While We Were Sleeping

The debate here in the US has been focused on health care. Health care this, health care that. Is Obama a socialist? He was during the election at least, but now he's also a fascist? Not only is the anti-Obama movement in this country angry, but now it's also totally nonsensical. Congress goes on its Summer break, and at town hall after town hall people are going crazy over the proposed legislation.

Thankfully I'm not here to write about health care. Honestly, who cares? The system is broken; the proposed changes would leave the system still broken. The reality is that many of the people who are so vibrantly opposed to the legislation are opposed just because they oppose change. The conservative movement in this country has totally ceased to have any original ideas, and instead they just oppose change in any form.

Outside of the US the world has continued to turn, and in Iran things continue to happen. Now months since the Iranian Presidential election the ramifications of that fixed process continue to play out. Today the New York Times reports that the offices of the leading Iranian opposition members were raided. In the minds of nearly all Americans, I would suppose, the Iranian election has played itself out already. To believe that, however, would be to not fully appreciate the depth of what is going on in and around Tehran.

Former President Katahmi is still calling for the opposition movement to rise up and not stand for the fixed results. He is calling the movements and actions of the current government "totalitarian" and "fascist." Katahmi is the most prominent and vocal member of the opposition, and his speaking out continues a pattern of prominent members of the Iranian political elite challenging the authority of the Supreme Leader. All this while the IAEA admits that its talks with Iran are at a stalemate, and while Ahmadinejad is again saying he is "open" to the idea of negotiating with the UNSC 5 plus Germany.

In a way it is very American for us to be so focused on something that is highly unlikely to happen (significant health care reform) while ignoring something that is far more likely to have a direct impact on our nation's foreign policy and national security (the power struggle going on in Iran). We have always been a nation with deep isolationist roots, a truly reluctant super power when considered from the ground (everyday citizens) up. It is only natural, therefore, that many Americans, if not most, would focus on battling for or against change in the form of health care legislation while choosing to ignore the boiling volcano in the Middle East. But health care reform, not matter how drastic, doesn't have the potential to lead us into a deadly conflict. The Iranian political system does, and that is why it bears watching.

The Multi-Step Dance to War

As I am getting ready to leave for Chicago to go to a White Sox game (yuck!) I was looking over the New York Times, a habit which I developed while in school, and still follow. Today there were two headlines which grabbed my attention. The first was about Obama's news conference, scheduled for tonight, in which he is expected to articulate again his argument for health care reform. The Times argues that this fight over health care could be the "defining moment" of Obama's Presidency. I sincerely doubt that it will be the defining moment, as it is almost impossible to identify the defining moment of a President's term until quite a way down the road. Furthermore, when defining moments happen, they usually occur in the realm of foreign policy. Think about it:

-Dubya had 9-11 and Iraq as his defining moments (even if Katrina should be in there it won't be)
- Papa Bush had the 1st Gulf War
- Reagan had the fall of the USSR
- Carter had the Iranian Revolution and the taking of the US Embassy
- LBJ had Vietnam
- JFK had the Cuban Missile Crisis

In other words, in the post WWII era (A.K.A. the era of USA as "superpower") the majority of Presidents have been defined by a foreign policy issue. Even Nixon would likely would have been remembered for his trip to China and his Cold War diplomacy had he not been a paranoid idiot (see Watergate). Even going back to Truman's second term, Korea was his defining moment, so the trend holds. That leaves us with three post-WWII Presidents who are not easily defined by Foreign Policy issues (Eisenhower, Ford and Clinton), and a fourth who would have been if he wasn't so stupid (Nixon). Eisenhower's presidency was largely uneventful, except for the whole nuclear proliferation thing, so I suppose you could throw him in with the others. Ford pardoned Nixon ... that's pretty much his defining moment, I guess. It's hard to say what Clinton's defining moment would have been, but it's pretty easy to recognize that it is Monica. So, if you're keeping score at home, the post WWII presidency, starting it with Truman's second term, looks a little something like this:

- 11 Presidents
- 7 who are easily defined by a Foreign Policy moment (Truman, JFK, LBJ, Carter, Reagan, Bush I, Bush II)
- 1 who, after much thought, probably would be defined by Foreign Policy more than anything (Eisenhower)
- 1 who, if he wasn't an idiot, would have been defined by Foreign Policy and as a great diplomat (Nixon)
- 1 who didn't really do anything other than bail out his predecessor (Ford)
- 1 who couldn't keep it in his pants (Clinton)

And so, if you're a betting person, would you bet that health care reform will be the "defining moment" of Obama's presidency? I certainly wouldn't, and that brings me to the second article from the New York Times which caught my eye. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is starting to throw the idea out there that the US might be looking into extending a security blanket over the Middle East. In practical terms, this means that the US would guarantee the security of many (mostly Sunni) Arab nations in exchange for them helping us to counter the growing Iranian power and prestige in the Gulf. While the article is quick to note that Clinton did not mention fortifying these nations militarily, that is the logical end to this problem. If Iran continues to push forward, and if the Security Council remains split due to China and Russia's loyalties and economic investments in Iran, the next logical step (according to US history) would be for the US is to begin heavily backing other key players in the region. We've done it before, and it would not shock me to see us do it again.

If I was betting on what will become the defining moment for Obama, I'd take a long hard look here. The Iranian situation is not going to go away easily or quietly. The Supreme Leader has dug in for the battle, even in the face of the Clerical establishment splintering between the old guard and the reformist wing. Ahmadinejad will come out of this election cycle significantly weakened, but that will likely only embolden him to try to regain that power. He does not seem, to me, to be a player who will be content to simply hold the office. He is an all or nothing thinker, and will try to find the time to reassert himself. So long as Ahmadinejad has control of the Revolutionary Guard and the other key aspects of the Iranian military and government you can bet he will push forward with his nuclear ambitions. Khaminei seems to have made his bed with Ahmadinejad; he will seemingly choose to lay in it. Barring some internal upheaval, led by Rafsanjani (who alone might have the ability to move the Clerical establishment and the populace, and is seen on the left), the change we desire in Iran is unlikely to come from within.



To that end, the question for Obama will be can that change come from without. I sincerely doubt that anything positive will come from US meddling here, but we may not end up having choice. The Obama administrations has been treading very carefully along these lines, and that should continue. They cannot forget that the regimes we would be fortifying in the Gulf are, in almost every case, less democratic and more tyrannical than the regime we seek to dispose of in Tehran. Backing the Saudis, the Egyptians ... this might seem like the logical move, and it may very well be the best move. But we need to be well aware of the long term ramifications of our actions. Lest we forget, it has barely been twenty years since a war we sponsored to rid the world of the Mullahs ended.
We supported Saddam Hussien in that war, and less than twenty years after he failed to crush Iran we ended up sacrificing a great deal to discard him. The very monster we made (the picture above shows Saddam shaking hands with none other than Donald Rumsfeld). Those who do not learn history are bound to repeat the same mistakes; hopefully the Obama administration will continue to think long and hard before it takes any brash action towards the Iranians.

A few good articles on Iran

For those of you who are interested in the Iranian election, and its fallout, here are a few brief articles that help to put some of it into perspective.

This first article explains how the initial rational given by the conservative elements in Tehran for Ahmadinejad's victory just doesn't hold through, and how the old guard is divided:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jun/14/iran-election-ahmadinejad-ayatollah

The second article, also by Ali Ansari, briefly goes through the voting irregularities to show the issues with the reported outcome:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jun/22/iran-election-voters-numbers

Finally, if you are interested in a longer analysis of the votes, check out:

http://www.chathamhouse.org.uk/files/14234_iranelection0609.pdf

With reports today that Rafsanjani is trying to garner enough Clerical support to mount a charge at Khamenei I think it is safe to say this is far from over.

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.