Blogs and Stories
Leave Iran to the Iranians
Saul Loeb / Getty Images
As experts clash on how to deal with Iran’s turmoil, Leslie H. Gelb says Obama is right to keep his distance—this is what Iranians want, and they have smart, sophisticated reasons for it.
Iranian hardliners just can’t wait for President Barack Obama to raise high the protesters’ green banner so they can turn it red, white, and blue and unleash a bloodbath against “American agents.” And American hardliners and foreign-policy gurus just keep pushing Obama toward precisely that rhetorical abyss, hoping either to topple the mullah dictatorship—which they know to be a very long shot—or to ensure what they see as the benefits of an American-Iranian confrontation.
Iranians know that Obama and all Americans are with them. They are quite sophisticated and are much more aware of American politics than even the learned gurus are of Tehran’s.
The hardliners and gurus might, for once, trouble to inquire as to the wishes of the Iranians who are risking their lives in the streets of Tehran. They might have noticed that these brave people have not been clamoring for Obama’s open support. Iranians know the consequences of that support. They also know that Obama and all Americans are with them. They are quite sophisticated and are much more aware of American politics than even the learned gurus are of Tehran’s. For many years now, virtually every Iranian who talks to an American says we should stay out of their affairs, that when we try to help them, we hurt them. Do you hear Iranians twittering their thanks to Charles Krauthammer, Paul Wolfowitz, Joe Lieberman, and John McCain? Does that silence mean anything to those Americans urging them on to spill their blood for freedom and democracy? Oh, of course, our moralists and seers of “a historical turning point” are not so crude as to blatantly call the protesters to freedom’s barricades or for Obama to urge a bloodbath for democracy. But they walk right up to that line.
“It is in the direct, hard-headed interest of the United States to encourage enough social space in Iran to test how far these protests eventually might go, since they have already gone further than most thought possible,” wrote Michael Gerson in Sunday’s Washington Post. What on earth does “enough social space…to test how far these protests eventually might go” mean? Does it mean nothing? Or does it mean encourage revolution? And if the latter, what does Gerson propose Washington do if and when Iranian blood begins to flow in the streets? Or try the much more modulated advice from The New York Times’ David Brooks: “And there are no circumstances in which the United States has been able to peacefully play a leading role in another nation’s revolution. But there are many tools this nation has used to support indigenous democrats: independent media, technical advice, economic and cultural sanctions, presidential visits for key dissidents, the unapologetic embrace of democratic values, the unapologetic condemnation of the regime’s barbarities.” Apart from the “condemnation of barbarities,” Brooks is far too sophisticated to think that any of these other tools would matter much in present circumstances.
And yet, this moderate conservative continues: “The Iranian elections have stirred a whirlwind that will lead, someday, to the regime’s collapse. Hastening that day is now the central goal.” But he tells us nothing on how to “hasten” that good day, save for his list of very modest “tools.” And what would Brooks have Obama do if the road to “hastening” were paved with weeks of bloodshed? He is silent on further “tools.”
Charles Krauthammer doesn’t hesitate to proclaim his real goal: “regime change” as the only way to solve future nuclear threats. “Our fundamental values demand that America stand with demonstrators opposing a regime that is the antithesis of all we believe.” He then asks, “Where is our president? Afraid of meddling.” And how does this brilliant pen of the right propose to meddle effectively? Like his neoconservative brethren, he offers nothing besides moral condemnation.
John Talks Joe
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.
Amateur Hour at the White House
Leslie H. Gelb, a former New York Times columnist and senior government official, is author of Power Rules: How Common Sense Can Rescue American Foreign Policy (HarperCollins 2009), a book that shows how to think about and use power in the 21st century. He is president emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations.
Going Rogue: The Index
Christopher Buckley's books include Supreme Courtship, The White House Mess, Thank You for Smoking, Little Green Men, and Florence of Arabia. He was chief speechwriter for Vice President George H.W. Bush, and is editor-at-large of ForbesLife magazine. His new book is Losing Mum and Pup, a memoir. Buckley's Daily Beast column is the winner of an Online Journalism Award in the category of Online Commentary.
Amateur Hour at the White House
Leslie H. Gelb, a former New York Times columnist and senior government official, is author of Power Rules: How Common Sense Can Rescue American Foreign Policy (HarperCollins 2009), a book that shows how to think about and use power in the 21st century. He is president emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations.
McChrystal's Fuzzy Math
Leslie H. Gelb, a former New York Times columnist and senior government official, is author of Power Rules: How Common Sense Can Rescue American Foreign Policy (HarperCollins 2009), a book that shows how to think about and use power in the 21st century. He is president emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations.
Stalled Out All Over the World
Leslie H. Gelb, a former New York Times columnist and senior government official, is author of Power Rules: How Common Sense Can Rescue American Foreign Policy (HarperCollins 2009), a book that shows how to think about and use power in the 21st century. He is president emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations.
There's a saying: "when your enemy is killing themselves, do not interfere."
Obama should make like H.W when the Wall was coming down and keep his effing mouth shut.
When the Population of a country is overwhelmingly not your enemy, and small highly unpopular oligarchy of people are. An opportunity is presented.
The Iranian people are not all our enemies bubba, but the Prez doesn't have the stones to do anything about it. As a matter of fact, his handling of the CIA in 5 months in office may have crippled them from even being able to anything at all.
Sweet.
Obama is a weakling. Plain and simple. He cannot be trusted. He cannot be trusted to even speak out forcefully for freedom. He cannot be trusted by his friends. He simply cannot be trusted.
DKJamal
Obama is far from weak. He is very clever not to react like a stupid neocon animal. The author is right, the US will do more harm than good by intervening. Have you been asleep these last 8 years? Cowboy politics no longer has a place on the world stage. Whatever happens in Iran, there won't not be a "taint" of western intervention and that's the best thing we could ask for.
How many smarts does a person have to have to beat the GNOP party that has given us eight years of failure and likely hastened the demise of our great country?
Every time I read a quote like this from the party of stupidity I want to throw up. Iraq and 9/11 are yours. Now President Obama must clean up the misery you idiots foisted upon us.
I guess we should have gone to the streets in 2000 and overturned the SCOTUS' blatantly political power grab for their ilk.
We are Neda, not you scum.
I am with BasPos 100%. WE ARE ALL NEDA!
Also, G.H.W. Bush did exactly what was called for. He did not peep as much as one word about Berlin '89.
WE ARE NEDA!
Mr. Gelb is correct. US or Israeli involvement is very likely to justify a Republican Guard military response. This is a regional issue and involves Iran and its' neighbors. If the US and Israel remain uninvolved Mousavi is likely to obtain local regional support whereas any involvement by western elements could spur an Islamic reaction similar to the Hamas-Israeli senario. This is a palpable threat and should be reason for caution. Despite the fact that the Mousavi protests involve woman's rights and was instigated by Ahmedinejad's attack against Mousavi's wife - involving a preceding 10 year period of small women groups meeting independently, any western or in particular US or Israeli contribution will simply undermine their efforts and act to isolate them from their supporters in neighboring states. These supporters could otherwise act to support Iranian reform efforts inorder to placate their own demographic constituents. It is likely that if left to their own devices, the Iranian theocracy will likely precipitate another crises as they struggle to suppress the reform with an iron grip - a typical regional response to such initiatives. As the regional perception focuses more on the Iranian domestic aspects of the crises and less on western, US or Israeli linkage which the regime is trying to portray, factional issues will soon dominate the Iranian reform agenda as loyalties begin to fragment with in the Iranian military.
This is an interesting piece. I suppose only time will tell if you're right, but it makes sense to me.
Of course, if Iran does get a regime change, President Obama will have a tough time taking credit for it, even if his restraint helped to facilitate it!
Only the neocon morons, who've never been right about anything, would put personal glory above what's best for our national interests.
The bottom line is that if you are advocating Obama be more vocal about Iran, you are too stupid to be involved in our foreign policy. Of course, it was only two weeks ago the neocons wanted to bomb these same protesters into oblivion. Now they are opportunistically supporting them because they are hoping to use the situation to politically weaken Obama and build up the failed Republican party. A bunch of self-serving, dangerous morons.
Right on man! There is a human level and the neocons just don't get it. Career politicrats glutinously being fed by big business.....
What you said is something everyone in our nation needs to wrap their minds around.
I love how republicans that cry about obama wanting to make the gov't large and powerful are the same ones that say we should stick our hands in other nations' political games.
Hypocrisy... what more would you expect from them?
Exactly!!!!
and i doubt Obama even wants credit for that considering 11% of Americans STILL think he's muslim
That's half of the GNOP's base. They'll mostly be dead soon from old age.
Amen! This fight for democracy and freedom has nothing to do with us. This is there fight. Let them resolve it.
"and we are not saved..."
"Iran's Tiananmen Square." I'm sorry but there is a certain hollow hypebole to the hype of this "Twitter Revolution" that has gone overboard to my mind. The sophisticated response of Obama is refreshing and shows intellect in face of the complexities of the Middle East politics of multiple factions. How different from the heavy-handed Neo-Cons. How can John McCain command any statesman-like respect for public commentary on Iran after his Neanderthal Beach Boy performance (rhetoric for you Fox dunderheads).
Everyone is so eager to turn this into a tsunami. It is actually being managed rather well by the Iranian leaders, as divided as they are, and will slowly quell to a new realization that the Iranian citizens already do, in fact, have influence on government and as that recognition and demographics change, in addition to the availabiliy of blue jeans, hair dryers and iPods, the rigidity of the population will soon give rise first to Wal-Marts and McDonalds before it does pure Democracy.
How soon we forget the Vietnam lesson that we do not want the role of "policeman to the world." It is stabiliy that we seek in the Middle East not Madisonian Democracy.
Look what dopes we have we elected to carry out our form of government. Were the Moynihans and Priors really of a different class from these political ATM's or is it just nostalgia?
It is great fun watching Obama glide around the Beltway like Apolo Ohno on the edge of his skate with his a certain comination of concentration and relaxation that goes for "aloofness." This is a great time to be an observor of history.
You watch young Neda die at the hands of Basiji sniper, and YOU remain aloof. I appreciate their sacrifice and it deserves action from us.
Obama doesn't even get that his appeal is to every day muslims, not the Clerics! They hate him for the Apostate that he is! By maintaining silence he is deserting the very people he should be talking to in favor of the ones that hate him. Amazing, I wonder which Yale grad came up with this strategy for him, or did he think of it himself.
The Giant of the Iranian people has not awakened...yet. It may not depending on how quickly the Clerics quell dissent ( which thay are doing now). Unless internal entities ( IRIA, IRIAF, Breakaway IRGC) help the movement, bloodshed will stall it.
You are a neophyte, and unfortunately, ruthlessness rules in the real world. You gleeful detachment is a disgrace.
I would be ashamed to think of myself as "gleefully detached.". I have never lived under a repressed government so I am a neophyte but not uninformed.
I have listened to so many commentators who have come back from Iran, from mature sources that have appeared on Fareed Zakaria GPS, Jim Leher on PBS, Richard Haas from the Council on Foreign Relations, whom I find to be very thoughtful, and Richard Engel who has spent so much time in the Middle East. I hear that the Iranians don't trust us and are not asking us to get involved in what is a nationalistic movement.
When I think of the early stages of the Iraq invasion unraveling into the knowledge of the Kurds, Shiites and Sunnis, each with tribes and power struggles within and a total lack of governing structure, legal systems and other intangible elements that hold together a society I was shocked at the foolishness of trading all of those lives in a religious-like attempt to fast forward green shoots of democracy in the holy land.
"Little by little," seems the appropriate approach here until the situation becomes less fluent and we understand the complexities of this power struggle and use our influence with care. We have seen the ready, fire, aim approach of the second Bush administration. Too often the hawks look to me like Wylie Coyote trying to hit the Road Runner with an anvil or push the ignition on the wired box of explosives. The creator of Road Runner, who just died, indicated that Wylie was to suffer mishap by GRAVITY above all other means. Not a bad metaphor... I think the Bush team found itself beyond the cliff in midair without enough thought as it looked down at the inevitable fall and back at the ground it had left.
Finally, I do not doubt for a moment, given Holbrook, Clinton, Biden, Jones, military advisors in Washington and in the Middle East, that there are backchannel communications. Any reader of history knows that this is standard procedure and is not fodder for the 24-hour cable news cycle. The sign of an inadequacy in these efforts are news leaks which we see a surprising lack of from this administrative team.
I come from a generation that invested a certain trust in the Presidency. I have been disappointed by much over the years but my informed observations of this President has brought back a sense of trust that I lost over the years. Time will tell.
Any GNOP who thinks President Obama is a coward or naive needs to remember 2008. You have ceased to exist as a political party except in your diseased minds.
Great article that rationalizes the timidity of modern America. Don't even SAY anything! What a sorry unprincipled lot you are.
Take a look at Tehran Times, yellow bellies, they are blaming us anyway. They have people that they have rounded up and have beaten into confessing that they are part of the MKO and work for us.
We are sitting silent due Obama's piteous and foolish desire to preserve his campaign promise to engage the Iranian Leadership. Great, it will now be an infamous engagement with an invalidated leadership. He'll be worse than Neville Chamberlain in the eyes of history.
There is much we could do short of military aide, but the one-dimensional fear cycle of the liberal ideologue refuses to look past armed force as a way to assist them.
History will not present the wet-behind-the-ears Obama well in his response if all he does is talk softly.
We can't assist Iran because they don't need assisting. Judging by their actions the last week, they can do enough themselves. This isn't like the situation in Iraq that the people couldn't do anything to stand for themselves.
Obama's right to not have a strong statement against/for the leadership in Iran. The idea of beating our chests and giving the finger to those who aren't exactly aligned with the American ideology doesn't help in anyway.
Well said Scottblam! There is nothing to be gained for either the U.S. or the Iranian oppostion by U.S. rhetoric or involvement. In fact, it could do the exact opposite of what we wish to accomplish.
Judging by the time stamp on your post, I would think you understood that the Basij Militia is forcefully repressing the people with IRGC support. All it takes for nothing to come of this is for people to feel alone and unsupported.
Vocal support and denunciation of the criminal regime that is robbing the people of their rights and violating Islamic law is called for.
Obama cannot even muster this. His tepid response is shameful, and hearkens back to the US response and subsequent mourning over the Rwanda massacres.
Rationalize it all you want.
The ONLY American president to make promises to the rogue nation of Iran was the traitor, Reagan. Iran-Contra was nothing more than payment in weapons for his traitorous dealings with Iran during the hostage crisis.
You guys would make me laugh if it wasn't so sad . I'm a Romanian immigrant who grew up during one of the most strict communist dictatorship. We had our revolution in 1989 and were immediatly supported by then president Bush 41. Without western support, led by the USA we probably wouldn't have succeded in overthrowing our Dear Leader, Ceausescu. People died in the streets just like they do now in Iran but at least we got freedom. What you don't realize is that for opressed people around the world USA is a beacon of light , the land of freedom that we all aspire to. Too bad you guys don't understand what a great role USA has in the world.
Damn right! Give them some hope! Let Khamenei know that his regime is illegitimate and will be fought in the halls of the UN!
I am disgusted by the lack of principle of our president. He is just sitting and waiting for the next sycophant to tell him what to do. How Bush-43 of him.
Grow some balls Mr. President! The world is watch YOU!
Yes, the US has done more than enough to "assist" the Middle East, esp Iran...quick review...CIA MI6 install the Shah of Iran in '53 who then spends the next 25yrs oppressing his people in a variety of ways (as secret police SAVAK kill by the thousands) which then leads to "The Revolution" in '79, thus panicking the Soviets into thinking that more regional dominoes will fall to radical Islam and they invade Afghanistan...while in Afghanistan the US supports Bin Laden et al against said Soviets...Soviets get jacked from Afghanistan, Bin Laden becomes man without mission and targets US...a virtuous circle, if only we had stayed out of it
Pious yet so willing to delude himself that there is only one thread of history that drives outcomes. Unfortunately, US oil interest drove the ouster of democratically elected Dr. Mosadegh who wished to nationalize oil.
Your simplistic approach to, if not this then that, ignores many other possible outcomes that might ave happened in between.
Whatever isolationist tendencies you have their result is rarely what their proponents wanted...
In the end Operation Ajax can be traced back as the leading cause for much of the continuous disruption in Iran, while perhaps only "one thread" it is the one that counts...apologies for letting the facts get in the way of your (rather myopic) narrative (akcita).
Let's look at Iran. To the West is Iraq and the East is Afghanistan. Both countries are, now, democratic. Iran is not democratic. Iran held so-called democratic elections that turned out to be questionable and now Iran is having a revolution. Now, my question is what caused Afghanistan and Iraq to have democracies?? If Iran does complete a full scale revolution and overthrow the dictators and become a democratic nation, does Bush deserve some level of credit for that?...or will all you kool aid sippers believe it is ALL Obama and his wonderful Cairo speech?
I thought I was only one who thought this rather obvious point. Don't you think Iran is beginning to feel a little jealous of it's neighbors. Afghanistan is less than a 3rd world nation, but has more freedom than the sophisticated Persians. Don't tell me that doesn't smack those young college kids right in the face.
The young college kids don't have the guns. And, if you have not noticed, all the rioting is taking place in one city - Tehran. I think this one is going to peter out and Obama is making the right decision.
I have listened to so many commentators who have come back from Iran, from mature sources that have appeared on Fareed Zakaria GPS, Jim Leher on PBS, Richard Haas from the Council on Foreign Relations, whom I find to be very thoughtful, and Richard Engel who has spent so much time in the Middle East. I hear that the Iranians don't trust us and are not asking us to get involved in what is a nationalistic movement.
When I think of the early stages of the Iraq invasion unraveling into the knowledge of the Kurds, Shiites and Sunnis, each with tribes and power struggles within and a total lack of governing structure, legal systems and other intangible elements that hold together a society I was shocked at the foolishness of trading all of those lives in a religious-like attempt to fast forward green shoots of democracy in the holy land.
"Little by little," seems the appropriate approach here until the situation becomes less fluent and we understand the complexities of this power struggle and use our influence with care. We have seen the ready, fire, aim approach of the second Bush administration. Too often the hawks look to me like Wylie Coyote trying to hit the Road Runner with an anvil or push the ignition on the wired box of explosives. The creator of Road Runner, who just died, indicated that Wylie was to suffer mishap by GRAVITY above all other means. Not a bad metaphor... I think the Bush team found itself beyond the cliff in midair without enough thought as it looked down at the inevitable fall and back at the ground it had left.
Finally, I do not doubt for a moment, given Holbrook, Clinton, Biden, Jones, military advisors in Washington and in the Middle East, that there are backchannel communications. Any reader of history knows that this is standard procedure and is not fodder for the 24-hour cable news cycle. The sign of an inadequacy in these efforts are news leaks which we see a surprising lack of from this administrative team.
I come from a generation that invested a certain trust in the Presidency. I have been disappointed by much over the years but my informed observations of this President has brought back a sense of trust that I lost over the years. Time will tell.
Politics, pretty generally, is a bonding experience in the context of ideas. In order to be successful, one must 'bond' with the people first and then offer solutions to problems. We haven't even successfully bonded with the people of Iraq, so any idea at offering solutions is premature. First things first, I say.
In breaking the ballot box, the Iranian Republic has broken the bond it had with it's people. Governments do this somewhat routinely, many times by chance and error, but sometimes by deliberation. This one looks deliberate. Certainly the People of Iran believe it is and they may well be in the best position to determine the truth of that idea. As things play out and the truth surfaces, both in the form of the Government's response and those counter responses by the people, more will be known. What's the rush? We've been fighting with these people since 1979. Are we in any particular hurry to sort this out? Can we even be of positive influence or assistance? Those are really more the kinds of questions we need to ask ourselves. We are, afterall, their enemy; whether that is in fact real or simply a forced perspective and survival instinct of their currently standing Government.
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.