Iran: Caution - no user serviceable parts inside

Bret Stephens is mistaken. There is no issue for the United States in the Iranian election. The Iranian people have not asked for American help. Mr Mousavi has the same opinions about the "great Satan" as did the Ayatolah Khomeini, as he is a follower of Khomeini. The dispute with Mr Ahmadinejad is about internal matters, corruption and finding the best strategy to destroy the great Satan.

 

The Iranian regime derives its internal "legitimacy" from gun barrels, but it derives but internal and external popular support from cultivating an image as a victim of US and "Zionist" aggression and colonialism, and a champion of "resistance"  against them. Mr. Ahmadinejad's Holocaust denial clowning has a loyal following in the Middle East, even if it is not always popular in Iran proper. Any challenge to the Iranian government that comes from the West or supporters of Israel will only be used to enhance the prestige of the regime, and will allow Ahmadinejad and the Ayatollah Khameinei to label their opponents as "Zionists" which is something a bit worse than calling them dogs.  

 

Obama's policy has not been repudiated. A policy that is not based on reality cannot be repudiated by events in the real world, any more than believe in ghosts and witchcraft can be disproved by scientific experiments.

 

Ami Isseroff

 

Wanted: 'Hope' for Iran

Rarely in U.S. history has a foreign policy course been as thoroughly repudiated by events.

June 16, 2009

By Bret Stephens

On the one hand we have democratically elected Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, reputed hardliner, who on Sunday abandoned his own long-held position and, to the immense disappointment of much of his political base, spoke of his willingness to accept a Palestinian state — provided only that the Palestinians forswear military pursuits, resettle Palestinian refugees in their own territory, and recognize Israel as a Jewish state, just as the U.N. did at the country's founding.

On the other hand there's Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Holocaust-denier and nuclear aspirant, who on Friday was declared the winner of an election so transparently rigged that the only serious question is whether the regime even bothered to stuff the ballot boxes. Since then, scores of reformist politicians have been arrested or intimidated, rallies have been banned, and the possibility of an Iranian Tiananmen hangs in the air.

Question: Toward which of these two leaders does President Obama intend to play the heavy?

Getty Images

Presidential candidate Mir Hossein Mousavi appears at an opposition demonstration in Tehran yesterday.

Not, apparently, with the Iranian. On Saturday, spokesman Robert Gibbs said the White House "was impressed by the vigorous debate and enthusiasm that this election generated, particularly among young Iranians." On Sunday, Joe Biden allowed that there "was some real doubt" about the election, but said the U.S. would continue its outreach to Iran anyway. It was only after 48 hours that the president finally echoed his spokesmen.

This is a strange turn of events. In Cairo two weeks ago, Mr. Obama trumpeted "my commitment . . . to governments that reflect the will of the people." He also lamented that "the United States played a role in the overthrow of a democratically elected Iranian government." Yet here is his administration disavowing the first of these commitments while acquiescing in the overthrow — before it can even be installed — of another democratically elected Iranian government.

Now a presidency that's supposed to be all about hope is suddenly in cynical realpolitik mode — the only "hope" it means to keep alive being a "grand bargain" over Iran's nuclear program. This never had much chance of success, but at least until Friday's sham poll it wasn't flatly at odds with the interests of ordinary Iranians. Not anymore.

Here's a recent comment from one Iranian demonstrator posted on the Web site of the National Iranian American Council. "WE NEED HELP, WE NEED SUPPORT," this demonstrator wrote. "Time is not on our side. . . . The most essential need of young Iranians is to be recognized by US government. They need them not to accept the results and do not talk to government as an official, approved one."

Someday a future president may have to apologize to Iranians for Mr. Obama's nonfeasance, just as Mr. Obama apologized for the Eisenhower administration's meddling. But the better Eisenhower parallel is with Hungary in 1956. Then as now a popular uprising coalesced around a figure (Imre Nagy in Hungary; Mir Hossein Mousavi in Iran), who had once been a creature of the system. Then as now it was buoyed by inspiring American rhetoric about freedom and democracy coming over Voice of America airwaves.

And then as now the administration effectively turned its back on the uprising when U.S. support could have made a difference. Hungary would spend the next 33 years in the Soviet embrace. One senses a similar fate for Iran, where Mr. Ahmadinejad's "victory" signals the ultimate ascendancy of the ultra-militants in the Revolutionary Guards Corps and the paramilitary Basij, intent on getting what they want and doing as they please even in defiance of their old clerical masters. Which means: Get ready for a second installment of the Iranian cultural revolution. Mr. Ahmadinejad signaled as much when he promised to go after the corrupt elements of the old regime, particularly the circle around former president Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, who openly opposed the incumbent prior to Friday's poll.

As for the hope — expressed over the weekend by one unnamed senior U.S. administration official to the New York Times — that Mr. Ahmadinejad would moderate his course in foreign policy to allay concerns about his legitimacy, the president made his views plain on Sunday. "It's not true," he said. "I'm going to be more and more solid."

Those are words for Mr. Obama to ponder. Rarely in U.S. history has a foreign policy course been as thoroughly repudiated by events as his approach to Iran in his first months in office. Even Jimmy Carter drew roughly appropriate conclusions about the Iranian regime after the hostages were taken in 1979.

Maybe this president will now draw roughly appropriate conclusions, too. Or maybe he'll just turn his gaze from his nonstarting overture to Tehran to the Holy Land, whose pastures look ever-so slightly greener thanks to Mr. Netanyahu's attempt at reasonableness and conciliation. Israelis shouldn't count on Mr. Obama responding in kind.

Write to bstephens@wsj.com

Read at: