Engagement With a Post-Crackdown Iran
Ali Khamenei doesn't seem very interested in what the outside world thinks of him.
With the possibility of brutal suppression of the current round of protests very real, the question naturally arises as to what such a turn of events would mean for Barack Obama’s proposed policy of engagement with Iran. Robert Farley comments:
If the regime survives, it will be because of the loyalty and brutality of its security forces. With that brutality on display on US televisions (if only rarely) it will be much more difficult for Obama to build any domestic support for talks. Moreover, it’s not clear that he should; knowing that the Iranian regime was repressive before these latest incidents, and acknowledging that many US allies in the region don’t even bother with the fiction of elections doesn’t change the fact that it’s an ugly bit of business. I’d rather, other things being equal, not have my President engage with Iran while the current group of thugs is in power. Finally, I do think that the repression has opened greater opportunity for what might be termed a non-interventionist coercive strategy; this is to say that more and tougher sanctions against the regime are on the table now than was the case two weeks ago.
I would add to that the observation that a regime win would simply make me much less confident that engagement will work. The hope behind an engagement strategy was that the Supreme Leader might be inclined to side with the more pragmatic actors inside the system—guys like former president Rafsanjani and former prime minister Mousavi. With those people, and most of the Iranian elites of their ilk, now in open opposition to the regime, any crackdown would almost by definition entail the sidelining of the people who might be interested in a deal. Iran would essentially be in the hands of the most hardline figures, people who just don’t seem interested in improving relations with other countries.
Under the circumstances, the whole subject of American engagement may well wind up being moot.
43 Responses to “Engagement With a Post-Crackdown Iran”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
June 23rd, 2009 at 10:04 am
Hmm. Maybe they are taking their cues from Israel.
June 23rd, 2009 at 10:11 am
If the regime survives, it will be because of the loyalty and brutality of its security forces.
This seems like an overstatement. My sense is that the vast majority of people who were in the streets are not revolutionary regime-changers, but reformists of different stripes seeking to have an election annulled, and to bring about social changes that fall far short of regime change. If the regime survives, the use of violence will have been a less important factor than the fact that most Iranians do not want to change the regime.
The protesters clearly do want to change their president. And following the biased intervention of the Leader, most probably want to see the leader replaced as well. Both can happen without changing the regime, although the latter is more challenging than the former.
June 23rd, 2009 at 10:15 am
“If the regime survives, it will be because of the loyalty and brutality of its security forces.”
I’m no fan of the ayatollahs but some perspective is necessary here. In the international scheme of things, 16 dead, or however many it is, is not very many and does not stand out as an act of brutality. And there were really riots going on, including a suicide attack on one of the most revered religious shrines in the country.
I’m not defending the ayatollahs and I laud the reformers in Iran. I’m just saying that we no longer occupy the moral high ground that would make it possible for us to complain about it without looking like completely un-selfconscious moral hypocrites.
A stolen election? Ha. Hahaha! Bwahahahahahahahaha!!!
Stolen election? I remember a country where an election got stolen. And afterward? The guy who stole the election created a big hoax and used that hoax as an excuse to launch an illegal war of aggression that got a million people killed.
Come back to me about that stolen election when Ahmadinejad gins up a story about Israel having WMD and then starts a war with them that gets a million Israelis killed. Oh wait — even that wouldn’t be as bad as what Bush did because Israel actually HAS WMD. Get back to me when Ahmadinejad creates a hoax about Argentina and starts a war there and gets a million Argentinians killed.
Then we’ll be in the position to complain about Iran.
June 23rd, 2009 at 10:15 am
You can’t tell if engagement is moot without trying it first. What has been going on doesn’t change the calculus that negotiation is better for the U.S. and for Iran than the alternatives. If engagement fails, it fails. Then you move on to plan B if there is one. Isolating Iran, imposing new sanctions on it, and or attacking it militarily are highly unlikely to make the regime change its behavior in a way that we would approve of. Or to put it more simpler: don’t repeat Iraq.
June 23rd, 2009 at 10:19 am
Actually, I overstated my case in my previous post. We would not then be in the position to complain about Iran. At that point we would only be on the same footing as Iran — still not occupying any morally higher ground.
In fact, one key difference between the U.S and Iran is that at least in Iran when an election appears to have been stolen (maybe), people get out in the street and are even wiling to die. In America, we just change the channel or at best put it on Fox News and get the official exculpatory propaganda.
June 23rd, 2009 at 10:20 am
Under the circumstances, the whole subject of American engagement may well wind up being moot.
I don’t know about that. If Iran ends up as a pure dictatorship with no elections at all but lots of oil, it could join the rank of many of our “friends” in the Middle East.
June 23rd, 2009 at 10:20 am
Farley’s assessment is totally vacuous. During the Nixon administration, the United States implemented
a formal policy of constructive engagement with the People’s Republic of China, also a brutally repressive regime. We reversed more than two decades of unrelenting hostility, even though at the time US intelligence officials knew that China was supporting the North Vietnamese.
An abhorrent regime is not critical enough to prohibit meaningful dialogue. We should recognize that engaging rather than isolating Iran is to America’s strategic advantage.
June 23rd, 2009 at 10:21 am
Matt and Farley are right to point out that the US domestic political opposition to engagement with Iran will now be much more intense and broad-based.
I wouldn’t say that necessarily means that engagement is less likely to work. If Ahmadinejad’s presidency and Khamenei’s leadership both survive, both men will nevertheless be severely weakened and the vultures will be out among the people and the regime’s elite. They will be under pressure to restore credibility and legitimacy to their government by avoiding international isolation and delivering something of value to state.
June 23rd, 2009 at 10:21 am
It’s easy enough to read between the lines of your average WaPo editorial that the neocon right, wants to deal with a Post-Crackdown Ahmadi-nejad regieme. Their We’re-All-Iranians-Now now shtick is just a cynical set up for the forthcoming Bomb-Baby-Bomb campaign.
But If there’s one thing I’ve come to understand about the neocon rump, its that their cynicism is trumped only by their short-sightedness. Here’s another question: what if Mousavi actually wins? Where will the neocon right be then?
SOL, if you ask me. Once they burn through their self-congratulatory acolades for “being on the right side of history,” they have nowhere to pivot. Their favored talking point that Obama is a naive idealist has now been displaced by the meme that he is a cynical realist. If and when a potential Mousavi administration pursues Iran’s nuclear program, Hiatt’s Profiles in Courage series will blow up in his face. Sanctions and military action will now seem less palatable. Their disingenuousness will be their own undoing.
The neocons have bet the house on a Ahmadinejad victory. They might win big. Or they might get completely wiped out.
June 23rd, 2009 at 10:23 am
If circumstances were different, the United States could really tighten the screws on Iran by blockading the oil shipping ports. Having oil revenues drop to or near zero would cause all sorts of chaos in Iran and might lead to regime change. Even skipping over the aforementioned “might” issue, the fact remains that the American and European economies are just too fragile to be able to deal with the massive oil price spikes this action would cause.
June 23rd, 2009 at 10:25 am
(1) Sanctions don’t work.
(2) Iran has a *right* to nuclear development. (Oslo)
(3) There is *no evidence* that Iran is weaponizing its nuclear program.
(4) Realism demands that you talk with people who you wouldn’t want to be friends with.
(5) If we *don’t* talk with Iran, we *will* bomb them–just you watch.
June 23rd, 2009 at 10:35 am
(3) There is *no evidence* that Iran is weaponizing its nuclear program.
That hawk International Atomic Energy Agency Director-General Mohamed ElBaradei just said he believes they wan it.
http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE55G21V20090617
What do you say to that?
(5) If we *don’t* talk with Iran, we *will* bomb them–just you watch.
And bomb the hipster twitterers? I doubt it. Israel might, but then they’re loco.
why oh why:
I don’t know about that. If Iran ends up as a pure dictatorship with no elections at all but lots of oil, it could join the rank of many of our “friends” in the Middle East.
When Iran gets nukes our “friends” will get nukes too. Which isn’t good. And at least they don’t threaten to wipe democratic Israel off the map on a daily basis.
June 23rd, 2009 at 10:38 am
Oh, don’t worry – Obama’s diplomacy with the Iranian thugs is still on:
US says hot dog diplomacy still on with Iran
WASHINGTON (AFP) — The United States said Monday its invitations were still standing for Iranian diplomats to attend July 4 celebrations at US embassies despite the crackdown on opposition supporters.
President Barack Obama’s administration said earlier this month it would invite Iran to US embassy barbecues for the national holiday for the first time since the two nations severed relations following the 1979 Islamic revolution.
“There’s no thought to rescinding the invitations to Iranian diplomats,” State Department spokesman Ian Kelly told reporters.
June 23rd, 2009 at 10:38 am
Hey, the week before the election we (including the White House) were all in favor of finding a way to engage with these guys. Now they pull a Florida on their voters and we no longer want to talk to them about the nukes they intend to cook up in the basement? crazy talk.
we have no choice but to continue trying to engage. and i say that as one who admires the Iranians’ courage right now. i SO wish we had hit the streets after Florida in 2000 as they are doing now.
we don’t have the moral high ground. THEY–the Iranians in the streets at risk of life and everything they have–are on the moral high ground. And they have a correct analysis of their situation, i might add. they are acting on Frederick Douglass’s famous dictum that ‘power cedes nothing without a demand. it never has and it never will.’
would that we had paid closer attention to that in 2000. we might have saved thousands of lives. (not to mention our dignity and our right to claim the label of ‘a free people.)
yet and still, if they lose–and i hope their god hears their cries and they win–but IF they lose we will have no choice but to deal with the jokers who are in power. just as for all these last years the rest of the world had no choice but to deal with the jokers we had allowed to seize power.
an ugly truth, but a truth.
June 23rd, 2009 at 10:39 am
Farley, now Yglesias. What to do when the entire phalanx of support for a primary plank in an epochal election battle crumbles at the first sign of trouble?
Double down, that’s what: First, what’s your endgame? After you impoverish and weaken these West-looking reformers now in the streets (soon to have their heads and spirits crushed) with sanctions and give the government a real excuse for the primary source of domestic dissatisfaction (see Larison on this), how do you consolidate your new leverage over a newly acquiescent regime into verifiable abandonment of enrichment?
Second, a positive argument: What is a primary distinction of the man the protesters are following into the bullets and clubs? An openness to engagement with the West (we found out how committed they were to this idea when Obama questioned just how open a new government would actually be). Obama is being taken to task for failing to support the protesters. The best way for Obama to show support for the demands of the opposition we all wish to support so earnestly is through the one legitimate way for countries to show support or rejection of another country’s internal politics: more or less open diplomatic and economic engagement. Why should the result of the protests be that one of the protesters principal hopes be snatched away? These developments have shown the regime to be fragile and weaker than we though. The adage is to negotiate from strength — we have allies on the streets of Tehran. Perhaps when they are no longer directly in harm’s way their sacrifice can be used as leverage against their oppressors to help achieve the aims that it doesn’t appear they will be able directly to extract themselves.
June 23rd, 2009 at 10:49 am
Even skipping over the aforementioned “might” issue, the fact remains that the American and European economies are just too fragile to be able to deal with the massive oil price spikes this action would cause.
And sanctions will just destroy Iran as they destroyed Iraq, leaving the post-dictaror country a mess. The thing to do is increase trade and interaction with the rational citizenry. I don’t know what you do about the nukes.
June 23rd, 2009 at 10:49 am
Al, good catch. I certainly think that it would be appropriate to cancel the invitations to Iranian diplomats for the July 4 celebration; it’s one thing to “engage” an oppressive regime, quite another to celebrate independence with one right after they’ve just finished suppressing democracy.
June 23rd, 2009 at 10:49 am
Engagement isn’t some favor the U.S. is conferring on Iran, engagement is the recognition of reality. It is the lack of engagement so far that has made the U.S. effort to say something about what is happening in Iran farcical – as in, having condemned your Islamic state and its constitution for 30 years, we are appalled that you are violating the principles of your Islamic state and constitution.
Iran should be recognized, and the sanction regime should be tossed in the garbage. Not only does this recognize reality, but it will be immeasurably helpful to the U.S. as it gets out of Iraq.
I’m surprised MY is making this case.
June 23rd, 2009 at 10:52 am
This is a little overblown.
While I am resolutley opposed to the Iranian regime, in the grander scheme, the crackdown is really not that significant an example of state sponsored violence, yet at least.
I do concede that the American public will be less atuned to formal recognition of Iran, but that does not mean that it should be off the table or that it is unpallitable.
As others here noted, we have succesfully engaged with “enemies states China, USSR etc) that were incredibly more brutal than what has thus far transpired in Iran. While the Chinese Great Leap and other such events did not occur with Twitter and the iphone, the regimes were certainly more oppressive.
As for sanction: They may take on a renewed spirit, but they are often fruitless. From North Korea to Iraq, they either further isolate the country or radicalize its populace against the US. For now, I think it is pragmatic to wait this event out and not rush to overblown conclusions. The unnecesary ginning up of hardline rhetoric serves the US no strategic purpose as it stands.
June 23rd, 2009 at 11:00 am
The zionist propaganda program continues full-force. And it is very effective. The zionists have constantly lied from their beginnings and they apparently don’t intend to stop.
Ahmedinejad said the zionist state should fade into the past-not that Iran would destroy Israel.
The mullahs have declared nuclear weapons to be “un-Islamic”.
Iran is bitter enemies with Al Qaeda and the Taliban and offered assistance to the US in combating them. Iran was sympathetic to the US after 9/11 and offered assistance, but was rebuffed because of zionist objections.
The zionists need a scary enemy to divert attention from their ongoing crimes against humanity. Israel has committed more crimes in the last week than Iran has done in the last century.
June 23rd, 2009 at 11:01 am
Well if a brutal crackdown is required to maintain the current regime, the current regime is gone within ten years, anyway. Which means that the role of the US regime is to prepare for the day win the reformers do win.
June 23rd, 2009 at 11:16 am
When Iran gets nukes our “friends” will get nukes too. Which isn’t good. And at least they don’t threaten to wipe democratic Israel off the map on a daily basis.
As long as Israel has nukes and threatens to bomb Iran every few months, getting nukes is the logical thing to do for Iranians.
June 23rd, 2009 at 11:20 am
Al, good catch. I certainly think that it would be appropriate to cancel the invitations to Iranian diplomats for the July 4 celebration; it’s one thing to “engage” an oppressive regime, quite another to celebrate independence with one right after they’ve just finished suppressing democracy.
So embassies should also uninvite Saudis, Egyptians, Israeli and citizens of about half of the countries in the world? What’s so special about Iran?
June 23rd, 2009 at 11:52 am
Regimes with questionable legitimacy are sometimes ideal negotiating partners, because they’re desperate for external support (however tacit) and demonstrable successes. In Colombia, after Ernesto Samper’s 1994 campaign was shown to be shot-through with drug money, the US was able to get everything they wanted out of him for four years. Of course, in that case the “everything they wanted” was mostly related to the specific legitimacy deficit of the Samper regime, which wouldn’t be true for Iran, but it’s still something to consider.
June 23rd, 2009 at 11:52 am
That hawk International Atomic Energy Agency Director-General Mohamed ElBaradei just said he believes they wan it.
Poptarts – you are being a bit disingenuous – ElBaredei says that Iran wants the technology so that if in future Iran decides that it wants weapons then it can build weapons. Which is not the same as wanting weapons now. For example, if Israel attacks Iran with nuclear weapons who, except America, would deny Iran the right to reply in kind?
As to talking with the current regime in Tehran. Ahmadinejad is more devoted to the islamic revolution in Iran than Mousavi. With Mousavi, there is the possibility that a future more reactionary president like Ahmadinejad would repudiate any agreement with the US. It is unlikely that Mousavi would repudiate any agreement that Ahmadinejad made with the US. Democracy will not always deliver a result that suits the US.
June 23rd, 2009 at 12:00 pm
Poptarts – you are being a bit disingenuous – ElBaredei says that Iran wants the technology so that if in future Iran decides that it wants weapons then it can build weapons. Which is not the same as wanting weapons now. For example, if Israel attacks Iran with nuclear weapons who, except America, would deny Iran the right to reply in kind?
I see this as an example of the careless bitter left. They really just don’t care and are the type that will cut off their nose to spite their face.
Everyone should have nukes goes the argument. Yeah that will turn out well.
June 23rd, 2009 at 12:38 pm
Ahmadinejad won. Get over it.
Maybe not entirely fair and square, but he did.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0609/23745.html
June 23rd, 2009 at 12:55 pm
Although I think Matt has a point about the Obama administration facing stronger internal US opposition to direct engagement with Iran if the current regime survives, I don’t think his other point about it altering the practical or moral calculus of engagement is necessarily correct. It’s entirely possible that what’s playing out is purely an effort to retain the regime’s personal power and access to wealth–in other words, it’s not at all or only remotely ideological. If that’s correct, then the outcome should have relatively little effect on the regime’s willingness to engage with the US.
I would also point out, as others in the comments have alluded to, the Iranian regime faces internal pressures, just like the Obama administration does. I think it’s extremely difficult to tell at this point whether those pressures will be in favor of or opposed to engagement with the US.
June 23rd, 2009 at 1:02 pm
Al you realize that the Ahmadinejad Won article you referenced is now almost two weeks old. A lot of new information has come to light since then. I’d be curious to hear what the authors have to say no.
June 23rd, 2009 at 1:02 pm
Not all conservatives in Iran, including Ahmadinejad, are opposed to engagemennt with the United States. The International Crisis group released an excellent report last month on this subject:
June 23rd, 2009 at 1:05 pm
Iran would essentially be in the hands of the most hardline figures, people who just don’t seem interested in improving relations with other countries.
I don’t necesarily see this as Khamenei supporting hardline positions, it seems more supporting the political allies who will one day soon choose his successor. His seems to want his second son, Mojtaba,to succeed him, and that son is closely aligned with the current government.
http://www.iranunited.com/forums/showthread.php?t=9155
June 23rd, 2009 at 1:27 pm
26, Lots of people have nuked and the world is still here.
your problem is that you think White Americans have magical self-control powers, and if brown people get nuclear ways Its All Over because of those fiery/ignorant/primitive hordes won’t be able to handle it.
June 23rd, 2009 at 1:50 pm
Soullite
your problem is that you think White Americans have magical self-control powers, and if brown people get nuclear ways Its All Over because of those fiery/ignorant/primitive hordes won’t be able to handle it.
Of course you would Mau Mau the issue. The more people with nukes, the greater the probability one will go off or be sold off to terrorists.
Have a few go off and the world goes fascist and then you’d really have something to complain about.
But of course the nuclear powers are as indifferent and cavalier as Soullite and aren’t trying to provide a good example. He’d rather have the world burn then for it to be unfair.
June 23rd, 2009 at 1:58 pm
Boy, I couldn’t disagree with you more. We talk to the Chinese, and they killed the better part of a million Tibetans. I think you’re completely out to lunch on this one. Ignoring the Iranians because they killed 16 people in riots ? Well, we killed a fifty to a hundred thousand times as many Iraquis, so maybe the real truth is that the Iranians should feel entitled not to bother with us, don’t you think ?
June 23rd, 2009 at 2:38 pm
Blame America First – Which part of my comment were you referring to? The part clarifying ElBaredei’s interview? Or the part about Israel?
June 23rd, 2009 at 2:42 pm
Poptarts,
From your El Baradei article: “My gut feeling is that Iran definitely would like to have the technology … that would enable it to have nuclear weapons if they decided to do so,” he told the BBC.
1) Would like to have the technology
2) That would enable it to have nuclear weapons
3) If they decided to do so.
That is several steps removed from “is weaponizing its nuclear program.”
June 23rd, 2009 at 4:02 pm
“What’s so special about Iran?”
Is this a serious question? Have you seen a front page of a newspaper recently?
It’s not about whether Iran is The Worst Regime Out There, it’s about what they’re doing right now. A developing crisis is more important to condemn than an unpleasant status quo.
June 23rd, 2009 at 4:33 pm
It’s not about whether Iran is The Worst Regime Out There, it’s about what they’re doing right now. A developing crisis is more important to condemn than an unpleasant status quo.
How many days do embassies have to wait before they can invite Iranians again? Does the number of people killed matter, and if it does, what to make of the 1600 Palestinians killed by Israel?
Anyway, I wonder if Iran cares more about the current trade sanctions, or whether her diplomats get invited to American cocktail parties.
June 23rd, 2009 at 4:54 pm
“How many days do embassies have to wait before they can invite Iranians again?”
This crisis could certainly still be going on when July 4 runs around, so “any” is a good start.
I’d be in favor of symbolically (at the very least) chastising Israel for its treatment of the Palestinians, so you haven’t scored a point over me there.
Obviously July 4 is just symbolic, and doesn’t matter as much as trade sanctions. I think symbolism is more important in politics than it is at other times, though.
June 23rd, 2009 at 6:01 pm
Once again, it was stupid of Obama to wait until the elections in order to engage Iran. It is stupid NOW to wait until the turmoil settles to engage Iran. Engaging might well help the situation in various ways.
If the US has been dealing with assorted scum over the years, it’s ridiculous not to engage Iran. The nuclear issue will only go away when they are engaged. Otherwise the US risks Israel starting a war and dragging the US into it.
And again, it doesn’t matter which Iranian side wins the current dispute, they BOTH support Iran’s nuclear energy program. Obama needs to deal with that reality and acknowledge that Iran has a right to enrichment. Then he can proceed with negotiating means of insuring that Iran’s program will remain peaceful.
Going back to Bush’s “Axis of Evil” approach isn’t going to work.
June 23rd, 2009 at 8:45 pm
Recognizing Iran and removing the sanctions serves every American interest in the Middle East, but it also makes scolding Iran’s ruling class more realistic. If there were a considerable amount of trade between Iran and the U.S., the U.S. would have more leverage.
Of course, that doesn’t always work. In spite of the outcry, the newspaper headlines, and Krackhousehammer’s impassioned plea that we bomb Israel, we still couldn’t keep Israelis from killing oh, forty to one hundred times the number of civilians killed by the police in Iran. But those were times of a moral high – I’m sure we all remember how the U.S. acted to express its anger at the massacres and vowed never, ever to give Israel aid again.
Or… maybe that didn’t happen, and was another in the long series of factors that has reduced America’s moral credance in the Middle East to zip among the people, although we still count for a lot to a select audience of oil rich shieks and petty tyrants.
June 23rd, 2009 at 8:48 pm
PS – I’m, of course, referring to the late unpleasantness in Gaza.
June 25th, 2009 at 2:42 am
[...] But at least we won’t be “engaging with Iran.” Matthew Yglesias explains: [...]