Blogs and Stories
Iranians to Obama: Hush
Fars news agency / AP Photo
Lipstick Jihad author Azadeh Moaveni says protesters in Tehran have a surprising view on Obama's silence: Keep it up.
Plus, read more insight on Iran's election from other Daily Beast writers.
Even during subdued times, Iranians tend to have oversize expectations of the United States, and what it can or cannot do for their troubled nation. I remember riding a bus through central Tehran last summer, surprised at how openly a young woman expressed her desperation with the grim state of Iranian politics: “Let the Americans come,” she said loudly. "Let them sort things out for us once and for all." The women's section, at the back of the bus of course, took her remark casually, and some nodded.
This lingering belief among Iranians that America has some unique control over their fate is a legacy of the two nations' tangled past. Beginning with the American coup that overthrew Iran's democratically elected prime minister, Mohammed Mosaddeq, in 1953, through to Jimmy Carter's tepid response to the revolutionary crowds that helped bring down the shah's regime in 1979, both U.S. action and inaction are considered equally powerful among most Iranians.
This lingering belief among Iranians that America has some unique control over their fate is a legacy of the two nations' tangled past.
Given this history, Iranians have looked curiously to Washington in recent days, eager to see what America's new president has to say about Ahmadinejad's fraudulent re-election and the furious protests it has unleashed. The years I've spent living in Iran, both under President Ahmadinejad and his more moderate predecessor, led me to expect that most people would be desperate for a nod from America. Until last week, Iranian student leaders often insisted that they didn't have the power to meaningfully oppose their government from the inside. They said they needed the West to pressure the mullahs as well, in hopes that the regime would eventually feel squeezed on all sides.
But in conversations with friends and relatives in Tehran this week, I've heard the opposite of what I had expected: a resounding belief that this time the United States should keep out. One of my cousins, a woman in her mid-30s who has been attending the daily protests along with the rest of her family, viewed the situation pragmatically. “The U.S. shouldn't interfere, because a loud condemnation isn't going to affect Iranian domestic politics one way or the other. If the supreme leader decides to crackdown on the protests and Ahmadinejad stays in power, then negotiations with the United States might improve our lives.”
I heard these sentiments, remarkably thoughtful for such a passionate moment, echoed from many quarters. President Barack Obama's outreach to Iran, and his offer of a mutually respectful dialogue, has raised the possibility of better relations for the first time in years, and many Iranians worry that a false step might jeopardize that prospect altogether. A friend of mine who studies public relations in Tehran noted that other American allies in the Gulf, Arab dictatorships with no pretence of democracy, are thriving economically. “In the end, a dictatorship that doesn't face U.S. sanctions is better off than one that does,” she said. “Now that after 30 years it seems that we have a chance to negotiate with America, it would be a shame if we lost the chance.”
Other friends I spoke with cited various reasons why the United States should maintain its discrete posture. “If Obama's position until now has been to respect Iran, then he really has no choice but to watch first how things unfold. Mousavi hasn't produced any facts yet, no one has produced evidence of fraud,” said my friend Ali, a 40-year-old photographer. “That's what is needed before Obama takes a major stand.”
My older relatives fretted particularly that any real criticism by the United States would be used as a pretext by Ahmadinejad to blame the protests on “outside enemies,” a reflexive response for the president when dealing with even housing inflation and the rising price of tomatoes. “It's better for Obama to stay out of this. Given what happened with Bush in Florida, Ahmadinejad can always claim the United States is in no position to lecture anyone about fair elections,” my aunt noted.
Though it seems most Iranians are taking such a measured view of American involvement, there are still some who feel that both the United States and the world must take a stand. A girlfriend of mine emailed to complain bitterly about what she considers America's cowardly silence. “Why is it with a country like North Korea, the world shouts that the dictator is hated by his people, but when it comes to us, the West is diplomatic? The world must help us today. People are shouting and telling the world what is going on here, and the world should help us. People are tired and now we need the world's help.”
Azadeh Moaveni has reported on Iran for Time magazine and other publications since 1999. She is the author of Lipstick Jihad, the co-author of Shirin Ebadi's memoir Iran Awakening, and most recently, Honeymoon in Tehran.
The Right Dumps Carrie
Jacob Bernstein is a senior reporter at The Daily Beast. Previously, he was a features writer at WWD and W Magazine. He has also written for New York magazine, Paper, and The Huffington Post.
What's Joe's Problem?
Lloyd Grove is editor at large for The Daily Beast. He is also a frequent contributor to New York magazine and was a contributing editor for Condé Nast Portfolio. He wrote a gossip column for the New York Daily News from 2003 to 2006. Prior to that, he wrote the Reliable Source column for the Washington Post, where he spent 23 years covering politics, the media, and other subjects.
Geithner's Stock Plummeting
Jeff Madrick is a contributor to the New York Review of Books and a former economics columnist for the New York Times. He is editor of Challenge Magazine, visiting professor of humanities at Cooper Union, and senior fellow at the New School's Schwartz Center for Economic Policy Analysis. He is the author of Taking America, The End of Affluence (Random House) and The Case for Big Government.
Neda: Cautionary Tale or Inspiration?
Azadeh Moaveni has reported on Iran for Time magazine and other publications since 1999. She is the author of Lipstick Jihad, the co-author of Shirin Ebadi’s memoir Iran Awakening, and most recently, Honeymoon in Tehran.
THE CROWDS ARE IN FOR A LOUSY FEW MONTHS
This genie is out of the bottle. Change may be slow in coming, nevertheless, it will come.
The mullahs may have long feared that change would eventually come in reaction to their abuse of the population. Many have moved the proceeds of their pilfering offshore, "just in case." Some have built themselves Los Angeles and West Vancouver mansions, in anticipation that the gun might eventually not suppress the crowds in Tehran.
The potential for change is conditional on the persistence and endurance of the youth filling the streets of Iran.
http://pacificgatepost.blogspot.com/2009/06/new-dawn-for-iran.html
The BEST background, hands down, of the covert ops by CIA-Mossad in Iran. Prescient, but reads like today.
I wonder if the clerics have noted the irony, that 30 years after the overthrow of dictatorship by popular uprising, a new popular surge is threatening to topple the one they put up on its place.
Oh, I'm sure they have. That's probably why their stranglehold has tightened in the past few days. They know exactly the risks they could run if they lose control.
Actually, most evidence suggests that they aren't tightening their stranglehold, but in fact reassessing the situation and trying to seek a compromise with the protesters (eg. offering a partial recount.) For the regime to overtly start cracking down on the opposition would help create the circumstances which catalyzed the 1979 revolution which ignited thanks in large part to the Shah ruthlessly purging anti-Shah elements within the religious establishment.
This is why the Islamic regime is trying to compromise with the opposition rather than crackdown. The violence is coming largely from the Basij militia who although created by Ayatollah Khomeini have undergone a revival thanks to Ahmadinejad suggesting that their loyalities may be more linked to him than to the Supreme Leader.
'Arab dictatorships with no pretence of democracy, are thriving economically. "In the end, a dictatorship that doesn't face U.S. sanctions is better off than one that does,"'
What a depressing and complacent view. After 30 years is that the best you could hope for? Why did you get rid of the Shah then, if dictatorship is not so bad? Do Iranians even know what they want?
"After 30 years is that the best you could hope for? Why did you get rid of the Shah then, if dictatorship is not so bad?"
The way I read it they are not so much supporting being, or becoming, a dictatorship; but rather that the US have many authoritarian regimes which it is on good terms with (Pakistan and Saudi Arabia to name two current ones). And Saudi Arabia has enjoyed immense economical growth because they, as a friend of the US, are allowed to benefit from selling their oil on the world market. All the while the US is condemning other authoritarian regimes; toosome this policy seems a bit willy-nilly.
Thanks to the Daily Beast for being brave enough to publish the idea that some foreign country, any foreign country, doesn't want direct U.S. involvement in solving their troubles.
That's not the same as saying we are constrained from changing our behavior based on what happens. At least from the late date of the 1st Congress under the U.S. Constitution, America played trade and tariff games based on who were our friends (France) and who we were still angry with (England).
Allegedly, there was a long term program funded by the U.S. to destabilize the Iranian government. Somehow I doubt Obama actually stopped this program. So, if the Iranian government falls, and this program is linked to the fall, we've got a recipe for Yet Another Iranian Backlash.
i think that obama's decision to not be involved is a very good one. why do we always have to be meddling in other countries?? let them handle it. also, I guarantee you the right will attack obama for not getting involved, even though the right don't consider themselves "citizens of the world", only when it involves manipulating the governments of other countries.
no shit man let outher countrys handle there own shit why do we always have to get involved you dont see mexico are any body else always worried about shit hell let them kill eachouther and handle there own shit when they get tired of it theyll sort there own shit out i am sotired of seeing my friends beeing sent to fight places cause some outher country is fucked up i cant stand it any more hellllllllllll im freaking out here im so sick of the bull shit anymore .
The Right is angry
That one of their favorite boogeymen
Might be downgraded.
Excellent article. The best way for Obama to handle this is to keep quiet and let Iran stand on its own two feet after the smoke has cleared, for better or worse. The slightest bit of support voiced for the protesters will only empower the incumbents to claim this whole situation is being instigated by the west.
This user is no longer registered.
I think America should be supportive of the people's right to protest, their right to a true democracy, and their right for their voices to be heard, but that doesn't mean we have to do anything drastic
above is what you said. This is what our new President Obama said not two days ago. Do you not listen to him? or do you just get your information from the news. Listen to Him from now on and you will find it easier to make your opinions known.
This user is no longer registered.
alcamadus-- There is a reason our silence is golden right now. If we openly support the opposition, Ahmadinejad will say "Look! Look what those bastards in the West do to us! Our nation is strong, so they instigate violence among us!"
Basically, our interference at this point will give him an excuse to not hear the voices of his own people. The mullahs will be able to play the whole thing off, or worse, God forbid, use the incident later when things aren't so peachy keen in Iran to take power back.
I don't think we should be silent forever, but for the time being it's a smart move.
They have already blamed him for interfering. More words of encouragement wont do much of anything. Alcamadus is right. Just helping them get the word out is what the media should be focused on.
If the Mullahs execute a bloody crack down, guess who is going to get blamed, us infidels, regardless of what President O says.
It's not like we would allow the CIA to do anything, anything at all right now. They are on Probation right?
Sure your argument is valid that her family and friends aren't necessarily representative of millions of Iranians. But the fact that Mousavi has not come out and sought US support definitely adds to the strength of the argument that perhaps the protesters want to avoid US backing which could delegitimize them thanks to the US' status of 'Great Satan' in Iran.
I support Iranian's right to protest. But...
Unfortunately America's support as a government over the last few decades is more like a tar baby - it comes with so many subtle and nasty conditions that those who accept it (freely or not) end up worse than they would have without our "support". That taint I"m sure is coloring Iranians view of any support the US government could give at this time.
I'm sure articles like this one are providing much more powerful support in the long run because democracy is not something that you can impose on a people - they must embrace it - sometimes with sweat and blood - on their own if they are to really own it.
That illustrates the reason the Iraq invasion and occupation was a mistake of biblical proportions - The Iraqi still seem to be confused about what they want in a democracy, so they get a very confused democracy. Trying to impose our Democracy on them will only work if they embrace our Democracy - which includes seperating church and state (till recently at least) and that doesn't seem to have happened yet.
We - Americans - are supporting the Iranians - let's keep the government out of it so a real democracy can emerge without strings attached.
This user is no longer registered.
Well said, estcruzer.
Personally, I find it naive and foolish to urge Obama to engage verbally in what can only be construed as meddling and would probably backfire.
I guess Prof. Raymond Tanter was right! (See his article in yesterday's edition)!!!
Maybe Obama has read enough history to know that when the US urged the Eastern Europeans to rise up and rebel, the Hungarians, who did, got clobbered and Eisenhower and the CIA stood aside.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/mousavi1388/sets/72157619325634658/
Mousavi's flickr site. Wondrous crowd photos
This is something different. This a new age revolution. I think estcruzer made some fantasitc points. Governments muck everything up and fling it about. This is an uprising by the people. Individuals sacrificing to make a change in their country and their lives. We should honor them by supporting them as individuals.
The President represents everything about us as a whole; our national voice, our society and government. This can cause a problem for others because where some can take his words to be OUR encouragement, others will say it is our GOVERNMENT interfering in the affairs of a sovreign nation.
But my individual voice means nothing to Ahmadinejad or the mullahs, and at the same time it can encourage some protestor who is struggling to change history. And so I'll speak directly to them.
Use the social networks and support our Iranian brothers and sisters.
We are supporting the individual. We gave then internet and cell phones. Twitter is one of the main tools to organize.
Checkmate!
Iranians know we support them anyways. It is best to let the people form their own destiny. But while the Obama administration is limited in how they can support the Iranian people, there is something we can do: DAILY BEAST, TIME TO GO GREEN! RED TO GREEN! LETS DO IT FOR A DAY. Thank you.
But Bill Kristol said we should get involved and he's always right about everything!!!
It amazes me how on one hand the US is meddleing bully but on the other we are the world's only super power and have a duty to get invloved. Which is it? I'd like nothing more then to let the Iranians stew in their own juices but as soon as we do we are being protectionistic and inhumane.
Note from this American to the author: STFU!
This Protesting is NOT about the US, if the US got involved then the Iranians especially the government would turn it in that direction i.e make it about the US.
Obama is doing the right thing by being silent..
If a country wants and needs change than it is up to the people of the country to do it, bring their grievences in front of the Gov. If another country was to get involved then the government would never believe the citizens in which they represent. As arrogant as the Government of Iran is being a bunch of Old Men they would never believe their citizens, as far as they are concern they feel they do no wrong, as all men do.
Protesting is a good thing and when you want change then that is how you go about it. But don't involve another country because when it comes to the Government that is being protested against, they will not listen...they will not take the citizens seriously.
Stay Strong Iran, the world is preying for you.
After reading "Honeymoon in Tehran" I would like to know if Ms. Moaveni still has access to any of her sources which would enable her to get a better pulse of the nation of Iran during this current crisis. Apparently at one time she had good access, and was severely limited after Ahmadinajad came to power. For years I have felt that the powers that be in the United States have listened to the wrong people when it has related to how best to deal with Iran. Book learning isn't all that is necessary to create the expertise needed in these situations, nor is American reasoning what will help. We need to better understand what "makes Iranians tick" before giving advice or meddling in their politics.
They have already thrown away any chance of better relations with us, by rejecting Obama's offer of negotiations and acting like lunatics toward their own people. We have had no diplomatic relations with Iran in 30 years, and these will not be restored any time soon. Iran's own leaders did this to themselves, with no assist from us this time. I hope their own people overthrow them, and we should assist them in that if they want--quietly and secretly, if necessary, while saying very little in public..
Thank you.
As a first time user, your comment has been submitted for review. It can take anywhere from a few hours to a day or two for your comment to be reviewed, depending on the time of week and the volume of comments we receive.
Please log in to leave comments.