One for the jingoists and the morons.
by
Sawbones
06/18/2009, 1:32 PM #
You know who you are. Clamoring for more support of Iranian dissenters, claiming that we are betraying our values by remaining apart from the Iranians' domestic unrest. For you:
"It's the nukes, stupid."
That is about as concise an answer as you can get for why Obama isn't publicly supporting Iranian domestic unrest. It's just a matter of being able to weigh the comparative importance of different goals, the chances of success of each, and the areas in which those goals are compatible or mutually contradictory.
Avoiding a nuclear-armed Iran takes precedence over encouraging genuine Iranian democracy, and it's a no-brainer. An Iranian state in possession of nuclear weapons would be a potential threat to the lives of U.S. citizens and those of our allies (this assumes that Ahmadinejad means what he says about erasing Israel, something that may or may not be hot air, but I don't think we have the luxury of assuming it's a bluff). An Iranian state that allows its citizens a true democratic voice may or may not be functionally any different from the standpoint of U.S. interests, as we have seen from the results of democratic elections in Gaza. A goal whose achievement will bring benefits takes priority over one which may or may not do so.
The second point is probably a wash. Our ability to push Iran toward genuine democracy by any outside action is probably close to zero. Encouraging dissidents would make us feel good about ourselves, but the chances that this will be successful in forcing a change are essentially a roll of the dice - really, no better than the chances that honest negotiation and dialogue will convince the Iranians to forego the pursuit of nuclear weapons. "But of course they won't give up on nuclear weapons - they are a bunch of crazy Muslim fundamentalists," I can hear the squawkers yammering already. Possible. But also possibly not; this Iranian regime has never been treated as anything other than an irrevocable enemy. A reasonable person would admit that it is at least possible that Iran's actions to this point are those of a nation that feels threatened by a stronger power and is trying to discourage American adventurism (yes, it's also possible that they are just plain crazy/stupid).
And as for the last criterion, the two goals here are almost certainly contradictory. American meddling in the election results is guaranteed to produce a harder line from Ahmadinejad's government regarding negotiations over nuclear arms; if another nation already invaded the guy next door because he was an oppressive dictator, and that nation has indicated that it sees you the same way, wouldn't you assume that you were next? And wouldn't you look for the best available means of deterring a similar operation? Even if the dissidents were successful after U.S. encouragement, there isn't a high likelihood that either a) Mousavi would be significantly more agreeable toward the U.S. (remember, he was approved for the elections by the same mullahs), or b) Iranians won't resent U.S. intrusion into their politics anyway. And any of those outcomes makes a resolution of the more urgent issue, the avoidance of a nuclear Iran, less likely.
Kudos to our president for conducting foreign policy like a grown-up. His chosen course of action may be successful, and it may not, but at least he's pursuing the right course and for the right reasons. Here's hoping that he can hold his own against the vast echo chamber that seems to be arraying itself against him.
