The Iranian government has suffered a serious blow to its legitimacy, but that blow is not fatal. Barring dramatic and unlikely changes in the ensuing weeks, the regime will remain intact, by force if necessary. As much as we might like it to be otherwise, that is the reality Washington faces. I agree. They'll likely remain in business as an "Islamic Republic." They're not going to be the same regime when it's all over, however. They're going to have to do something, one way or the other: They're either going to have to tighten up, suppressing future dissent, or they're going to have to loosen up, which means purges and resignations, quiet or otherwise.
Critics, including many advocates of engagement with Iran, who argue that Obama's policy of negotiating with Iran has to be delayed or scrapped entirely misread the situation-as do those calling for rhetorical grand gestures from the White House.
Agreed. After all this time, I'm still trying to figure why it's okay and understandable for them to snarl and snap and make demands and not okay for us to even raise our voices.
Lost in the clamor is sober reflection on how best to serve American interests, which sometimes conflict with the desire to make emotionally satisfying but ineffective and even counterproductive declarations in favor of anti-regime protesters.
I'd say that "American interests" involve anything that enhances individual liberty for the inhabitants of any country, anywhere. That should be our strategy. Anything else, to include long term alliances, diplomacy, war, or peace, is tactics.
The protests were always going to face an enormous uphill battle against the government, and the Obama administration has given them their best chance for success by refusing to act as their cheerleader.
It's not a binary situation. B.O. should be careful not to give the impression that the protests are something funded by the U.S., nor the product of actions by U.S. agents. But we should be unequivocally and wholeheartedly in favor of free and fair elections and the security of the populace -- starting with freedom from having knobs thumped on their heads for wanting transparent elections.
The United States will not and should not intervene with direct action.
Nobody's said we should. Words are not direct actions. So far the Brits, Frenchies, Germans, and the president of Israel have somehow found the words our president has been lacking.
Consequently, provocative language from the White House would likely only incite a bloodier crackdown. The protesters are already risking their lives-it would be unconscionable for the President to put them in greater danger by making proclamations that lend them no real aid and serve only to appease his domestic critics. It is ironic in the extreme that the same critics who rail against the President for his so-called "narcissism" should demand that Obama insert himself into an internal Iranian drama with potentially disastrous consequences for the people in the streets of Iran.
See above. It depends on what the provocative language from the White House involves. Our problem at the moment is that the White House, I don't think, doesn't believe that rights accrue to the individual. They're closer in philosophy to the ayatollahs, who are of the opinion that states have rights and the citizenry has obligations.
Advocates of engagement have become more skeptical of the wisdom of negotiating with Tehran in light of Ahmadinejad's re-election. However, it is precisely the hard-liners in power in Iran who will be best positioned to deliver a deal and who will be most in need of the international credibility that a deal would bring.
[More at the link]
- DANIEL LARISON (Ph.D., History) is a contributing editor at The American Conservative. He also writes on the blog Eunomia.