- FEBRUARY 9, 2010
-
-
AFGHANISTAN
Kilcullen: What Matters in COIN
-
SOLDIER'S CORNER
Opening up on War Fatigue
-
PIRATE WATCH
Ship Master's Shirking Safety in Pirate Waters
My worry: Budapest '56, Tehran '09
Posted By Thomas E. Ricks
Thursday, June 18, 2009 - 5:29 PM
Share
I think President Obama is correct in showing extreme restraint in dealing with the situation in Iran. My concern is that opposition protestors will interpret any voicing of Western support as a sign that we will come to their aid. Every time I see one of those "Where is my vote?" signs in English, I worry even more.
As the Hungarians learned the hard way after being encouraged in 1956 in their uprising against their Soviet occupiers, we will not. Though I do hope that George Soros-a native of Hungary, by the way--and his Open Society Institute are doing whatever they can. At any rate, they know far better than does the U.S. government how to enable information flows.
So I think people should think twice before shooting off their mouths about "unqualified support," like Rep. Mike Pence (R., Ind.) did this morning on Fox "News":
. . . the American cause is freedom. And in that cause, America must never be silent.
I've introduced a resolution here on Capitol Hill. I'm talking to my Republican and Democrat colleagues about an opportunity for the American people through their elected representatives to express our unqualified support for those brave men and women who are risking their liberty and even their lives taking to the streets on behalf of freedom. They're demonstrating for free elections, for the freedom of expression.
And, as we have done so many times throughout the history of this nation, I think the American people long for the opportunity to stand up, from our people to the people of Iran, and say, "We are with you in spirit as you stand for free and fair elections in your own country."
I just hope that Iranian protestors know not to take this clown seriously.
This problem goes to the essence of strategy: A "tough" stance that Fox's anchors are pushing might feel good, but it likely would be unproductive. A sober stance of the sort that Obama has taken is more difficult but likely more effective in the long run.
Meanwhile, for those reality-based readers who were wondering about the vote in the Iranian countryside, in the LA Times, Babrak Rahimi, an academic who recently was doing research in southern Iran, says his sense is that rural Iranians did not vote overwhelmingly for the mean little guy.
(HT to Kevin Drum)
AFP/Getty Images
Interestingly I read Babrak Rahimi's piece, since it was always my understanding the runt's popularity was in the countryside.
Polls taken in Iran may not be too reliable, but polls taken before the election would seem to coincide with the outcome.
Again, urban professionals and students demonstrating for Mussavi in the streets of Tehran ain't necessarily indicative of the number of votes cast for him throughout the country - but then, we've been getting it wrong on Iran since 1979, why the hell would I know what the real story is?
As for what the protestors will have to take seriously, will be the Iranian security services, and how Prague played-out in 1968.
"his sense is that rural Iranians did not vote overwhelmingly for the mean little guy. "
Yeah, that is real proof.
Well, did you read his article? If not, I am amazed you are commenting.
I read it. This is a man who left iran when a lot of dissidents were leaving. He came to the USA, but he's been traveling back to iran frequently to "study" their politics.
Does he give reports to the CIA? Surely he does, unless he refuses to. He's just the sort of information source they need and use. Is he on their payroll? It would be rude to ask him. Does he report to the LA Times what the CIA wants him to? It's illegal for the CIA to attempt to influence US opinion, isn't it? And yet that's central to achieving their assigned goals.
In general, news out of iran is suspect. We don't know what's going on, and various organizations are trying to spread disinformation.
This situation is very very different from hungary 1956. Hungary was controlled by the USSR which had unlimited military might available. The iran government is run by iranians who have no outside support. Hungary was surrounded by communist countries, and US aid would inevitably be cut off unless we went to full war with russia and conquered a perimeter. Iran is surrounded by US-occupied nations. The CIA had little involvement -- they had only one full-time agent in hungary and the 200 trained insurgents we parachuted into hungary were immediately captured. The CIA has been actively working toward destabilising the iranian government for years. Given the russian army that had done so much rape in hungary during the liberation, hungarians would have welcomed US troops if we could have send US troops. In iran there might be minorities such as kurds that would welcome US troops despite what they've heard from refugees of the US occupations in afghanistan and iraq but I'm pretty certain 99+% of persians would be deadset against it.
I see only the vaguest similarities between hungary 1956 and iran 2009.
This is dangerous talk to throw around. It can get people killed. If you have evidence, show it. If not, please shut up:
"Does he give reports to the CIA? Surely he does, unless he refuses to. He's just the sort of information source they need and use. Is he on their payroll? It would be rude to ask him."
People want to use his claims to decide US public opinion about something that could possibly turn into another US occupation. This is dangerous too.
OF COURSE the CIA debriefs people who come back from iran with useful information. How could his information be more useful, more what they need? If he does not report to them, it is because he refuses to -- which he has the legal right to do.
The CIA has four tenths of a billion dollars officially funded for the express official purpose of destabilising the iranian government. Can we depend on him not to spread CIA disinformation? To take his report at face value, the answer to that question must be yes. Is it?
That's why I've been exceedingly skeptical of claims of outright invented election results. I'm very worried that the current protests represent the views of 20-30 million Iranians at best, rather than the 40+ million that Mousavi claimed before the polls closed. In an information-scarce environment it's very easy to perpetuate the illusion of fraud; especially when that's what your audience is looking for. I hope that's not the case, but there certainly hasn't been the sort of definitive case made for fraud that supports the near universal certainty that the results aren't reflective of the vote.
A lot of these anecdotes are compelling; but they're anecdotes. Counting tens of millions of votes presumably required the planned cooperation of thousands of people who are now quite good at keeping their mouths shut if the results are fabricated.
You skeptics, and you faceless guys pimping AN in western comment threads, are forgetting that Iran is a country which where 70% of the population lives in the cities. The idea that AN has such a strong base in the countryside that he can overwhelm the cities and come away with a 2/3 landslide is just not rooted in any kind of reality at all. The conservative supermajority in Iran is a total myth.
Not to mention that of the rural 30%, many are ethnic minorities that are treated poorly by the state and have historically voted for reform candidates.
It's very odd that so many people over here want to legitimize the election so quickly.
I'm curious, where you draw your analogy that "so many people over here" are trying to legitimize the election?
The problem is, we keep getting things wrong, and with scant overall countrywide news coverage, it's hard for Americans and Westerners in general to draw a bead on what's really happening.
In addition, though there has been a continued population growth in the cities, my sources indicate more like 60% live there as opposed to 70% - but then again, like polls in Iran, how accurate are "sources?"
is one of the foundations of democratic suffrage and legitimacy. Census conduct and results are divisive here, where it's a constitutional plank, and can be a bag of tinder in a highly displaced population like Iraq, where two neighbors may not accept the other's participation or presence.
If competing factions aren't willing to lose and live under the rule of the other, balloting is a atep towards coup or revolution, not a democratic rule of law.
I'd like to hear Best Defense reactions to the assertion linked below, that Khameini's Revolution for years has been conducting internal purges and external assassinations of dissidents, while international focus cycles between uranium and Iran's foreign initiatives.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/roya-hakakian/the-feast-and-famine-of-i_b_217379.html
Is it so wrong to expect that even if Ahmadinejad did "win," that the regime should still not be beating, whipping and shooting their own people, or unleashing their militia thugs on the population? Is it too much for us to speak out for basic human rights? And yes, people over here have been trying to legitimize the elections. New America Foundation has been going gung ho trying to do this - witness their inane op-ed in the WaPo the other day, which the WaPo's political blogger immediately tore apart.
Iranian accusations against us have not been that we meddled in their affairs at all, it's that we continuously spoke of democracy while simultaneously meddling in their affairs to prevent democracy. And yet again, we speak lovely words about democracy and prefer to stick with the thugs when the rubber hits the road. We love us some short term stability - even if it leads to a 9/11 in the long run.
Obama is failing epically on this.
Based on the the fact that most Iranians are probably well aware of the US' past history of interfering in Iranian government (1953 Mossadeq), I'd be hesitant to seem even the least bit complicit in interfering or even providing endorsement in the Iranian elections. Any action could backfire epically.
"Any action could backfire..."
The reasonable tone of your comment either hopes or assumes that we can somehow escape the perception that the US could, would and/or is meddling.
Consider the location of our armies, in shooting wars that include ops against what we declare to be IRG/Quds proxies. Our nuclear fleets operate up to (and historically inside) Iranian waters, while our powerful diplomatic machine tries to set conditions for increased economic attacks on their country. Before the smoke cleared in Gaza, Likud hawks were 'elected' to replace Olmert in the 'bomb Iran' debate. That stuff all looms large, seen thru Iranian field glasses.
I'm not doubting a broad domestic US lack of curiosity re whether we kept hands off the election and protests. I do say that assumption should be questioned here, and IMO the opposite perception prevails abroad. It's laughably absurd to Iran government supporters, who are numerous, vocal, and backed by a lethal national security state which IS being threatened, at home and abroad.
Khameini made good use of US containment ops, and the peculiar US-Israel-Georgia initiative, in a mass pep rally in the face of Tehran U. God bless CSPAN for carrying it live, in toto. The supremo-for-life had them chanting and saluting, without breaking a sweat. It was instructive in how to sell the big lie. And it must have been frightening for the student opposition, with their campus occupied by mobilized zealots and Khameini's security team.
May Allah have mercy on the prisoners and their families. The revolutionary guard has tortured grand ayatollahs and shot prime ministers. One whack on the skull is all it takes to kill the likes of Steve Biko.
Against violence, for the right of peaceful protest
These things Obama has spoken out about. What he has, and should continue to, avoid is signaling that the U.S. stands behind the protesters in their effort to bring about a particular outcome in this dispute. That is a mater to be determined by the forces at play in Iran, not nudged this way or that by American or other outside influence.
Is it so wrong to expect that even if Ahmadinejad did "win," that the regime should still not be beating, whipping and shooting their own people, or unleashing their militia thugs on the population?
Were you alive during the 1968 Democratic convention?
This sort of thing just happens. You get a whole lot of protesters on the street and some violence occurs and it gets out of hand.
But we didn't let it stop us from having our full share of democracy. Hubert Humphrey won the nomination and lost the election, and Nixon democratically kept us in vietnam long enough to get us peace with honor before stepping down over Watergate. It all worked out smooth.
Since then we've learned how to handle such things. Nowadays when the situation might arise, they offer careful permits for legal protests. You can stage your legal mass meeting inside a chain-link enclosure surrounded by police, in an out-of-the-way location where nobody much will come unless they're absolutely certain they want to be there.
Or you can have an illegal mass meeting and then you're just asking for it. They hire police overtime from a four-state area to be ready. They have special crowd-control technology in backup, with special soaps to turn the streets too slippery to walk on, and sonic guns to cause mass panic, and various other nonlethal devices. We've come a long way from the days of attack dogs and fire hoses.
Iran just wasn't ready. They didn't know how to handle mass protest the way we do, and it's a propaganda coup for us that they didn't.
We think we are so free here. It's ridiculously blinkered self-involvement. People like Peggy Noonan (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124535660563828707.html) say we are reflexively for the protesters. What if hundreds of thousands were marching, not obediantly on the Mall, but past her house, in the streets, at the Pentagon, wherever they damn well pleased, seriously threatening the stability of our government while we were under threat from other countries seeking to limit our access to nuclear energy? Do we really think she'd be reflexively for our protesters then? It's baloney, completely ridiculous. The support-the-protesters crowd is so full of itself, sometimes I wonder whether they actually realize what a major thing it is they are so blithely "supporting." It is a major deal if Iran tips. Huge unknown consequences. If there is one thing we should all agree on it's that it should happen truly of its own accord. And we should be in no rush to having to calculate the potential major changes in our posture, or at least our assessments of scenarios. It'll be a new world we'll have to comprehend. Let's take a breath and see what happens here, not hyperventilate in breathless anticipation.
Of course not. Who's saying that it's OK, or that Obama didn't explicitly speak out against this? There's little we can do beyond speaking out against it, though, and it's important to not provide the illusion that we'll be there with material support barring a wider conflict. Obama saying, "This needs to stop, or else!" would be toothless; thanks to Bush's posturing we have no carrots to pull away from Iran, and there's zero support for involving the States in another war.
Nevermind that the protestors are printing their signs in English...and Spanish...and French...
Nevermind that the protestors have explicitly said the protests would fail without Obama's support.
Nevermind that "hundreds of parents have gathered by a police station in Yousef Abad, now known as Seyyed Jamal Aldin Asad Abadi, with their hands raised to the sky saying “Obama, please help us, they are killing our young children.” They were gathering there because their kids are missing and they were trying to find out where they are."
http://niacblog.wordpress.com/2009/06/14/election-unrest-day-two/
As I mentioned, Iranian ire at American meddling has been because our meddling has been specifically to thwart the supposedly democratic desires of the people. A completely different situation from today. I thought Democrats were supposed to be all about the "nuance."
Obama told us we should elect him because he could bring America the good will of the world. If that indeed is what happened, he's pi$$ing away the good will as we speak.
the protestors have said nothing of the kind.
you are not a "chook" you are a kook.
Either you can't read in english, or you can't use twitter.
Explains your vapid "nothing of the kind"
the protestors have said nothing of the kind.
Not true!
There are lots of different protestors. All it takes to join the protest is to go out in the street, or to say you've joined the protest.
The ones with perfectly-printed signs in English aren't speaking to iranians, they're speaking to you. The ones doing Twitter in english aren't speaking to iranians either. They're in the protest because they say they are. And they say they need the US military to bomb them to victory, or else they'll lose.
See, what they've got is an argument between two different bunches of iranian clerics. They disagree, and they don't know which vision of islamic rule evolved from the revolution resonates better among the iranian public. But ... these guys talking to americans ....
Imagine this. Imagine it's 1968 and the world is televising US protestors outside the Democratic convention in chicago. The police are using tear gas and bloodying heads. They beat up some reporters too, including foreign reporters. They break some foreign TV cameras. The world is watching! Meanwhile the biggest issue of the day is vietnam, and every candidate pledges to get US troops out of vietnam one way or another, and likely most of them are lying -- but we find that out only for the winner. And among the protestors there are a few american communists. The american communists send messages to russia, saying that unless the USSR supports the revolt it will be ended quickly.
Like that. Those communists speaking to russia -- in russian -- were "the protestors" as much as anybody else was. And yet they didn't exactly represent the population.
Never mind - because they are spineless rats. They are cowards. They like democracy for themselves, the yuppies, but they can't give a chicken shit for someone who doesn't have it.
Looooooosers.
Every time I see one of those "Where is my vote?" signs in English, I worry even more.
Pa-thetic!!
You should be worried. you should be. Because everytime you close your eyes, the chance that sign will soon disappear, increases.
I said it once, I'll say it again.
PACK OF COLLABORATORS.
When the thugs come back marching in, you can discuss polls, and authoritarianism. But please, don't pretend you didn't contribute to their victory rally.
The June 12 Revolution: . . . there's no going back . . .
The Weekly Standard
From The June 29, 2009 Issue:
The June 12 Revolution
Whatever happens in Tehran, there's no going back to the Ayatollah Khomeini's Islamic Republic.
By Reuel Marc Gerecht
The modern Middle East has had numerous "game-changing" moments, when history turned. Napoleon Bonaparte's invasion of Egypt in 1798, Muhammad Ali's conquest of the Nile Valley in 1805, and the French invasion of Algeria in 1830 introduced Europeans and European ideas into the region. The British discovery of oil in Persia in 1908, the collapse of the Ottoman Empire in 1918, the Saudi conquest of Mecca and Medina in 1925, the awakening of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood in 1928, the Arab Revolt in Palestine in 1936, and the God-father-like victory of Gamal Abdel Nasser in Cairo in 1954 further accelerated tradition-crushing Westernization and gave birth to nationalism, pan-Arabism, and contemporary Islamic fundamentalism. The Israeli triumph in the 1967 Six Day War, the Iranian revolution of 1979, the fall of Saddam Hussein in 2003, and the birth of Iraqi democracy two years later buried secular pan-Arab dictatorship, politically inflamed the Islamic identity, and set the stage for the growth of representative government in a more religious Middle East.
The Iranian presidential election of June 12 may soon rank with these history-making events. We may well look back on it as the "June 12 revolution" even if . . .
It's a pity that President Obama has trapped himself in a doomed outreach to Khamenei. Even if Mousavi wins the present tug-of-war, he'll probably support Iran's continued development of nuclear weapons. He was in office when the Islamic Republic first became serious about building the bomb; his powerful backer, Rafsanjani, is the true father of the nuclear program; and there is little reason why Mousavi would want to anger a pro-nuclear Revolutionary Guard Corps that had refrained from downing him.
But for there to be any chance that Iran will cease and desist from its nuclear quest, Mousavi must win the present struggle. If Ahmadinejad and Khamenei triumph, they will not relent. For them, and for the Revolutionary Guard behind them, nuclear weapons are the means to become global players and secure the power they can no longer confidently draw from their own people. Triumphant, the Revolutionary Guard, who have overseen all of the Islamic Republic's outreach efforts to Arab extremists like Hamas and Hezbollah, will surely get nastier abroad as they become more vicious at home.
The principal issue right now inside Iran isn't the nuclear question. It's what it has been since Khomeini died: How do you escape from a religious revolution? Mousavi might, just might, have an answer. Even if he is not our friend--and turns out to be in many ways our enemy--we should all pray that he wins. President Obama would do well to be just a bit more forceful in defending democracy for a people who must surely have earned his respect. Iranians will forgive the president his "meddling." He does carry, after all, the name of the man--Hussein, the prophet's grandson--who long ago defined Shiism's boundless admiration for those who defend their people and their faith from tyranny.
Reuel Marc Gerecht, a WEEKLY STANDARD contributing editor, is a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies.
© Copyright 2009, News Corporation, Weekly Standard, All Rights Reserved.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/016/649ktodb.asp
Read More
January/February 2010
-
Cover Story
-
Dispatch
-
Feature
About FP: Meet the Staff | Foreign Editions | Reprint Permissions | Advertising | Corporate Programs | Writers’ Guidelines | Press Room | Work at FP
Services:Subscription Services | Academic Program | FP Archive | Reprint Permissions | FP Reports and Merchandise | Special Reports | Buy Back Issues
Subscribe to FP | Privacy Policy | Disclaimer | RSS Feeds | Contact Us
1899 L Street NW, Suite 550 | Washington, DC 20036 | Phone: 202-728-7300 | Fax: 202-728-7342
FOREIGN POLICY is published by the Slate Group, a division of Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive, LLC
All contents ©2009 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive, LLC. All rights reserved.
(25)
HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE