Obama's Charm Offensive To Iran

The New Republic: Bush Fundamentally Misunderstood The Iranian Regime -- Will Obama Make The Same Mistake?

(The New Republic)  This story was written by Laura Secor.

---

You could almost hear the international sigh of relief that greeted President Obama's videotaped message to Iran last week. After eight years of bluster and threats, an American president civilly addressed both Iran's people and its leaders; he spoke of mutual respect, of Iran's role in making the world "a better and more beautiful place," of "shared hopes" and "common dreams." The buzz among ordinary Iranians inside and outside Iran was overwhelmingly positive. But I couldn't help but think of an instant message I received from a young journalist in Iran the day Obama was elected. "When is your olive branch coming," he wrote sardonically, "so we can reject it?"

Sure enough, the response to Obama's remarks from Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the head of the Iranian state and the commander of its armed forces, was swift and negative. Khamenei told a crowd in Mashhad on March 21 that America's extended hand looked like an iron fist encased in a velvet glove. Recalling American support for Iraq in the 1980-1988 Iran-Iraq war, and the United States's accidental shooting down of an Iranian passenger plane in 1988, Khamenei wondered aloud if Obama was changing America's policy or only its rhetoric:

"Did you release Iran's frozen assets? Did you lift the sanctions against us? Did you give up slandering and broadcasting negative propaganda against our nation? Did you give up your unconditional support for the Zionist regime? ... In any case, all the American officials as well as other people must know that the Iranian nation will not be deceived or intimidated."

With that, Khamenei laid dead the notion that the problem between the United States and Iran could be resolved simply through outreach, however gracious, on the part of an American president. There was a dignity to the leader's message: He would not be flattered by superficial niceties, like the show of familiarity with Persian tradition. He would believe change when he saw it.

But there was also a desperate anachronism in his return to grievances from the 1980s, as though he were trying to coax a flame from a blackening ember at a time when the populations of both countries have long since moved on. In Iran, ordinary people and even much of the political elite would welcome renewed ties with the United States. But the regime is controlled by a core of hardliners whose raison d'etre is threatened by such a prospect. This part of the Iranian political establishment draws its authority from revolutionary ideology and the armed militias it spawned. Anti-Americanism is not merely an incidental, easily dispensable part of its foreign policy. It is a fundamental first principle that justifies the existence of the revolutionary regime.

President Obama is no fool. Surely his message was calculated to produce the image of Iran's leadership standing athwart its people, harkening them to the past. Many Iranians associate their government's 30-year stand-off with the United States with the country's deepening woes. The economy is a shambles; even the most moderate opposition has been closed out of the political system, while many of its supporters have been intimidated into silence or exile; and the paramilitary forces and police have stepped up control of the streets. Now an appealing new American president, one whose middle name is Hussein and whose last name sounds like the phrase "he is with us" in Farsi, has come on the air to suggest a new era of respectful engagement. If anyone stands in the way of that, it will be Iran's own leadership, not an easy strawman like George W. Bush. It's a move Obama honed on Congressional Republicans before he took it to Iran, using little but courtesy and a smile to call the Iranian regime's bluff and ratchet up the pressure on it to engage.

For too long in this country, our debate has turned on the simplistic question of whether the Iranian regime is pragmatic or ideological in its foreign policy, and therefore whether we should talk to it or threaten it. In my view, it is pragmatic, and we should talk to it. But to say that the Iranian regime is pragmatic is to say that it pursues its interests, rather than acting on ideological conviction at all costs. It does not tell us what the Iranian regime's interests are.

There can be no more urgent interest than the regime's own survival, which is threatened by internal pressure for democratization. The anti-American and anti-Israeli stances bind the hardliners to their small but loyal and heavily armed constituency, and they furnish a pretext for domestic repression, as members of the opposition are jailed and tarred with accusations of participating in American or Zionist plots to overthrow the government. To give up this trump card--the non-relationship with the United States, the easy evocation of an external bogeyman--would be costly for the Iranian leadership. It would be a Gorbachevian signal that the revolution is entering a dramatically new phase--one Iran's leaders cannot be certain of surviving in power.

The Bush administration got this dynamic all wrong when it insisted that Iran meet preconditions before coming to the negotiating table. The working assumption was that the lure of talks with the United States would be powerful enough to impel the Iranians to make a major concession. But what if talking to the United States is itself a concession--perhaps one of the toughest for the Iranians to make? That puts us in the very different, far less advantageous position of needing to offer Iran something it truly wants--like a security guarantee--up front. That's appeasement, critics might object: How can we give up our trump card right at the outset? It looks bad if you think of it as unilateral disarmament. It looks less bad if you consider that the very act of entering direct talks with us means something for the Iranian regime that it doesn't mean for us.

Iran and the United States do have common interests, particularly in Afghanistan, where Iran's positive role in the 2001 Bonn Conference has been cited frequently as proof that it can be flexible and pragmatic in foreign policy. But there is a big difference between such tactical cooperation and the game-changing, symbolic move of re-establishing direct relations. The former doesn't come free, but the price for the latter will be much higher for both countries. What is the United States prepared to give in exchange for a far-reaching d?tente with Iran? Will the Iranians sit down with us if the agenda includes human rights? Should we sit down with them if it doesn't?

The good news from the recent exchange of messages between the two leaders is that the stakes, right now, look promisingly low. Ayatollah Khamenei seemed to suggest he'd be open to a goodwill gesture short of a security guarantee. And Obama, rather than threatening the Iranian regime, looks to be trying to embarrass it to the table. The bad news is that, down the line, both governments face intractable dilemmas. For the Iranians, it's the question of how far the regime can bend without breaking. For America, it's the perennial conflict between our interests and our values: Rapprochement with an oppressive and unpopular regime in Tehran could solve many geopolitical problems, but it would also recall America's shortsighted policy toward the Shah. Many American opinion-makers seem prepared to sacrifice human rights for national interests in Iran, but President Obama will fundamentally change this most vexing relationship only if he figures out a way to reconcile them.

Laura Secor is a 2008-2009 Fellow at the Dorothy and Lewis B. Cullman Center for Scholars and Writers at the New York Public Library, where she is working on a book about Iran.

[purplebutterflies]

In my thinking I believe we to get rid of the UN and be the United States of America. We allow the foreign countries tell us how, when, what to do and they are allowed to run their country the way they want to....we need to run ours our way too. Iran is a powder keg ready to blow up at any given time or at any word. I really wish people would get along in peace and work things out smartly but no they don't.
I wish Mr Obama would stand up for the people of America!! We are not perfect but we are a free people, GOD fearing and we work at doing good to and for everyone. We have our problems, fears and short comings but....we are a free people and enjoy the freedom of speaking our mind without fear and the freedom to disagree with our leaders that we vote into office. Our leaders work for us not us for them and if we don't like what they do, we vote someone else in.

[dmcbmi]

America, America?

Current mood: apathetic

Category: News and Politics

Instead being twice being concerned of his oath in office,

Our President, should concentrate less on world tours and
place more emphases towards virtual deeds putting his house
in order spending less time constructing his many brilliant self
indulgences in just speeches, we all need somthing much more
Than secrect envoy media ploys, and troop pep talk about how
someday and how he is working at trying to bring our troops home.
As we all know he needs to do far more in (trying) to bring our troops
home. Would this be before, or just after, there redeployments to
Afghanistan.

Or has he read the news! Bagdad auto sales are skyrocketing along with
Iraq's economy; listed as immune, and exempt, from every other nation in
world recession, as doesn't that figure while U.S. currency is being poured
into Iraq by the freight load. As if there is any other similar sounding
redundancies, It is also good to know. how he is saving the elk and
polor bears? In exchange for all the oil we never got!

If my recollection is correct. his campaign has been over for quite
some time now, has it not? Or is this self appionted new messiah
preparing for his new early Christmas...

DMC BMI

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Dark Discerning Truth...

When media follows a consistency of
debate, into the straight line without
a single gesture of fault in those who
soon waver, paralleled toward action
in promises by deception. And deceit
emerges as arts fashionably mirrored
on ours the elected in questioning no
longer, history repeated.

Soon become born, are new dictators

Copyright ©2009DMCBMI

DMC BMI

[dmcbmi]

America, America?

Current mood: apathetic

Category: News and Politics

Instead being twice being concerned of his oath in office,

Our President, should concentrate less on world tours and place more emphases towards virtual deeds putting his house in order spending less time constructing his many brilliant self indulgences in just speeches, we all need somthing much more
Than secrect envoy media ploys, and troop pep talk about how someday they come come, as all know he needs to do far more in (trying) to bring our troops home.

Or has he read the news! Bagdad auto sales are skyrocketing along with
Iraq's economy; listed as immune, and exempt, from every other nation in
world recession, as doesn't that figure while U.S. currency is being poured
into Iraq by the freight load. As if there is any other similar sounding
redundancies, It is also good to know. how he is saving the elk and
polor bears? In exchange for all the oil we never got!

If my recollection is correct. his campaign has been over for quite
some time now, has it not? Or is this self appionted new messiah
preparing for his new early Christmas...

DMC BMI

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Dark Discerning Truth...

When media follows a consistency of
debate, into the straight line without
a single gesture of fault in those who
soon waver, paralleled toward action
in promises by deception. And deceit
emerges as arts fashionably mirrored
on ours the elected in questioning no
longer, history repeated.

Soon become born, are new dictators

Copyright ©2009DMCBMI

DMC BMI

[noloyalisti]

Who cares about Iran? It is just a diversion from the corporate terrorists of this country using our tax money to start invasions and occupations. And keep you in fear so you don't talk to the moron bozos who vote for Republicans to take their money and give it to the already rich.

[budmag06]

"Obama's Charm Offensive To Iran"??? It is more like "kissing up". Iran has ties to North Korea which just sent an offensive missile into space, blood on it's hands in Iraq, Israel, Syria, Afghanistan, ..., is creating nuclear weapons to threaten and intimidate and, Obama has a "charm offensive"??? What kind of weak fool did you all put in the White House? I especially liked Obama's "kissing up" to Europe spewing Reverend Wright's classic hateful lectures. The U.S. has serious problems for the next 4 years. Now liberals, it's time to comment with "Well, Bush...".

[tfillmor]

This is quite an insightful article! Nicely balanced, makes one think. Having many many Iranian friends of various faiths, it's interesting to note that almost every single one thinks the Iranian government needs to change, in many ways. Not necessarily towards a more open relationship with the US, but in ways that are responsive to its people. It's nice to see that the US has made that shift.

[formrusmcsgt]

However, the vast majority of the Democratic Congress passed a resolution authorizing and encouraging the invasion of Iraq.
Posted by steveusmc at 7:34 AM : Apr 4, 2009

You play fast and loos with facts.

First, Dems did not control the Congress in 2003. Repubs controlled both houses.

Secondly, the authorization was given but it did not encourage the invasion as you state.

Force was clearly authorized only if all other options failed.

dubya gave up on any options and called it good to go.

Inform yourself and try not to exhibit such ignorance in public.

[formrusmcsgt]

After eight years of bluster and threats, an American president civilly addressed both Iran's people and its leaders....
---
Says it all.

[bajajohn1]

One fears that Iran's ultra-conservative theocrats will do anything to maintain their hold on power. That their memory is long and unforgiving goes contrary to majority public opinion which some say, favors renewed ties with the West. Should public pressure mount to change the positions of this theocracy, there might be a stern repressive response against the Iranaian people by their government. Hopefully, this will not transpire and reason prevails. But, Iran's leaders are not considered reasonable people. The religious nuts like their dictatorship.

[taylorsucram]

This is for all you "Historically Challenged Fools". In 1953 The democratically elected government of Iran was overthrown by the CIA and Britain's MI6. This led to the "Shah of Iran" dictatorship up until 1979, during which thousands of Iranians were killed, tortured and repressed and the oil flowed to the west like honey. Further when the "Shah" was kicked out of the Country, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini wanted the Billions of Dollars in Iranian assets deposited in the "Chase Manhattan Bank" released to Iran. This would have caused the 3rd largest bank in the world (at that time) to fail. The U.S. was having none of that, and eventually this led to the Iranian hostage crisis and oil embargo. Now since that time we have backed Iraq (under Saddam Hussein) in their 7-8 year war with Iran, we have shot down an Iranian civilian passenger jet killing all 290 civilians on board in 1988 and have yet to return the billions of dollars in Iranian money over to the Nation of Iran. The fact that very few ?merican citizens are even aware of the above mentioned circumstances lends proof that Europeans view us as a nation of dummies lacking minimum comprehension as to the "cause and effect" of our actions. CONSIDERING OUR PAST ACTIONS... I'D WANT NUKES TOO!

[hdc77494]

yeah, charm works really well while they're cutting your head off and cutting out your heart.
West coast pacifists are endangering the country with their worn out lame ideas

[steveusmc]

citizenusa-2009
In case you didn't know and apparently you don't, assassination of a head of state is against international law. If a president of the USA ordered the Iranian president to be killed, then he himself could be brought to trial under those laws. That is why we did not kill Saddam. We captured him and turned him over to his own people. Noriega in Panama was another ?removal? not a killing of a head of state. Bush/Cheney did not DECLARE WAR. That is a power only the congress has and has not used since WWII. However, the vast majority of the Democratic Congress passed a resolution authorizing and encouraging the invasion of Iraq.

[sjc_1]

"strategerie"

The word may be stradgedy. It is a strategic tragedy, or the kind of backwards non-thinking that Bush and company did for WAY too long.

[Strukovv]

That's right. Bush misunderestimated the Iranian strategerie. Only Bush was stupid enough to misinterpret "Death to America" chants. He also did not understand the 1983 Beirut murders of US Marines and French paratroopers was his fault even though that was 17 years before he was elected. The Khobar Towers was one big Bush screwup even though Clinton was the President. Lord only knows Bush did not understand the Iranian roll in setting up Hezbollah in 1982. Go ahead and pet the snake all you want, it won't change anything once he strikes.

[hologram5]

Put them both in a ring with the gloves on, winner takes all. I am sick of the chess games. Let the leaders duke it out and whomever is standing at the end wins.

[sjc_1]

I think part of Iraq was taking out a tyrant, that did not work out so well. Going into the 6th year and $1 trillion later, it is still a quagmire. Iran would be much worse. Even if you put out a contract on the top guys (this was outlawed long ago) you would still have to deal with 1 billion Muslims around the world taking all this personally.

[promaclaura]

Instead of holding the entire country responsible for the rantings of their "leader", one must (instead of declaring WAR as the bone head Bush/Cheney Administration did), you simply take out the tyrant. That's it. Then move on. Common sense folks.
Posted by citizenusa-2009 at 6:22 AM : Apr 3, 2009


The word that stood out to me in your post was "simply". I doen't fit, as there doesn't seem to be anything simple about "taking out a tyrant".

[citizenusa-2009]

Instead of holding the entire country responsible for the rantings of their "leader", one must (instead of declaring WAR as the bone head Bush/Cheney Administration did), you simply take out the tyrant. That's it. Then move on. Common sense folks.

[omnibus66]

"Did you release Iran's frozen assets? Did you lift the sanctions against us? Did you give up slandering and broadcasting negative propaganda against our nation? Did you give up your unconditional support for the Zionist regime?

Well, not yet, but why should we? The Iranians have not changed their rhetoric either, have they?

But, unlike Bush, at least Obama has signaled that he is willing to discuss some give and take that could lead to some of those things.

However, the biggest thing in the way of any real progress is Israel. They will do anything to scuttle any softening of the US - Iranian chasm dug by GW Bush, including starting a war.

It is doubtful that Obama will end up changing anything, but at least he is willing to try.

[promaclaura]

Bush made it clear in any speech involving Iran that he was "not" against the "people" of Iran, he was against what their leaders were doing. So Bush was just honest in his rhetoric and wasn't going to play footsie with them. Now President Obama addresses the "people" and the "leadership" and Iran calls his bluff, signaling that his address to them is "fake". This is what anyone could have predicted and Obama was going to have to address Iran in some fashion, but he is using a slight of hand approach that is indirect/dishonest. The Iranian leadership and the Obama Administration "know" that the U.S. finds Iran's behavior unacceptable and nothing will happen unless Iran's "people" get tired of their leadership. This brings me back to my first statement, Bush openly addressed the Iranian "people" as well and they still didn't budge in ousting their leaders. The old "we are with you" line just doesn't seem to push the Iranian people over the edge, look at their squawking/nut-job leaders they still have in power. We have a new leader in place and Iran is still digging in their heels, this places full blame for lack of diplomacy/relations in Iran's hands, we can jump through hoops but it doesn't change where the problem stems from and it's not the U.S.