Lawrence J.
Haas
Read Larry's bio and previous columns
June 23, 2009
Iran’s Turmoil May Prove Convenient for Obama
At first blush, the
gripping images of popular uprising and deadly crackdown in Iran have
severely complicated President Obama’s approach to that nation,
jeopardizing his plans for deliberative “engagement” with Iran’s leaders
to convince them to abandon their quest for nuclear weaponry.
How, after all, can the
United States seek dialogue with a regime that is brutalizing its own
people while the world looks on, mocking the freedoms of speech, press
and assembly that Americans hold dear?
The continuing turmoil,
however, may prove quite convenient for an administration that seems to
recognize privately what it is reluctant to state too openly – that
engagement will not likely achieve its stated objective.
In fact, administration
skepticism surely explains why, even before the turmoil began, the
president warned that engagement must generate progress by year-end and
top officials expressed doubt about Iranian intentions.
Now, with the brutal
nature of Iran’s regime on broad display, the administration may have
more public running room to soon shift from a strategy of engagement to
one of mounting economic pressure.
That pressure probably
would focus on the Achilles Heel of the regime – Iran’s dependence on
refined petroleum products from abroad to feed its domestic needs. The
regime, which recent events have exposed as deeply unpopular, could well
lose its grip on power if the public suffers too much economic pain. And
it is only threats to its power to which the regime will likely respond.
For now, the president
remains publicly committed to his engagement agenda – and that has
helped to re-ignite the longstanding debate in Washington between
foreign policy “realists” and “idealists” over how the United States
should treat the democratic aspirations of repressed peoples, whether in
Iran or elsewhere.
Put (all too) simply,
realists seek global stability, accept foreign governments as they are
and eschew calls for a strong U.S. voice to promote democratic upheaval.
Idealists promote such upheaval, for they believe the costs of global
instability are worth the benefits to America of spreading democracy and
human rights.
Idealism and realism
have battled for supremacy in Washington in recent decades, with, for
instance, the former generally in ascendance under Presidents Truman,
Kennedy, Reagan, and the second Bush and the latter holding sway under
Presidents Eisenhower, the first Bush, and, apparently, the early tenure
of Barack Obama.
Leaving aside the
drawbacks of realism, of which there are many, Obama’s embrace of it
helped him signal to key constituencies at home and abroad a sharp break
from the controversial, and ultimately unpopular, idealism of George W.
Bush.
At home, it signaled
Obama’s liberal base that he would go the extra mile to change Iranian
behavior before considering tougher measures, such as the economic
pressure cited above, to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons.
Overseas, it reassured
the global community that, unlike his unilateralist predecessor, this
new president wanted to hear different views from friends and
adversaries alike rather than merely impose America’s position.
That may explain why
the president has refrained from both full-bore backing of the
protesters and full-throated criticism of the regime, opting instead for
gradually stronger rhetoric in response to mounting criticism.
But, in the case of
Iran (as the president and his aides must know), engagement and realism
rest on a series of questionable premises: That Iran is a traditional
nation-state; that it seeks better ties with the United States and the
world at large; and that it naturally desires global acceptance, not
isolation.
In fact, rather than a
traditional state, Iran is an outlaw state, one that is headed by a
theocratic dictator (the “Supreme Leader”); that treats domestic dissent
and violations of Islamic orthodoxy with detainment, torture or gruesome
death; that spreads mayhem and destruction abroad through the extensive
network of terrorist groups that it funds and supports; and that seeks a
regional hegemony that threatens key U.S. allies.
While Iran’s leaders
continue to insist that the nation will never abandon its nuclear
program – no matter what carrots the United States offers – its
scientists move closer to a fully functioning nuclear program. The
prospect of this regime with such weapons may now prompt more Americans
to take notice.
If bloodshed in the
streets of Tehran focuses greater public attention on that issue, giving
the administration the leeway to adopt a tougher stance toward Iran,
that may prove a timely turmoil indeed.
© 2009
North Star Writers Group. May not be republished without permission.
Click here to talk to our writers and
editors about this column and others in our discussion forum.
To e-mail feedback
about this column,
click here. If you enjoy this writer's
work, please contact your local newspapers editors and ask them to carry
it.
This is Column #
LH036.
Request permission to publish here. |