After Obama's explicit acknowledgement of the US' role in unseating Mossadegh during his recent Cairo speech and his repeated declarations of his intention to open a new phase in US-Iranian relations, it is going to be interesting to watch how the White House continues to react to the fallout from the Iranian election. Joe Biden has told NBC that the government has concerns about the outcome and the post-election imprisonment of protestors. But not only was this comment matched by a reiteration of the government's willingness to talk to the Iranian leadership, the fact that it was Biden, rather than Obama, might also be considered significant - a VP complaining inherently being a softer blow than a direct statement from the President.
Biden's comments are worthing parsing from an Iranian perspective. "Talks with Iran are not a reward for good behavior. They are only a consequence if the president makes a judgment it's in the best interest of the United States of America to talk with the Iranian regime," Biden stated. "Our interests are the same before the election as after the election, and that is we want them to cease from seeking a nuclear weapon and having one in his possession and secondly to stop supporting terror," he said. Read this another way, and Biden is explicitly not saying that it is an administration priority to see free and fair democratic elections in Iran.
Of course, if you ask the administration, they'll say they want both democracy and diplomacy. But coming to an agreement with the theocracy over Iraq, Afghanistan and nuclear weapons lies in tension with an aggressive policy of democracy promotion, since the latter is inherently antagonistic to the clerical leadership.
A stronger, more negative reaction to the stolen election - as one would have undoubtedly have seen from the Bush administration - would weaken the possibility of secret talks making any progress. It would also provide a useful image of an interfering American empire for Ahmedinejad to exploit when trying to legitimate his new term of office. But, on the other hand, not reacting creates a problem for a president who has the hopes of millions pinned on him as an ally of democracy in the Middle East. If the violence continues it will become increasingly difficult for Obama to stay out of this issue.
2 comments:
Another Ahmedinejad term might be a good thing for Iran and the whole region. The people there are unhappy right now and won't forget that the source of their discontent came from within and not the US for a change.
Thanks for your comment, Andres! Certainly, "democracy promotion" as a political strategy is not always synonymous with actual democracy promotion. (Take the 50 year embargo on Cuba as an example.) Washington shouting loudly doesn't always get what Washington wants to see.
Post a Comment