For the time being, the administration is pursuing a hands-off approach regarding the green movement. This is a significant policy shift from the Bush (43rd president) era. In the fiscal year of 2009, the Bush administration requested a 65 million dollar budget for the State department’s Iran Democracy Fund. The Obama administration has replaced that insititution with the Near East Regional Democracy Fund as well as cut that figure to 40 million. The money is not specified as being available for the Iranian democratic movement. With an expansive mandate, the administration can spend that sum in whatever near eastern country it pleases. In the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) article Denying the Green Revolution David Feith and Bari Weiss document the change in administrative goals regarding domestic Iranian interest groups. According to Feith and Weiss, two watchdog organizations, Human Rights Documentation Center and Freedom House recently lost their state department funding (3 million and 2 million respectively). The loss of Freedom House means the end of a “Farsi-English online journal of democracy and human rights.” Many have indicated that the momentum behind the movement can be attributed to the pervasiveness of information available on the internet. The loss of such a valuable resource has many questioning whether these policies are a detriment to the democratic movement. Also highlighted in the article was the denial of funds to the International Republican Institute which has been working train and connect activists. Three senators have wrote to Sec. of State stating “we are particularly concerned by reports that the State Department and USAID are being ‘extremely cautious’ in their funding decisions…” Feith and Bari identify that the administration seems to be using support for the democratization movement as a chit, one that can be traded for stabilization in the Nuclear disarmament talks.
The next logical question is whether support for the current government in Tehran does in fact weaken the democratic movement. The growing strength of which allows the Obama administration to gain leverage in the Nuclear talks. Were the Obama team to make concessions to Iran regarding nuclear development, the reformist party could check the government’s policies. Entering into this debate are ad-hoc panels of scholars which have been assembled to analyze and debate current political strategy. Sociologist and human rights activist, Dr. Saad Ibrahim explains, “For the first time we’re seeing that the clerics are divided, once that elite is divided, it is the beginning of the countdown.” The Mullahs (religious authority in Iran) expressing doubt about the current religious leadership represents a fundamental change in the way religious mandates have been interpreted. Ibrahim argues against sanctions, which considering US support for a nuclear Israel could be seen as picking on Iran and thus inciting the same feelings of nationalism and anti-imperialism that set the stage for the Tobacco revolt as well as the Constitutional and 1979 revolutions. Ibrahim instead urged the continued construction of “bridges between civil society” which would build moral support and information sharing between the Green movement of Iran and the rest of the world. Iranian scholar Trita Parsi of the National Iranian American Council had this to add, “The progress we have seen is partly due to Obama’s ability to unite the Security Council. But if Congress moves forward with sanctions that target our allies, the unity will collapse.” Increased sanctions he argues gives Ahmadinejad something to gain support from. Ellison highlights that Mousavi himself, the leader of the Green movement has denounced sanctions which he claims would only hurt the statesmen who are pushing the democratization process. Michael Axworthy argues that sanctions and shortages disable the populace from getting what they need and would allow the Revolutionary Guard to control the flow of resources at a highly inflated price.
Other scholars such as Mohsen Kadivar have drawn attention to the moral imperatives of withholding support from the Green movement. “The main issue for Iranians is not nuclear energy, it is human rights and democracy…Americans only think about their interests, not human beings interest.” There are many who support his arguments and disprove of US backing for autocratic regimes in the middle east. Jim Hoagland echo’s this sentiment by asserting that Obama’s open hand policy is being received with more resistance than expected. “Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the country’s highest authority, used inflammatory language to denounce Obama and the U.S. proposal on uranium reprocessing…Khamenei said the terms were unacceptable.” Interestingly enough, a senior leader of the Green party also expressed the desire for U.S. to back out of Nuclear negotiations. The opposition leader claims that “Iran’s apparent nuclear concessions were merely a ruse to ease international pressure while it sought to crush domestic dissent.” The leader (who remained anonymous for fear of retribution) also drew attention to the current and apparent appeasement that foreign countries (especially Britain and the U.S.) are providing to the regime. This source argues that attempts to legitimize the government draw attention away from the atrocities that it pursues against its own citizenry and greatly hinder the Green movement which feels isolated and unsupported.
The future of Obama’s policy choices is certainly a bleak one. To ignore moral imperatives would be to diminish his own power and influence. It is clear however that he cannot engauge in the same tactics as his predecessor did which serve to consolidate power for the current Iranian regime and provide them with a clear enemy. There is however a common theme present throughout both sides of the argument. Change is coming to Iran. According to all reports, the Green movement has not abated in its momentum since the elections. Protests and rallies have only increased in support and infrastructure of the reformist party has developed through untraceable grassroots tactics. The people behind the democratization movement have stated that they are not interested in the destabilizing threats of nuclear arms. Clearly Obama supports the democratization movement, but his administration seems to be willing to trade freedom for regional stability. This decision is far too coached in its infancy to prove either positive or negative. If Obama’s engagement in negotiations with the current regime proves successful then he will have greatly reduced the threat of nuclear conflict in the Middle east. If the administration can accomplish this and simultaneously foster growth of the Green movement democratization of Iran could become a reality in the next four years. Key to this strategy is the dissemination of information by the Obama administration to the American people.

You really think he doesn’t support the green movement? You’re ill informed…

And Mohammad, US involvement and ignorance of Iran started way before 1979… Lets roll the clocks back to 1953 and the endeavors of a man named Kermit Roosevelt…

Threats really won’t get us anywhere.

I predict a conflict will emerge soon. We`ll have to wait and see

Thank you for sharing your thoughts.

If you are in the U.S. please send a copy of why you have written here to every senator in the U.S. senate. You can find their address and e-mail at http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm
I called my senator who sits on foreign intelligence committee and voiced my views. Sending a letter is also effective.

I agree with your views. Obama does not get it. I am wondering if he is putting his self and misguided interest ahead of democracy in Iran as well as ahead of U.S. long-term national security interest.

I want to believe that Obama thinks he can hoodwink hard-line Theocrats in signing a nuke deal. I want to believe that even with a mediocre and unattainable long-term outcome, Obama believes he would be able to put one of his campaign promises in the “Done” column and wave that around in 2012 election. But I am beginning to think Obama’s disregard for cry of democracy in Iran is part of a plan far more sinister. Was Nobel Peace prize a part of this sinister plan? I wonder.

It blows my mind that we lost and continue to lose in blood and treasure in Iraq and Afghanistan in order to export democracy to these nations. Nations whose people were neither asking nor were they ready to embrace democracy. So I wonder why when Iranians loudly demand democracy and lose their lives in the process, we push the mute button. Is U.S. administration that naïve to believe they can make a deal with Mullah Ali? I wonder.

Shut…up Obama