When fighting an entrenched authoritarian regime, the people are always at a disadvantage. Holding power through force is what entrenched authoritarian regimes do, and they tend to be very good at it because otherwise they don’t last very long. Napoleon Bonaparte was known to boast about how he cleared the streets of Paris with “a whiff of grapeshot”. Demonstrations and protests tend to fare poorly against tanks and artillery. Remember Tiananmen Square. Remember the Soviet supression of the 1956 Hungarian Revolution.
So far, Khamenei and Ahmadinejad haven’t resorted to wholesale slaughter to end the protests. Khamenei seems to value the illusion of democracy, and perhaps he’s willing to throw Ahmadinejad to the wolves rather than abandon the pretense that votes cast in Iran’s elections actually mean something (Khamenei and Ahmadinejad are hardly a monolithic power block, even if Ahmadinejad is the product of sham elections heavily rigged by Khamenei’s allies). But I fear what will happen if Khamenei sees his hold on power seriously threatened, both for the Iranian people’s sake and for the world’s. The best possible outcome is for Khamenei to accept Reformist demands without further bloodshed, and the worst possible outcome is for Iran’s military to massacre the protesters and crush the reform movement altogether.
We can’t and shouldn’t put boots on the ground, but Khamenei needs to know that somebody is watching. He needs to know that somebody will care if he resorts to naked force. And the Iranian people need to know that somebody has their back. There is a decent argument to be made that given our reputation in the region, it might be better if somebody else stood up instead of us, but I don’t see Switzerland rising to the call.
Yesterday, Obama made some remarks on Iran which were mostly guarded, but which included the important statement that “I stand strongly with the universal principle that people’s voices should be heard and not suppressed.” It’s a good start, and I’d like to see him expand on it.
Update 12:07 PDT — Seems I spoke too soon about Switzerland. No word on them in particular, but the Czech Republic and several EU countries are stepping up. Quoth the BBC:
Earlier, EU foreign ministers expressed “serious concern” and called for an inquiry into the conduct of the election.
But the Iranian authorities have bristled over the criticism. On Tuesday the Iranian foreign ministry summoned the Czech charge d’affaires in Tehran to complain over the EU’s “rude and interfering” remarks.
I think this would be a great time for some multilateralism on our part.
Update 12:19 PDT — Will Collier makes a very good point:
I’ve meet a lot of Eastern Europeans who have pictures of Ronald Reagan on their mantles. They never forgot the way he stood up for them, in public, against the commissars. Iran’s population is going to run off the mullahs one of these years, hopefully this year. When that happens, what do you want them to remember, that we were supporting them, or worrying about what their oppressors would think about it?
{ 2 trackbacks }
{ 9 comments }
Saying too much more than that will give the regime the excuse it needs to do exactly that – crush teh reformists underfoot. They haven’t dared yet because it’s their own legitimacy on the line; the moment Obama “takes sides” then its the reform movement’s legitimacy that is at stake, and that will be the end.
Obama’s Administration is not doing nothing. The State Dept intervention with Twitter is a fantastic start.
I agree that some restraint is necessary and we should stop short of pushing the regime into a corner, but I want to seem Obama doing more than he’s doing. He’s not doing nothing, and I’m very glad of that, but I’m worried that he’s being too restrained. I don’t want the regime to think it has the slightest chance of getting way with crushing the reformists underfoot.
Why we must stand with the Iranian people
Great title, great sentiment. The shifting definition of “stand” is where our great, but flawed country sometimes goes astray.
In Hungary (1956), we encouraged the uprising, but refused to help when the @%@ started to hit the fan. About 35,000 Hungarians were killed by the Soviet Bear.
In Cuba (1961), we orchestrated an uprising, but backed out during crunch time (JFK cancelled air strikes). Many people thought we picked the wrong side, and argued that our “stand” made matters worse.
In Iraq (2003), we invaded a country to help the people there who suffered from far more oppression than the Iranians, today. Many people, including our President, view this is a mistaken effort. We should not have “stood” with either Saddam or the people. We should have done nothing, but continue sanctions that hurt the people, but gave political cover to folks who wanted it.
In Iran (2007), my gut sense is this.
As for DOING things, the Iranians are gonna have to do the heavy lifting themselves to break free from the oppressive Mullahs. I’m not sure what we (USA) should or could do. Perhaps, it would be good to ask the principal actors in Iran what would help.
As for SAYING things, Obama’s silence and mealy-mouth platitudes are extremely weak. True, he doesn’t wanna saber-rattle the Mullahs, but still, he should — if he had courage — make a statement in support of the Iranian people, who seek freedom and honest elections. Right or left, isn’t that what our country is all about?
–HB
I just carefully re-read Obama’s statements from his press conference. Sadly, and cowardly, he is trying to straddle. He is using ambiguity, as the Great George Orwell once told us, as a political weapon . If the Iranian people prevail, he has just enough to tidbits to plausibly claim,”Hey, I was always on your side!”
And if the Mullahs prevail, he has just enough sober language to plausibly claim, “Hey, I didn’t antagonize you, like Bush and the right would have. Now, let’s continue our talks.”
Typical weasel maneuver.
–HB
edited
Sadly, Hank has it right. The sum and substance of the Obama message is: It’s an Iranian problem; we care for what used to be called here in the U.S. as natural rights but, whatever happens, we are still willing to negotiate with the victors.
The presidential office is simply one corner of the political barracks. Where are the intellectuals, the academics, the editorial page editors, and the whole liberty loving mob suckled on the enlightenment? What flower pots are they hiding behind now?
Here’s famous straddler J0hn Kerry supporting the straddle of Obama on the issue.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/18/opinion/18kerry.html?_r=1&ref=opinion
Compare this to Joe Lieberman’s statement above.
Notice the tendency to criticize the critics, rather than support the Iranians, as if the support is a given.
We are all mindful that Iran has a nuclear power potential that we have to deal with. We are all mindful that sometimes (often?) America’s well-intended interventions make things worse.
My objection to Obama’s reaction is simply that it is mealy-mouthed. He should make a clear statement that our country’s sympathy lies with the freedom seeking people of Iran. Period. End of statement.
–HB
On Kerry: I’m not so sure how seriously we should take someone who, during the Vietnam War, described his actions and the actions of other soldiers as comparable to those of Genghis Khan. He’s just smoothing out the bumps in his past, and everything Kerry says about the military may safely be taken as a sort of self congratulations. Right now, I’m more worried about our actions than those of the Iranians. None of us know what will happen next there. But if the reaction is similar to what occurred in Hungary in the 50s, one hopes our reaction will be similar also.
I would agree that the wrong sort of statement can do more harm than good in a case like this; however, I would also agree that a full-throated statement that the people of Iran deserve freedom and a voice in their own government without fear would be helpful here. And desirable on other levels.
It is not possible to “listen to Iran” by “listening” to the despicable mullahs who stand atop the Iranian people’s faces in iron boots. The Obama administration could do more to recognize this, and should.
I have no doubt that they’re doing things behind the scenes that they don’t want to make public. I have little confidence that it’s the right things, but I hope to be wrong.
Comments on this entry are closed.