Iran - updates + Obama's flawed approach

There is just a ton of awesome commentary on the unfolding situation in Iran: Here is a sampling.

This moment cries out for Reaganesque leadership from the United States; not the muddled thinking that is Obama.


"The Iranian regime has to go because it's a threat to the national security of the United States. That is the case that has to be made — as has always been the case." Andy McCarthy

'the White House may need to start over from scratch. Iran is the same country it was a week ago, but it no longer has quite the same government.' Totten.

Two to Read on Iran [Peter Wehner]

In today’s papers are two pieces that are noteworthy. One is by Dan Senor and Christian Whiton, laying out five specific things President Obama could do to promote freedom in Iran. To those who insist there is nothing we can do, Senor and Whiton reply: Yes There Is.

Among the specific recommendations by Senor and Whiton are these: (a) Mr. Obama should contact Mr. Mousavi to signal his interest in the situation and Mr. Mousavi's security; (b) the president should deliver another taped message to the Iranian people — only this time he should acknowledge the fundamental reality that the regime lacks the consent of its people to govern, which therefore necessitates a channel to the "other Iran"; (c) Obama should direct U.S. ambassadors in Europe and the Gulf to meet with local Iranian anti-regime expatriates; (d) additional funding should be provided immediately for Radio Farda, an effective Persian-language radio, Internet, and satellite property of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty; and (e) the administration should take steps — for example, access to the Web and other means of communication — to give Iranian reformers and dissidents a level playing field with the regime in the battle of ideas.

The other piece, by Robert Kagan of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, says this:
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… If Obama appears to lend support to the Iranian opposition in any way, he will appear hostile to the regime, which is precisely what he hoped to avoid.

This is an important, and potentially a decisive, moment in Iran; it is hard to know what will eventually emerge from the popular uprising we are witnessing. The situation is quite fluid, and may be for some time to come.

How President Obama deals with this matter — whether he takes actions that show tangible support for the forces of liberation or whether he sits passively by as events unfold, nervous to offend cruel regimes — will tell us a lot about him and his core commitments.

Charles Krauthammer:

On Obama’s reaction to the situation in Iran:

I find the president's reaction bordering on the bizarre. It's not just little and late, but he had a statement today in which he welcomed the Iranian leader's gesture about redoing some of the vote, as you indicated.

And the president has said "I have seen in Iran's initial reaction from the supreme leader." He is using an honorific to apply to a man whose minions out there are breaking heads, shooting demonstrators, arresting students, shutting the press down, and basically trying to suppress a popular democratic revolution.

So he uses that honorific, and then says that this supreme leader — it indicates that he understand that the Iranian people have deep concerns about the election. Deep concerns? There is a revolution in the street.

And it is not about elections anymore. It started out about elections. It's about the legitimacy of a regime, this theocratic dictatorship in Iran, which is now at stake. That's the point.

What we have here is a regime whose legitimacy is challenged, and this revolution is going to end in one of two ways — suppressed, as was the Tiananmen revolution in China, or it will be a second Iranian revolution that will liberate Iran and change the region and the world.

And the president is taking a hands-off attitude. Instead of standing, as Reagan did, in the Polish uprising of 1981, and say we stand with the people in the street who believe in democracy. It is a simple statement. He ought to make it.

And it is a disgrace that the United States is not stating it as simply and honestly as that.


Obama's Cold Realism [Jonah Goldberg]

I would like to refer readers who think I'm reading Obama wrong in my column, to read Robert Kagan's outstanding column in the Washington Post today.

An excerpt:

It's not that Obama preferred a victory by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. He probably would have been happy to do business with Mir Hossein Mousavi, even if there was little reason to believe Mousavi would have pursued a different approach to the nuclear issue. But once Mousavi lost, however fairly or unfairly, Obama objectively had no use for him or his followers. If Obama appears to lend support to the Iranian opposition in any way, he will appear hostile to the regime, which is precisely what he hoped to avoid.

Obama's policy now requires getting past the election controversies quickly so that he can soon begin negotiations with the reelected Ahmadinejad government. This will be difficult as long as opposition protests continue and the government appears to be either unsettled or too brutal to do business with. What Obama needs is a rapid return to peace and quiet in Iran, not continued ferment. His goal must be to deflate the opposition, not to encourage it. And that, by and large, is what he has been doing.

If you find all this disturbing, you should. The worst thing is that this approach will probably not prevent the Iranians from getting a nuclear weapon. But this is what "realism" is all about. It is what sent Brent Scowcroft to raise a champagne toast to China's leaders in the wake of Tiananmen Square. It is what convinced Gerald Ford not to meet with Alexander Solzhenitsyn at the height of detente. Republicans have traditionally been better at it than Democrats — though they have rarely been rewarded by the American people at the ballot box, as Ford and George H.W. Bush can attest. We'll see whether President Obama can be just as cold-blooded in pursuit of better relations with an ugly regime, without suffering the same political fate.


The New 'Realism' [Mark Steyn]

Peter Wehner mentioned Robert Kagan's column earlier, and it seems to me its thesis is worryingly plausible:

Obama never meant to spark political upheaval in Iran, much less encourage the Iranian people to take to the streets. That they are doing so is not good news for the president but, rather, an unwelcome complication in his strategy of engaging and seeking rapprochement with the Iranian government on nuclear issues.

One of the great innovations in the Obama administration's approach to Iran, after all, was supposed to be its deliberate embrace of the Tehran rulers' legitimacy. In his opening diplomatic gambit, his statement to Iran on the Persian new year in March, Obama went out of his way to speak directly to Iran's rulers, a notable departure from George W. Bush's habit of speaking to the Iranian people over their leaders' heads. As former Clinton official Martin Indyk put it at the time, the wording was carefully designed "to demonstrate acceptance of the government of Iran."

Indeed. The president's unprecedently deferential remarks toward Iran's "Supreme Leader" are inexplicable if you're sympathetic to the fellows currently being fired on but entirely consistent with a strategy of regime legitimization. Mr. Kagan adds:

The idea was that the United States could hardly expect the Iranian regime to negotiate on core issues of national security, such as its nuclear program, so long as Washington gave any encouragement to the government's opponents. Obama had to make a choice, and he made it. This was widely applauded as a "realist" departure from the Bush administration's quixotic and counterproductive idealism... 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.

The administration's behavior fits this depressing thesis — as I'm sure the mullahs have already figured out.


Curtain 1 or Curtain 2? [Jonah Goldberg]

Another point I think needs making. Lots of folks argue — including President Obama — that Mousavi isn't that different from Ahmadinejad on issues like Israel and Iran's nuclear program and so why make such a fuss? I think this is an awfully static analysis of the situation. Sure, if the election had gone swimmingly and Mousavi had won, he might have been the dutiful Egon Krenz of the Mullahcracy, with some window dressing reforms to placate the masses. Or he might have done better than that. Who knows? But all of that is academic now.

Moreover, that debate is a little annoying because it tends to support the idea that this was a legitimate election in the first place. Mousavi was a handpicked hack. His leadership of the reform forces is by default or as Michael Ledeen put it, "He is a leader who has been made into a revolutionary by a movement that grew up around him." At this point the question is, do the people of Iran succeed or does the clerical politburo and its henchmen succeed. If the people succeed, the regime is in real trouble. It's amazing how so many observers doubt something the regime itself manifestly knows. If these protests weren't a threat to the regime and the established theocratic order the regime wouldn't be shooting people. It wouldn't be tearing down the web, raiding the universities, kicking foreign journalists out, or showing documentaries about archeology while the streets filled with millions.

Lastly, I understand why Obama is fixated on keeping Iran from getting nukes. I don't want Iran to get nukes either, even though I think Obama's approach to that goal has been flawed and is getting worse. But if Iran is determined to have nukes regardless of who leads it — and I think it pretty much is — then it is very much in our interest for Iran to become more democratic and "normal." Of course, we are a long way from Iran being a healthy, normal, democracy, but it's worth remembering that healthy, normal, democracies are much less likely to export terror or lob nuclear missiles at their neighbors.

Behind Curtain #1 is Ahmandinejad. He is a known quantity. We know that Ahmandinejad isn't interested in giving up his nuclear program. We know that he's keen on Israel being wiped from the map. We know that he is not a rational actor. Of course it is possible that what we would find behind Curtain #2 is not that different from what lurks behind Curtain #1. But there's a very good chance that it would be a lot better and that's in our vital national interest. Could it be worse than the devil we know? No conservative can ever rule out the "it could be worse" potential of any choice. But it's hard to see how the reformers would be worse than what we've had for 30 years.

Sure, there's a certain leap of faith there. But there's also a leap of faith involved in betting Ahmandinejad and the mullahs can be reasoned with.

So if we have to take such a leap, why not have the wind of our principles and ideals at our back?


Re: To Meddle or Not To Meddle [Jonah Goldberg]

Andy, I think we're on the same page. But to clarify. You write:

I agree with Jonah that John is off-base in suggesting that there is a current of opinion on the Right which holds that demonstrations in the streets mean a government is illegitimate and must fall. But I disagree with what I take — perhaps mistakenly — to be the implication that something has happened in the last few days that ought to change our view of the legitimacy of this government. This was never a "democracy." It was a farce. The elections never meant anything in terms of legitimacy. The mullahs controlled the outcome of the elections through and through. Until now, it has been enough to exercise veto power over who could stand for election — but the fact that they were doing that was confirmation that, if the vote went bad and they needed to take the next logical step of fixing the vote count, they would fix the vote count. The fact that the bank robbery occurs at high-noon for all to see doesn't make it more of a robbery than one conducted in stealth.

This is the point I was trying to make when I wrote:

Where I take exception is when John suggests that other folks on the right haven't made this calculation as well. It seems to me, they made it without needing to see police wearing ski masks to understand that this regime deserved to go. I like his new bright line standard, but his epiphany doesn't mean his friends on the right are quite so romantic and naive as he makes it sound.

Those on the right who've been more enthusiastic about aiding the forces of "hope and change" didn't need to see the images from Tehran this week to be convinced the Iranian regime needs to go. The images this week merely convinced us — or at least me — that this is a good time to expedite a process that should have started a long, long time ago.


To Meddle or Not to Meddle [Andy McCarthy]

As someone who has favored for years a policy of regime change in Iran (see, e.g., here, here, here, here and here), what stuns me about the commentary over the last couple of days is the perception that the regime has done something shocking with this election. The regime isn't any different today than it was the day before the election, the days before it gave logistical assistance to the 9/11 suicide hijacking teams, the day before it took al-Qaeda in for harboring after the 9/11 attacks, the day before Khobar Towers, or every day of combat in Iraq. Throughout the last 30 years, this revolutionary regime has made war on America while it brutalized its own people. The latter brutalization has ebbed and flowed with circumstances, depending on how threatened (or at least vexed) the regime felt at any given time.

Serial American governments, however, have shunned moral clarity and shunned their own fatuous rhetoric — rapprochement," "engagement," "cultivating 'moderates,'" "democracy promotion," "the Bush Doctrine," back to "engagement" again — in pursuit of what our foeign policy geniuses have been so certain is the grand bargain with Iran that has been within reach any day now for the last 30 years. The Clinton administration obstructed the FBI's investigation of Khobar because highlighting Iran's complicity in the murder of 19 members of our Air Force would have been inconvenient for its overtures to "reformer" Khatami (while the real power, the mullahs, happily plowed full speed ahead — death to America style — building their nukes and abetting our enemies). The Bush administration was flat incoherent, with the president correctly calling Iran an implacable terrorist regime while his State Department treated them like they were any rational government — eschewing sticks and continuing to entice them with more carrots every time they mocked the last batch of goodies.

Keep reading this post . . .


The Case for Meddling [Seth Leibsohn]

Hopefully, the protests in Iran over the past few days will not abate. Rich Lowry here, as John Hinderaker at Powerline, have shared their diffidence about getting too excited with the talk of regime change in Iran. Smartly. But if I read them right, they also have taken to reconsidering such diffidence as Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has hardened and the images of Iranian police in face masks are shown trying to disperse the protestors — kicking, beating, and dragging them away to who knows where.

As John Hinderaker pointed out: “I am perhaps a little less willing than some of my friends on the right to assume that because demonstrators take to the streets and the government tries to crack down, it necessarily means that the government deserves to fall.” But, he goes on: “the difference here is that Iran’s regime is brutal—brutal when it hangs homosexuals, when it stones adulterers, when it drags college students from their dormitories.” He admits he has a new, “bright line standard: when your policemen wear ski masks, it’s time for a new regime.”

Here are some additional items to add to the standard: As CNN reports, yesterday, “Iran’s government banned international journalists from covering rallies and blocked access to some online communication tools in the wake of last week’s disputed presidential election. Reporters working for international news outlets, including CNN, could talk about the rallies in their live reports but were not allowed to leave their hotel rooms and offices.” And, of course, we know this regime is — to remind — the lead sponsor of terrorism in the Middle East, trying to acquire more nuclear technology while thwarting nuclear inspectors, and has openly talked of making possible a world without Israel or America.

Keep reading this post . .



Opposing view: 'Speak out forcefully'

Iranian protesters deserve better than Obama's passive response
By John McCain

When peaceful demonstrators are beaten and killed in the streets by a repressive regime, the United States has a duty to speak out. When protesters are silenced, we should raise our own voices on their behalf. And when an election is stolen, the United States should condemn it.
These principles are neither Republican nor Democratic. They reflect a bipartisan consensus that stretches back decades and reflect America's identification with universal values. The U.S. president is the leader of the free world, and with this leadership comes the obligation to speak out forthrightly on behalf of all those who lack the basic rights we often take for granted at home.
Yet the Obama administration has responded passively and tepidly to the extraordinary demonstrations on the streets of Iran, in which tens of thousands have protested fraudulent elections and a media crackdown. The president has carefully avoided offering any expression of solidarity to the brave men and women who are risking their lives, and the State Department has even refused to use the word "condemn" in response to violent attacks against them.
Defenders of this approach claim that such restraint is necessary, and that to do otherwise would either discredit the protesters or undermine our nuclear diplomacy with the regime they oppose.
These arguments are not persuasive. To begin with, engagement with the regime should not come at the expense of engagement with the people. It was Ronald Reagan, after all, who conducted hard-headed diplomacy with leaders of the Soviet Union at the same time he publicly challenged Mikhail Gorbachev to tear down the Berlin Wall. His words, then widely viewed as needlessly provocative, provided a beacon of hope to those suffering behind the Iron Curtain.
Perhaps that is why our democratic allies in Europe have shown no such hesitation to speak out forcefully against what they recognize as the Iranian regime's reprehensive conduct. The United States should be at the forefront of these efforts, leading all those nations that care about human freedom in an effort to condemn sham elections, denounce the violence against peaceful protesters and express solidarity with those millions of Iranians who want change. The world should expect nothing less from us, and we should expect nothing less of ourselves.

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., was his party's candidate for president in 2008.


From a Hospital Somewhere in Iran [Michael Ledeen]

I am a medical student. There was chaos last night at the trauma section in one of our main hospitals. Although by decree, all riot-related injuries were supposed to be sent to military hospitals, all other hospitals were filled to the rim. Last night, nine people died at our hospital and another 28 had gunshot wounds. All hospital employees were crying till dawn. They (government) removed the dead bodies on back of trucks, before we were even able to get their names or other information. What can you even say to the people who don't even respect the dead. No one was allowed to speak to the wounded or get any information from them. This morning the faculty and the students protested by gathering at the lobby of the hospital where they were confronted by plain cloths anti-riot militia, who in turn closed off the hospital and imprisoned the staff. The extent of injuries are so grave, that despite being one of the most staffed emergency rooms, they've asked everyone to stay and help—I'm sure it will even be worst tonight.

What can anyone say in face of all these atrocities? What can you say to the family of the 13 year old boy who died from gunshots and whose dead body then disappeared?
This issue is not about cheating(election) anymore. This is not about stealing votes anymore. The issue is about a vast injustice inflected on the people.

ME: The president says he doesn't want to "meddle." Aside from the fact that he unhesitatingly meddles in Israel, how can any American remain aloof from this sort of thing?


Re: Re: To Meddle or Not to Meddle [Andy McCarthy]

Seth, we've had numerous teachable moments just over the last 13 years, and all involving Iran killing Americans. The problem with the "forward march of freedom" contingent is that it overestimates the degree to which the hopes and aspirations of Iranians are going to move public opinion in America — especially an America that has spent a number of years disfavoring an Iraq war that it's been told has been almost exclusively about the hopes and aspirations of the Iraqi people (at least since mid-2003).

The Iranian regime has to go because it's a threat to the national security of the United States. That is the case that has to be made — as has always been the case. That this happens to jibe with the hopes and aspirations of Iranians (how many we don't know, but hopefully most) is a very good thing. But those who think what's being done to the Iranian people is going to sway American public opinion decisively (and force Obama's hand) should prepare to be disappointed.

The anti-American element is the dispositive one — and it's the one Obama won't acknowledge; if that doesn't get turned around, this is a lost cause.