

On the NIAC panel, Majd noted that although Iranian protestors are not marching for a revolution against the system, the “Khamenei era is over.”

“People are already discussing who the next supreme leader will be,” said Majd.

No one at the NIAC conference considers Khamenei’s position to be in immediate danger, but the fact that issues like this are being broached signals a rapidly evolving Islamic Republic.

Ali Akbar Mahdi, a professor at Ohio Wesleyan University, said the current crisis is causing Iranians to ask grand questions that they have yet to deeply consider.

“The theocracy has always emphasized people’s Islamic duties,” he said. “But what about their rights?”

That concept of rights—or ”haq”—is central to the Shia Islam practiced in Iran.

“Whatever the outcome” of the current election crisis, said Brookings’s Maloney, “this is a changed Islamic Republic.”

Whether Obama is ready for the change, and how he will deal with it, remains to be seen.

Ali Gharib writes for the Inter Press Service and PRA’s Right Web (http://www.rightweb.irc-online.org).

Share RightWeb

Featured Profiles

Although sometimes characterized as a Republican “maverick” for his bipartisan forays into domestic policy, Lindsey Graham (R-SC) is one of the Senate’s more vocal hawks.


Former CIA director Michael Hayden, a stalwart advocate of the Bush-era policies on torture and warrantless wiretapping, has been a vocal critic of Donald Trump


The former GOP presidential candidate and Speaker of the House has been a vociferous proponent of the idea that the America faces an existential threat from “Islamofascists.”


David Albright is the founder of the Institute for Science and International Security, a non-proliferation think tank whose influential analyses of nuclear proliferation issues in the Middle East have been the source of intense disagreement and debate.


A right-wing Christian and governor of Kansas, Brownback previously served in the U.S. Senate, where he gained a reputation as a leading social conservative as well as an outspoken “pro-Israel” hawk on U.S. Middle East policy.


Steve Forbes, head of the Forbes magazine empire, is an active supporter of a number of militarist policy organizations that have pushed for aggressive U.S. foreign policies.


Stephen Hadley, an Iraq War hawk and former national security adviser to President George W. Bush, now chairs the U.S. Institute for Peace.


For media inquiries,
email rightwebproject@gmail.com

From the Wires

Print Friendly

The Trump administration appears to have been surprised by this breach among its friends in the critical Gulf strategic area. But it is difficult to envision an effective U.S. role in rebuilding this Humpty-Dumpty.


Print Friendly

A recent vote in the European Parliament shows how President Trump’s relentless hostility to Iran is likely to isolate Washington more than Tehran.


Print Friendly

The head of the Institute for Science and International Security—aka “the Good ISIS”—recently demonstrated again his penchant for using sloppy analysis as a basis for politically explosive charges about Iran, in this case using a faulty translation from Persian to misleadingly question whether Tehran is “mass producing advanced gas centrifuges.”


Print Friendly

Trump has exhibited a general preference for authoritarians over democrats, and that preference already has had impact on his foreign policy. Such an inclination has no more to do with realism than does a general preference for democrats over authoritarians.


Print Friendly

The President went to the region as a deal maker and a salesman for American weapon manufacturing. He talked about Islam, terrorism, Iran, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict without the benefit of expert advice in any of these areas. After great showmanship in Riyadh, Jerusalem, and Bethlehem, he and his family left the region without much to show for or to benefit the people of that war-torn region.


Print Friendly

Although the Comey memo scandal may well turn out to be what brings Trump down, this breach of trust may have had more lasting effect than any of Trump’s other numerous misadventures. It was an unprecedented betrayal of Israel’s confidence. Ironically, Trump has now done what even Barack Obama’s biggest detractors never accused him of: seriously compromised Israel’s security relationship with the United States.


Print Friendly

Congress and the public acquiesce in another military intervention or a sharp escalation of one of the U.S. wars already under way, perhaps it’s time to finally consider the true costs of war, American-style — in lives lost, dollars spent, and opportunities squandered. It’s a reasonable bet that never in history has a society spent more on war and gotten less bang for its copious bucks.


RightWeb
share