Iran and the U.S. Dilemma

Over the past week, Iran has felt the tidal wave of political revolution. Heading into the June 12 presidential elections, millions of Iranians were hoping for change in a country scorned by much of the world for its aggressive anti-Israel and anti-West policies.

Iranians wearing green (the color of the reformist movement) raise their hands in protest

Reformist challenger Hossein Mousavi emerged as the leading challenger to Iran’s controversial incumbent, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Mr. Mousavi gained popularity for his desire to foster open relations with the West, grow the economy through capitalist principles, and shed the nation’s identity as a military antagonist. The outpouring of support for Mr. Mousavi suggested an extremely close election, and that the extremist regime might be pushed out by a passionate and progressive democratic majority.

When the Ahmadinejad government finally announced its incumbent had won in a landslide (it claimed over 2/3 of the vote), the rebellion began. Over the past week, millions of Iranians have flooded town squares and roadways, staging rallies in peaceful dissent. Election fraud is likely–given the government’s history, it would serve as no surprise if it were proved that the Iranian government forged the election (it brings to mind the Iraqi election of 2002 where Saddam Hussein amazingly won 100% of the vote—he had a top-notch campaign manager). Despite the peaceful nature of the demonstrations, Ahmadinejad’s regime has responded violently and brutally in an attempt to stamp out the entirety of the movement.

“These men barge into homes and threaten people by calling their families. And they are savage against peaceful demonstrators…Hospitals are full of people injured by the Military Guard, yet the Supreme Leader of Iran called us seditious. We just want the right to a real vote.”

-From an anonymous Iranian student.

In many ways, this is a significant moment in world politics. One of the world’s most antagonistic and oppressive regimes faces a legitimate challenge from the will of its people.

But this is also a significant moment for how U.S. foreign policy will be conducted under the Obama Administration. 

In the face of this near-revolution, the United States now faces a difficult decision. In the past, U.S. intervention in Iran has only increased tensions, with the Iranian government suggesting a U.S.-led coup. President Obama has tred lightly thus far, stating, “When I see violence directed at peaceful protesters, when I see peaceful dissent being suppressed…it is of concern to me and it’s of concern to the American people…I have deep concerns about the election.” Regarding possible U.S. intervention, President Obama went on to say, “How [the election] plays out is ultimately for the Iranian people to decide.”

Here, President Obama is only partially correct. It is important for Iranian citizens to claim their own revolution. If true reform is ever to occur, it must originate with the Iranian people; it cannot appear to be led by the United States. If this is the premise of President Obama’s statements, then he is right.

But he is wrong to stop there. As Americans, we believe that freedom, liberty, and democracy are not only the foundations of a just and prosperous government, but compose inalienable rights due to mankind—we must stand in defense of those principles. That does not mean that we stumble down the slippery slope of broad-based intervention, imposing our will on other governments. Rather, we ought to be a hope and a leader for those seeking reform. To call violent repression and evident fraud “concerning” does not go far enough. What President Obama has done is to effectively say, ‘Yes, what is happening is troubling, but you have to fight your own battles. Good luck.’

What President Obama should do is simple: Give clear, unmeasured support to the principles at the heart of the Iranian revolution. Tell the world that we support the will of a nation’s citizens, and champion liberty over oppression. We support human rights and freedom of speech, and understand that government gains its power from its people, not in spite of them. We have significant concerns over the legitimacy of the elections, which matters because we believe that just elections are necessary for just governance. We disdain violent oppression, because we believe in peaceful dissent and freedom of speech.

To those ends, we will not recognize the election results until an independent audit has been conducted (Germany and France have already taken this stand–they must be the new hawks of foreign policy). We stand behind the rights and the will of the Iranian people. No invasion; no preemptive strike; no hawkish demand for change. Rather, an offer of solidarity and support for a people who desperately need it.  

President Obama has stated time and again that he wants to remake U.S. foreign policy through diplomacy and negotiation. He wants to shed what he sees as an image of U.S. imperialism and arrogance, and instead work hand-in-hand with the international community. On Iran, he hopes open dialogue will ease nuclear tensions. His pursuit here is admirable. But by putting this strategy before support of a people in need, he jeopardizes the strength, leadership, and essential principles our nation had always stood for.

Hands-off international policy is naive. Those who believe that each nation should mind its own business do not understand the complex nature of international politics. Isolationism has never proven effective (see Nazi Germany and Britain), and leadership comes with the necessary price of controversy and criticism. On Iran, the U.S. need not resort to military action, but we must show leadership  by demonstrating clear, spin-free support for a people seeking change. In politics, silence is acquiescence.

-Matt Benchener from TruPolitics.net