A Kid-Gloves Approach to Iran Still Stumbles
June 18, 2009 by Guest Writer 1
Filed under General, International, Politics
President Obama has opted to take a very delicate, non-committal stance toward Iran and its elections, saying that he doesn’t want to alienate whichever section of the government comes into power in the face of some of the large diplomatic issues facing the region. He has not stood in support of the protesters looking for a fair election, but has seemed to step back to await the outcome. Even some of the main members of the Obama administration would like to see a stronger stance, including Vice President Biden, and Secretary of State Clinton. Here is an account of the position he has taken:
Senior members of the administration, including Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, would like to strike a stronger tone in support of the protesters, administration officials said.
Other White House officials have counseled a more cautious approach, saying harsh criticism of the government or endorsement of the protests could have the paradoxical effect of discrediting the protesters and making them seem as if they were led by Americans. So far, Mr. Obama has largely followed that script, criticizing violence against the protesters, but saying that he does not want to be seen as meddling in Iranian domestic politics…
But several administration officials acknowledged that Mr. Obama might run the risk of coming across on the wrong side of history at a potentially transformative moment in Iran.
The administration’s concern over how to calibrate the response to the protests in Iran reflects the competing goals Mr. Obama is trying to balance: keeping faith with democracy advocates in Iran while not staking out a position that is so tough that it kills any chance of engagement with the Iranian government on America’s national security interests, including the Iranian nuclear program and Iran’s support for militant Islamist organizations like Hamas and Hezbollah.
For all President’s Obama’s tiptoeing around the issue of Iran’s elections, he has also made the mistake of a comment that almost seems to disregard the election’s importance, and could crucially affect the relationship between the United States and Iran later on:
[President Obama] said in an interview on Tuesday with The New York Times and CNBC that from an American national security perspective, there was not much difference between President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Mir Hussein Moussavi, his closest competitor in the election.
“Either way,” Mr. Obama said, the United States is “going to be dealing with an Iranian regime that has historically been hostile to the United States, that has caused some problems in the neighborhood and is pursuing nuclear weapons.”
The remark struck critics as off key and dismissive toward Mr. Moussavi, when he has become a symbol of freedom and democracy in Iran. “Obama’s posture has been very equivocal, without a clear message,” said Representative Eric Cantor, a Virginia Republican who is the House minority whip. “Now is the time for us to show our support with the Iranian people. I would like to see a strong statement from him that has moral clarity.”
President Obama’s policy toward Iran seems to be weak, with some critical missteps and errors throughout. If the New York Times is right when it says, “the United States is in a more delicate position than other countries because of its enormous symbolism in Iran, where ‘Death to the United States’ is still chanted at Friday Prayer,” one might think the best foreign policy would be one of strength, rather than weakness.
