MSNBC:
U.S. struggles for right response to Iran
Obama seeks way to acknowledge protesters without alienating Khamenei
ANALYSIS
By Glenn Kessler
updated 1 hour, 47 minutes ago
WASHINGTON - The political unrest in Iran presents the Obama administration with a dilemma: keep quiet to pursue a nuclear deal with Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the country's supreme leader, or heed calls to respond more supportively to the protesters there — and risk alienating the Shiite cleric.
President Obama and his advisers have struggled to strike the right tone, carefully calibrating positive messages about the protests in an effort to avoid giving the government in Tehran an excuse to portray the demonstrators as pro-American. Nevertheless, the Iranian Foreign Ministry yesterday summoned the Swiss ambassador, who represents American interests in Tehran, to complain of "interventionist" comments by U.S. officials, the official Islamic Republic News Agency reported.
In an apt summation of the administration's position, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton told reporters yesterday: "We are obviously waiting to see the outcome of the internal Iranian processes, but our intent is to pursue whatever opportunities might exist in the future with Iran."
The administration's stance is practical — the real power in Iran rests with Khamenei, not with whoever is president — but pressure for a shift in policy will mount if the protests continue to grow and begin to threaten the government's hold on power. Obama already has been criticized — notably by his Republican presidential rival, Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) — as abandoning "fundamental principles" of support for human rights.
Khamenei, a former president of Iran who became supreme leader 20 years ago after the death of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, plays a defining behind-the-scenes role in Iran's complex and often opaque political system. His power derives from his support among the armed forces and the clerical establishment that presides over the nation's quasi-theocracy.
Power struggleFew experts doubt Khamenei would have approved of manipulating election results to ensure President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's reelection or could have the influence to order a new vote, though it is unclear whether recent events have threatened his grip on power internally. If he remains in control, Khamenei's views would be expected to prevail on any key decisions affecting the future of the Islamic republic, especially on the question of whether to deal with the Obama administration.
Mohsen Milani, chairman of the international relations department at the University of South Florida, said it appears that an internal power struggle among the governing elites has burst into the open, combined with images of public discontent. "President Obama has made one very important decision," he said. "He has not taken a position on the internal struggle."
One of Obama's signature pledges during last year's campaign was to reach out to the Islamic republic and seek to end three decades of estrangement between the two countries. A central objective is to dissuade Iran from attempts to build a nuclear weapon, a development that Western nations argue would destabilize the Middle East. Iran maintains that its nuclear program is purely for civilian uses.
With a televised Persian New Year's greeting to Iran's leaders in March, Obama effectively recognized the current ruling structure and took regime change out of the equation. Administration officials had planned to seek a dialogue, preferably with officials close to Khamenei, after Iran's presidential vote.
Now those ambitions are on hold, awaiting the outcome of the disputed election. But Obama has made clear that he assumes the results, for now, will not change his approach to the nation.
"Although there is amazing ferment taking place in Iran, the difference between Ahmadinejad and Mousavi in terms of their actual positions may not be as great as has been advertised," Obama told CNBC on Tuesday. "We've got long-term interests in having them not weaponize nuclear power and stop funding organizations like Hezbollah and Hamas. And that would be true whoever came out on top in this election."
Obama's statement has struck some commentators as insulting to the huge demonstrations in support of challenger Mir Hossein Mousavi. McCain, appearing on CNN yesterday, said he was "frankly incredulous" about Obama's comment. "To say there's not a bit of difference between the two candidates is beside the point," he said. "The Iranian people, obviously, think there's some difference, or tens or hundreds of thousands of them wouldn't be in the streets."
But Suzanne Maloney, an Iran expert at the Brookings Institution, said of Obama's remark: "It is coldblooded, but it is also hard-headed. It is important not to get romantic about the idea of an Iranian moderate."
A senior administration official, speaking on the condition of anonymity to explain the administration's thinking, said U.S. officials want to "keep faith" with the demonstrators, letting the government know "the world is watching," to avoid a bloody denouement. But he said the odds are slim that Khamenei will somehow lose power. "We can't lose sight of the fact that they are enriching uranium every day," he said. "They were a threat before the election. They are a threat today, and the clock keeps ticking."
Too much overt U.S. support for the demonstrators, he said, may feed Iranian suspicions about a U.S. desire for regime change and make Iran's leaders less likely to agree to restraints on the nuclear program. "It is easy to say you ought to talk tough," the official said. "But before you do that, you have to ask yourself: What is the effect of having done that? Will it change their behavior or not?"
Shirin Ebadi, an Iranian human rights activist who won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2003, said she has no complaints about Obama's rhetoric. "What happens in Iran regards the people themselves, and it is up to them to make their voices heard," she said in a telephone interview from Geneva. "I respect his comments on all the events in Iran, but I think it is sufficient."
3 comments:
Perhaps these images from Atlas will capture their attention . . .
Backing the Mullahs: Obama's Cowardice and Hypocrisy in Iran
Caution: Images are not suitable for children
Gateway Pundit has extensive details
Noted Iranian Activist Kianoosh Sanjari: "The People of Iran Will Not Forgive Obama For Siding With the Regime" (Audio-Video)
video Kianoosh Sanjari reveals:
** Ayatollah Khomenei's grand-daughter was arrested during a recent demonstration.
** Former President Rafsanjari's daugher marched in the protest tonight in Tehran.
** On the night of the election after his vote Rafsanjari called on the people to demonstrate.
** There is a great split between the two factions of hardliners and moderates. It is reminescent of the 1979 revolution.
** The people of Iran will not forgive Barack Obama for siding with the evil regime.
** The protesters are communicating anyway they can. The regime has been trying to shut down communications. At the rally each day the protesters carry signs that announce the next rally. This is how they are communicating.
** Thousands of doctors and nurses in their uniforms were protesting in the street yesterday.
** The regime has a list of reporters and websites and have threatening the reporters on their list.
** There is a cyber-war going on in Iran today between the moderates and the hardliners. Each group is trying to take down the other groups websites.
** Ayatollah Khameini had no idea the protests and reaction by the people would be so great.
** The Opposition wants to drag the protests out until Friday. Khameini will likely congratulate Ahmadinejad. Then it will be up to the West to decide if they will allow these savages to continue their rule.
** Kianoosh has contacts in Iran who are feeding him information daily.
** Everywhere you go everyone is talking. They are talking in the streets. They are talking on busses. They are talking on trains. They are telling nasty jokes about the regime. One joke is about Mahmoud not being able to bathe for a week.
Never before have Iranians been so openly disrespectful of the brutal regime.
Since Iran has no real outside media information (similar to what Team Obama has for us I am afraid) many will believe that the "Great Satan" is intefering. Oddly enough, it shows a real lack of confidence of Iran's ruling elite that they think only the influence of an outside force could create this problem. What may even be funnier is if it is the result of the far more secular Iraqi incursion. But as far as the US having influence in this nation, it's a damned if you do damned if you don't situation. I am sure we are monitoring the situation, but as for any influence, that died thirty years ago when Carter let CIA operative twist in the wind. What is more likely is that this is Russia intervening because of the repeated support Iran has voiced for the Muslims that are messing with nations bordering Russia.
Post a Comment