Iran: what now?

There has been quite a bit of talk in the past week about what role, if any, the United States should have in the current situation in Iran. Some, including Senator John McCain, have indicated that they feel the US should come out strongly in defense of those now protesting in the streets of Tehran. “He (Obama) should speak out that this is a corrupt, fraud, sham of an election” McCain told NBC’s Today Show. Meanwhile, Fox News reported that “top Republicans … called on President Obama to make a more “forceful” statement in support of Iranians protesting last week’s election” while accusing the President of “stubbornly holding on to hopes for negotiations” with the current regime.

We could, of course, find plenty of people on both sides of this debate. Many feel strongly that the US should sweep in and save the day, while others would have us do nothing. In my time at Indiana University I studied Middle East Foreign Policy, and my final year was devoted almost exclusively to the Iranian nuclear program. What I learned, above all else, is that Iran is an incredibly complex country. Even Iranian experts, including noted author Kenneth Pollack*, will readily admit that we don’t know nearly as much about Iran as we wish we did. Still, there are a number of things we know about Iran which we should consider as we ponder the situation that is unfolding.

Iran is home to one of the world’s youngest and most rapidly liberalizing populations. According to Slate’s Caroline Berson, roughly sixty percent of the Iranian population is under 30 years of age; by comparison, the USA has forty percent of its population under the age of 30. Furthermore, we have seen the impact that technology has had in Iran. In the past week the government of Iran has tried to suppress the voice of the protestors. They have shut foreign media down, they have periodically shut down text messaging, but they have failed. Twitter, Facebook, and Youtube have allowed the Iranian people to have the voice heard world round, and have enabled them to continue to communicate between one another. The population of Iran is modernizing, and they wish to be a successful and accepted part of the world. The Iranian leadership can no longer hide this fact.

It is also important for us to consider who is really waging this battle in Iran’s political community. Iranian President Ahmadinejad has drawn much ire from the world community, but what is often lost in the shuffle is how inconsequential he is. Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei, is the true power behind the old guard in Iran. Ahmadinejad has been useful for Khamenei, as he has drawn the attention of the international community as a whole, but the President is little more than a figurehead. He has control over many important government offices, but those same offices give their ultimate allegiance to Khamenei.

On the other side of this debate you have the “reformist” candidate Mir Hussein Moussavi. Moussavi, once the Prime Minister of the Parliament in Iran, is a man with revolutionary credentials, and has spent his post-revolution life identified with the conservatives in power. Some reports indicate that as the people supported him he has transformed, but as with Ahmadinejad, Moussavi is not the key player on this side of the battle. The puppeteer for the reformist political establishment is a man as well entrenched in Iran as Khamenei himself: Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani. This is a man who was considered to be Ayatollah Khomeini’s right hand man, a man who was President of Iran, and a man who by all accounts put Khamenei into power after Khomeini passed away. Rafsanjani is as entrenched in the political establishment as anyone, but now he finds himself on the side trying to usurp power from the Supreme Leader. What no one knows for certain is why.

Given all of this, the US government has some tough questions to answer. Why is Rafsanjani pushing against Ahmadinejad and, by extension, Khamenei? If Moussavi (and by extension, Rafsanjani) were to come to power would we really see much change in Iran’s foreign policy? Is it really worth supporting a “reformist” movement which is headed by two major political insiders, men who are far more of the establishment in Tehran than even Ahmadinejad himself?

There is little doubt that Moussavi and Rafsanjani are more pragmatic than Ahmadinejad is. To that end, we would much rather have them in power than he. Still, the key to this equation, in my estimation, lies with the people themselves. If the Iranian people demand change, and if they are willing to die for it, then change will come. It is their fight, not ours. Revolutions have to come from within, not from a foreign land. When the US overthrew Mossadeq to install the Shah in Iran (1953) we made an error that is costing us to this day. Obama is right to not want to repeat that mistake. We should look at Iran and see a nation awakening, a nation enraged by their basic rights being taken from them. We should see that Supreme Leader Khamenei is on weakened ground, evidenced by his position vacillating in the post election turmoil. And we cannot ignore the tragic loss of life that is occurring in Iran. When the time comes, we should be ready to help, because Iran is in many ways the key to the Middle East. But until that time comes we must remain patient, and do our best not to be more of a nuisance to the Iranian people than a help.

*To those who would like to learn more about the complexities of the US-Iranian relationship I highly recommend Kenneth Pollack’s book The Persian Puzzle.