Thursday
Dec242009
UPDATED Iran: Is the US Government Now Going to Engage with the Opposition?
Thursday, December 24, 2009 at 11:00 
UPDATE 24 December: At least in its rhetoric, the Obama Administration appears to have made a coordinated shift to the issue of "rights" for the Iranian people. State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley made his second statement in two days on the topic on Wednesday: "Iran is increasingly showing itself to be a police state", claimed Crowley, adding that the regime is using its security forces to try to "stamp out" the "aspirations of the Iranian people".UPDATE 1920 GMT: Yesterday the US Senate passed a resolution "condemning the Government of Iran for restricting and suppressing freedom of the press, freedom of speech, freedom of expression, and freedom of assembly, and for its human rights abuses, and for other purposes". The resolution urges the implementation of the VOICE Act, amongst other measures, but does not appropriate funds or carry any legal authority.
Thanks to EA readers, who have brought me up-to-date on the US Government's initiatives on Iran.
The Latest from Iran (24 December): Another Day, Another Demonstration
The Latest from Iran (23 December): This Time, No Pause?
This includes the Victims of Iranian Censorship (VOICE) Act, unanimously passed by the US Senate in July to provide $30 million for expanded Persian-language broadcasting into Iran and $20 million for a new “Iranian Electronic Education, Exchange, and Media Fund” to aid in getting access to information and circumventing censorship and filtering. The money was not appropriated, however, merely authorised (in other words, a statement of intention rather than confirmed action), and the measure has not been agreed yet with the US House of Representatives.
This is the context for the clearest response of the Obama Administration to the Montazeri demonstrations, issued by State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley,
The fact is that there is a fissure inside Iranian society and the government is pushing by the various means that are available to it, including the use of various security forces, to kind of put this genie back in the bottle. And it is increasingly difficult for them to do that. Montazeri was a significant figure in Iranian society. He had given voice to the universal rights that we think should be available to all the people of the world, including the people of Iran.
It is incumbent upon the government of Iran to satisfy the aspirations of its people. And there is something happening inside Iranian society. It is hard to predict how it will unfold. But certainly the angst that we continue to see within Iranian society is of great concern to us. And we think that ultimately the government of Iran has to change its relationship with its own people, and that's certainly consistent with the universal principles of freedom of association, freedom of expression, open political processes, and so forth.
Fine words, but will this translate into an Administration strategy which moves away from the nuclear-first approach and towards supports of a media-led "engagement" with the Iranian people?
Reader Comments (40)
BTW - did you know that Australia now does play "soccer" at a National level- we have not been doing that at a National level for very long and we have now a place in the next World Cup http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/06/07/2591437.htm I think this is only the third time we have qualified - 1974 and 2006.
We are also making a bid to host the World Cup in 2018 or 2022 http://www.australia2018-2022.com.au/
Barry
Yes we know the Australian soccer team well. One of the best moments (and the first loss of control by this regime) was the celebrations when Iran tied Australia in 1998 qualifications for the world cup with two goals in 2 minutes. We respect the Australia team greatly in Iran, and wish you all the best for the 2018 /2022 games. If you win to host, I will come out there (to the outback) to watch some games and we can have a pint of Amber nector (Fosters) together and reminisce. All the best to your great sporting nation.
I certainly didn't mean to argue rather try to communicate. In any case based on my experience it seems to work out best when people build on commonalities rather than differences; It helps to see each other as human beings first and foremost and how similar we realy are.
Good luck in 2018/2022 and count me in :)
Farzam.
@ Barry, WIMV, Farzam
Reason prevails over emotion. Thats what I like on this thread. It always find a common ground in the end.
2018/2022,,, uhmmm, I am maybe retired at that time but I will definitely come to Australia to join you guys to watch some soccer games and a pint of beer. Cheers!!! ;))
Say Scott, back to the original question at end of your post, with all due respect, where are you going with this line of analysis? By dropping a "nuclear first" approach, how's that to translate into substance?
No doubt I have missed your comment on this, and if so, we'll look forward to your updated thinking. How would you handle the line so consistently espoused by opposition leaders and sources inside Iran (but not so much by their presumed external spokespersons) that they see their internal struggles as just that -- internal matters that are first and foremost Iranian problems needing Iranian solutions.
Take Karroubi two days ago:
“We ask Western governments not to use this internal situation as a bargaining chip with the present Iranian Government to reach agreements which would undermine the rights of the Iranian people.”
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article6964530.ece
Comments speak to a number of issues -- and illustrate well what I've been saying for months -- that whatever the severe fissures inside Iran, Iranians of nearly all political stripes (especially among reformists) are keen not to give up their perceived nuclear rights... (and this is not mere political pique at A/N)
Alas, you, NIAC, Carnegie, etc., etc., etc. seem to have taken the line that you do wish to link the two.... internal human rights situation and external nuclear negotiations. (as if "getting on the side of history" and backing the greens will magically resolve the various nuclear conundrums)
And to what end?
Scott H
"backing the greens will magically resolve the various nuclear conundrums)"
Yes it will !! the greens want a peaceful country and we don't care of nuclear bomb !
"not to give up their perceived nuclear rights"… :
Of course that we will never give up our nuclear rights ! it's our rights as all the other countries in the world !
"And to what end?"
An happy end, as in Disney movies !!!
Scott -
You might be able to glean from these statements why I was just a hair more optimistic about the Obama Administration earlier on than you were. I can't say that I was any less doubtful than you that they were pursuing a nuclear-first strategy, but a number of little pieces of info (and a hunch) I was getting were signaling to me that it was a *strategy* (however guided or misguided), as opposed to a tack taken based on *cluelessness* (or not being able to competently analyze what was going on in Iran.)
The statements from the last couple days actually sound pretty funny in that they involve the expression of a reasonably competent (if brief) analysis, while seemingly not betraying any awareness that no such competent analysis was really ever put on display before! I'm not sure about you, but the comments suggest to me that there is likely more of a seamlessness to the internal discussions in the Administration about Iran than is externally obvious, and they have likely been thinking through at least some of the more complex aspects of the domestic situation all along. Its just that they have chosen (rightly or wrongly) not to outwardly display much backing or respect for the green movement as a matter of strategy. [A couple sources I have have told me that some in the Administration rise to almost a level of paranoia that any backing for the Greens will backfire and hurt the Greens. Another theory would be that they were trying extra hard not to step on the toes of Ahmadinejad et al as they were laser-focused on optimizing the chances that the regime would give them a deal on nukes.]
Best, Kevin
P.S. You'll notice that there are a number of new Imams on Twitter now since we Twitterers recently found out that the criteria to become an Imam has substantially loosened. See http://bit.ly/6XwTrB http://bit.ly/5MJv3u http://bit.ly/6UnFue
Oh, I also wanted to make sure you read this, because I posted it very late: http://bit.ly/7Yr7Y7
Scott H,
My personal position since September has been to stay away from the nuclear negotiating table. Iran is not on the verge of a nuclear weapon, in my opinion, and the talks, from the standpoint of Iranian politics, have primarily served to give Ahmadinejad a claim to legitimacy (which he has exploited only this week in his interviews with foreign media). I would have preferred for the US and other countries (and this is different from "intervention") to stand back and let the President dangle amidst his domestic difficulties.
I recognise why this approach has not been pursued, even if it was considered. There was both the fear that Israel would act militarily if there was no diplomatic option in play and the wider geopolitical possibilities of a successful nuclear outcome: 1) removing the pretext for Israel to avoid talks with Palestinians; 2) co-operation with Iran on issues from Afghanistan to Iraq.
In the end, however, I can't bring myself to support that "realist" approach, given the importance of the internal issues in Iran.
S.
Kevin,
I did read this --- thank you so much for the boost....
S.
the problem is very complecated as iran is not just the threat for israel its also serious threat for increasing of the world-wide terror. actually its pretty strange that russia ignore this fact-they sell weapons to them and then they get terracts where hundred of people dies. the policy of usa is very understandable as obama perfectly realise needs of usa and the threat of iran. as for us-normal citizens of israel-we are pretty optimistic people, we live our lifes, work, care about our kids..just sometimes i think-what if tomorrow never happen?
Barry, Farzan (sorry for the length of this post)
and "whereis my vote':
I understand your arguments, it makes sense to me (I even worked in a place that, during the war had irakian and iranian folks who were student pilots ! (more later if asked)). However, I think the subject here is trying to understand from a western point of view today. Nobody I know remembers what happened in Iran before the revolution. I'm not saying that nothing happened, but our generations today have no knowledge of it. I learned about it myself since this election subject.
Maybe one could compare the ideas here with the historical American hatred of communism. They lived thousands of miles away, except for Cuba, from communist countries, yet in European countries we still have 'remnants' :-)) of communist parties, that still have a say in society and politics, and had much more influence in the reforms after the war.
If today, there are no real Communist or even 'Socialist' gvts in Europe, it's simply because all the reforms have been achieved and there is nothing to be gained from a leftist gvt. We have everything, at least in our best countries, health, unemployment benefits, pensions, security, free education, whatever you would like, except for all the faults left, in the systems, that no right nor left gvts have managed to achieve. In the lastest right wing gvt in France there are several socialist ministers. So today, we can more or less say that 'perfection' in politics has been achieved. What's left are financial and social problems that like beggars on the streets, or immigrant problems or various social ills, all these are problems that are usually a question of budgets and organisation, that all countries experience.
This may explain why you mistake Barry who to me is no fanatic. And why Barry sees fanatics in Iran. Iran doesn't have the same history as most of the western countries. This is easily understood when you compare our countries's histories. People in the west today, unless they are over 80 don't remember the great wars, I'm 60 and I don't have first hand experience except from my dad, and colonial wars from heresay. Obviously in Iran, you have a much more recent history of terrible war and us, in the west simply can't understand that. They don't have it in their memory, because it wasn't part of our social history. We saw a bit on TV, but not an awful lot. We knew things only through private associations who tried to get information through. I remember seeing people on the streets of Paris in the eighties, with posters showing horrible photos of tortured people, prisoners of war... but I don't think this was really shown on the medias or only partially. In any case, we saw horrors from both sides.
The only 'wars' I've known was '68 in France which was cultural and political, but in fact meant that us, that post war baby boom generation have done what is visible today in Europe. We overcame the frigid religious machist mindset and although it was very European, with much marxist influence, it was also influenced by the liberal and 'hippie' movements in USA in the sixties... so all that, in fact, you iranians, have to achieve, to re-achieve in your own way, although I'm sure it's already way beyond it with the new technologies and your education, within your private lives. What is left to achieve is an 'open' life, being free to dress, to speak, to work and do as you wish openly in the streets and on the medias and in general. I think that's what's the problem in Iran, they have a double life, hidden within their homes and outside that is something religious and related always to the past 'revolution ' etc..
When I see all the videos of your towns, what surprises me the most is the extreme difference between your buildings, roads, gardens etc and the people, or should I say the women. Because the men look totally normal (from my point of view here, in fashion sense) and the women who are forbidden to even show their hair and have to wear all that black garb or always in long coats and trousers with scarves. There is no difference, all the women are dressed the same. Yet when you see on Youtube, all the parties, in their houses, the women and girls are dressed exactly the same as us !! .. That's whats strange in your country and I must say that right since the elections in June, I keep waiting to see some women take off their headwear, in protest, but I've never seen it !
To me it means that the fear is so ingrained, or the religious side is so ingrained that it is not possible. The fact that it's not possible, to me, makes me pessimist !
Also, the men seemed just as brainwashed because from all the videos, we see women abused by the so called 'moral police' yet nobody comes to protest or prevent them. Some women are abused by basiji on the streets and the men don't do anything.
It's very difficult for westerners to understand these types of behaviour when for instance, american women threw off their bras in a sign of protest in the sixties. Others paraded nude, people want to to be topless on beaches etc. So why don't the women and men unite over the dress restriction and make it a symbol of freedom ? To me it's the most symbolic of freedoms !
So when this sort of thing doesn't happen, during six months of protests, some of us westerners may feel that iranians are a long way from getting their total freedom. However, I do also admit that I'm not iranian and see it only from my point of view, so i can't judge. All I can say is 'Courage people, do whatever is in your power to get your freedoms'..
Pessimist
Spoken from the heart!
There is a saying "There is none so blind as those who will not see."
There could be another which would say "There is no prisoner like those who lock themselves away!"
Regarding the Iranian women - they are so beautiful!! Like beautiful multi-coloured canaries - but they are dressed to look like crows.
Barry
Barry , thanks, just compare your pessimism on 23rd with today, wow, it's been a turnaround, I saw all those vids of really angry people... yet only one photo of a girls's hair, covered in blood, yet some said on twitter (?) that she wasn' iranian ?
totally off topic, except for the date, 1979, revolution in Iran but the greatest 'new' electronic music & light concert (more than a million audience), in centre of Paris during 14th july celebrations that celebrate France's 'revolution' Jean Michel Jarre 'Equinox'.. (check out other vids of event on youtube)...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hfp2LWSpZFs
Je rajouterais tout de même les dates symboliques :
1789 1979 2009
vive les révolutions vive real freedoms..