How Washington Can Really Help the Greens in Tehran

For the Obama administration, there are dangers in doing too much and too little to help the pro-democracy movement in Iran. Here is how to chart a safe, effective third way.

BY ALIREZA NADER, TRITA PARSI | FEBRUARY 9, 2010

Ever since last June's disputed presidential election, Iran has been in the throes of change, with the nascent "green movement" protesting against an ever-more-authoritarian state. For months, Washington has asked itself: Should the United States actively push for regime change? Torn between the fear of ending up on the wrong side of history by being too cautious and the fear of ending up undermining the pro-democracy movement by being too aggressive, Barack Obama's administration is playing a difficult balancing act.

History shows that intervention is easier said than done. Past U.S. attempts to sway Iranian internal affairs -- such as the CIA-fomented 1953 coup d'état against a democratically elected prime minister, Mohammad Mossadegh -- have proven costly for U.S. interests. Most notably, Washington's support for the shah fueled the 1979 Islamic Revolution, inspiring anti-Western movements in Pakistan, Egypt, and beyond.

To make matters worse, due to its absence from the scene during the last 30 years, the United States is not sufficiently equipped to understand and shape what appears to be a titanic struggle between Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and his opponents.

But between the extremes of doing nothing and doing everything, there is a middle ground: providing the Iranian pro-democracy movement with breathing space, rather than engaging in risky and imprecise exercises that would directly involve America as an actor on the Iranian scene. The United States can achieve this through a few simple steps.

First, the United States should tread carefully when it comes to issuing military threats. Under the shadow of a foreign military threat, the uphill battle of the Iranian pro-democracy movement becomes even steeper, as the Iranian regime is quite adept at exploiting foreign threats to stifle criticism at home. Moreover, the possibility of military conflict between Iran and the United States, or their respective "proxies," might allow the Iranian regime to distract the population from the internal crisis.

Second, the United States should avoid sanctions that put a burden on the Iranian people, rather than the Iranian government. Broad-based sanctions that hit the entire economy hurt common citizens far more than the powerful elites. Any new sanctions should demonstrate not only international discontent with the conduct of the Tehran government, but also an effort by the United States to keep from harming average Iranians.

AFP/Getty Images

 

Alireza Nader is an international affairs analyst at the RAND Corporation and co-author of Mullahs, Guards, and Bonyads: An Exploration of Iranian Leadership Dynamics. Trita Parsi is president of the National Iranian American Council and the 2010 recipient of the Grawemeyer Award for Ideas Improving World Order.

JAMES_THE_HYPE

6:39 PM ET

February 9, 2010

Obama's True Options in Iran: Beyond War and Sanctions

Whether Obama deserved the Nobel Peace Prize or not, he was given the award because of his new approach to the Middle East, including his strategy in Iran. Military intervention is the MO if the United States, but Obama and his commanders realize that open war in Iran is NOT a viable option. However, Obama has many options on his plate, including sanctions.

However, the broad oil sanctions passed by congress will hurt the people of Iran more than the regime. Obama needs to stick with sanctions that target the military (and terrorist) industrial complex of Iran in order to weaken the regime and strengthen the resistance.

Obama and Hillary Clinton have also spoken often of the importance of supporting internet and communication freedom in places like China and Iran. Senator Richard Lugar has written about the importance of social media in dictatorial regimes. Obama can use the intelligence resources of the United States to outhack Iran, allowing the people of Iran to make their own decisions about the countries future, independant from government sanctions or direct Western intervention and Imperialism.

As we can see, the government in Iran has already slowed the internet to a crawl, shut down SMS networks, and cracked down on activists. The regime IS on the verge of collapse, but without technological assistance big brother might just win.

I've written about this issue on my blog, where I'll be covering the developments in Iran closely over the next few days.
http://jamesthehype.blogspot.com

 

MOHAIR.SAM

10:04 AM ET

February 10, 2010

Wow, nice ad hom attack!

Do you have an actual critique of James's comment, or are you just a half-wit with a tantrum and a keyboard? My money's on the latter. If you have substantive issues with the OP, by all means, delve in. Otherwise, don't waste the pixels.

I wouldn't make judgments about the brain activities of others unless I could demonstrate some ability of my own in that department. Thus far, you've failed miserably.

 

SOULCASE

11:44 AM ET

February 10, 2010

These are antisolutions

Trita Parsi giving advice on containing the Iranian regime is like Neville Chamberlain offering pointers on containing the Third Reich. No timelines no expectations and narrower sanctions. What exactly is the stick here? It's all carrot. The hardliners basij and irgc have support networks in place to counter any sanction. The Iranian people are not stupid. They know that the sanctions are the result of the regimes adventurism and hubris. The soft approach advocated by doves and proregime wonks has not worked and will not work. An authoritarian regime can ride through any sanctions so long as it can squeeze the populace enough. If you need examples of this you need throw your policy sci degree in the bin.