The new US Ambassador to the United Nations, Dr. Susan Rice, has vowed that the Obama administration intends to pursue “vigorous diplomacy” to prevent the Islamic Republic from obtaining nuclear weapons.
According to Obama himself, such diplomatic overtures will be complemented by a principled “carrots and sticks” approach conducted, presumably, in concert with the EU and -- potentially -- China and Russia, who have traditionally been less willing to really press Tehran to comply with its NPT obligations. Clearly then, the Obama administration needs to immediately to reach out to these powers, as well as the broader international community, to make the case that a nuclear-armed Islamic Republic is simply an unacceptable prospect.
One wonders however, if reaching out directly to the Iranian people is part of Obama, et al’s diplomatic agenda? While many courageous Iranians have openly questioned the regime’s confrontational stance when it comes to Iran’s nuclear dossier, opinion polling has shown that, by and large, the majority of the Iranian people strongly believe that the their nation has an inherent right to nuclear technology and even nuclear weapons. Of course, any polling data coming out of a totalitarian society should be taken with more than a grain of salt.
That said, it’s safe to assume that the nuclear issue has become a matter of patriotic pride for the Iranian people — to the point that even some opponents of the regime have expressed support for its efforts in the nuclear arena. The nuclear issue, in other words, has come to transcend bitter disagreements with the regime on many other fronts, including democratization, secularization, women’s rights, economic reform, etc.
Given that this is the case, should the US and its allies deliver a message to the Iranian people (as separate from the clerical regime)? If so, what would such a message consist of?
I would argue that the US, European Union, and other responsible powers should indeed speak with the Iranian people, in addition to whatever other incentives and disincentives they’d provide to the regime to persuade it to abandon its dangerous course of action. Such a “dual communication” strategy is nothing new: the free world’s history is indeed replete with examples of leaders who warmly reached out to the peoples of enemy governments, most especially Ronald Reagan.
Obama himself has already began to follow such a path by distinguishing governments who rule by ”silencing dissent” from the peoples they oppress. But Obama needs to go much further in the coming years. Moreover, he needs to explicitly address the nuclear issue when doing so.
So how should the US voice its opposition to the Islamic Republic’s nuclear endeavors in a way that appeals to the “hearts and minds” of the Iranian people? The simplest, most effective message to the Iranian people would be to say that the US, fully and without reservation, supports the Iranian people’s right to acquire nuclear technology, but then add: since the IRI is not a legitimate representative of the Iranian people, to oppose its nuclear programs is not tantamount to violating the sovereign rights of the Iranian nation. The US should further reason that, if anything, a nuclearized IRI represents a threat to the interest of all Iranians who are not happy with the status quo in their country, including those seek to only change the regime’s behavior if not the regime itself. After all, it will be much more difficult to modify the regime’s behavior at home and abroad — let alone change the regime altogether — once the IRI is able to boast a nuclear arsenal.
I believe such a line of reasoning and such a message will do much to reduce domestic support for the regime’s nuclear policy. Let’s hope Obama will use his immense powers of rhetoric to deliver such a message.
Recently by ganselmi | Comments | Date |
---|---|---|
Nine Theses | 4 | Jul 13, 2009 |
Postcard Diplomacy | 69 | Mar 22, 2009 |
Democracy and Natural Right | 8 | Feb 13, 2009 |
Person | About | Day |
---|---|---|
نسرین ستوده: زندانی روز | Dec 04 | |
Saeed Malekpour: Prisoner of the day | Lawyer says death sentence suspended | Dec 03 |
Majid Tavakoli: Prisoner of the day | Iterview with mother | Dec 02 |
احسان نراقی: جامعه شناس و نویسنده ۱۳۰۵-۱۳۹۱ | Dec 02 | |
Nasrin Sotoudeh: Prisoner of the day | 46 days on hunger strike | Dec 01 |
Nasrin Sotoudeh: Graffiti | In Barcelona | Nov 30 |
گوهر عشقی: مادر ستار بهشتی | Nov 30 | |
Abdollah Momeni: Prisoner of the day | Activist denied leave and family visits for 1.5 years | Nov 30 |
محمد کلالی: یکی از حمله کنندگان به سفارت ایران در برلین | Nov 29 | |
Habibollah Golparipour: Prisoner of the day | Kurdish Activist on Death Row | Nov 28 |
ganselmi,
by TP (not verified) on Tue Jan 27, 2009 07:05 PM PSTYou article shows how much you are misinformed of the Iranian political and social structure. In the eyes of the majority of Iranians, the IRI is still one of the most legitimate government in the Iranian history. With the exception of a small minority in the upscale Tehran and a few other big cities, the majority of the low income, working class, peasants, and ordinary citizens support the regime, especially when it comes to their national and religious pride.
We the opposition sitting in the comfort of our sanctuaries in the west may not like it, but this is the reality of Iran today, that is, the regime is in complete control. The United States and other powers have tested every possible hostile approach to destabilize and overthrow this regime for the past 30 years including imposing a devastating war for 8 years, but nothing has worked thus far. It's time for the US to have a fresh look at the problem with a new solution. Confrontation have not and will not work. I don't think your recipe of bypassing the regime will work either. What your are suggesting is, in effect, supporting people to overthrow the regime through another revolution. This is highly unlikely and will not happen anytime soon.
The only feasible solution seems to be an initial face-saving, compromising rapprochement. Once a relative normalcy in relation is in place, then it becomes easier to have a reform from within, something similar to what happened in the Soviet Union.
Unwittingly singing their song
by Fred on Tue Jan 27, 2009 04:12 PM PSTThank you for the reply. You agree the polls and surveys are at best suspect, and yet declare there is domestic support to the degree warranting concerted appeasement effort which by the way has been and is the policy of the Western powers.
My problem is with the “domestic support” presumption which absent reliable data is to unwittingly play into the hands of the Islamist republic which claims mandate for nuke backed by overwhelming “domestic support”.
The part about a straight line being drawn between our Mossadegh and Natanz is yet another unproven presumption which the Islamist republic has happily claimed to be true. They don't allow even a dead-end alley to be named in his honor but when it comes to their nuke use his oil nationalization like a mantra.
True, there must be some who do make such irrelevant comparison, by the same logic there must be those who believe the mythical portion of the Great Shahnamed to be factual. Besides, it is a disservice to associate even the name of the late nationalist icon Mossadegh, let alone the oil nationalization to anything these Anti-Iranian Islamists do.
Would you prefer to live under the Pahlavis or Qajars?
by Kurush (not verified) on Tue Jan 27, 2009 04:03 PM PSTLet me guess... either one is ok with you except living under the akhunds, right? The legitimacy of the current governemnt is the highest degree possible, namely, the Revolution itself. The current governemnt was not instlled by foreign powers as with Qajars and the Pahlavis. Through eight years of western imposed war and all kinds of Western sanctions & subversions, the much denigrated akhunds have governed competently, given the limitations that external forces have imposed. Above all they maintianed the territorial intergrity of Iran intact as well as its sovreignty. Moving forward, with nuclear technology and possessing the second largest natural gas deposit in the world, Iran's future is extremely promising. I do not subscribe to your views becasue I do not watch American TV and hence am not subject to the American propaganda. The nuclear rights, for both weapons and peaceful projects, & its implicatins are so terrific, such a game changer, that as a Iranian patriot, you should never question their legetimacy & importance. It you do, you would be like the foreign powers which prevented Iran from acquiring railroads in 19th cent., under the Qajars, and hence condemned Iran to subsequent backwardness.
My Retort
by ganselmi on Tue Jan 27, 2009 03:08 PM PSTFred,
I definitely indicated that polls and surveys coming out of Iran should be viewed with skepticism, since people are afraid to say anything that contradicts the party line (either out of a legitimate fear of being punished by the regime or an internalized self-censorship mechanism like the one you describe). I also mentioned that there have been remarkable instances of brave Iranians speaking out openly against the programs themselves and/or the regime's uncompromosing posturing vis-a-vis the West.
Again, all that said, it's hard to deny that an emotional strand of Iranian consciousness has emerged around the nuclear issue. SOME Iranians, including liberals, young professionals, etc., are drawing a straight line stretching from Mossadegh to Natanz, despite the fact analogy between the nationalization of oil and the weaponization of plutonium does not necessarily hold. What I'm proposing is the most viable way the West can "message" its opposition to a nuclear-armed IRI in light of this mode of consciousness.
Hardly a wasted effort, I'd say.
And Kurush,
What you've posted is more of a ranting piece of demagoguery than an argument. What basis do you have for so resolutely claiming that the IRI is a legitimate government of the Iranian people? Any government that is so afraid of its own people that, election after election, disqualifies thousands of candidates for office, bans all political parties except for one, clamps down on the free flow of information, etc. etc. can hardly claim legitimacy. You and I both know that "guardianship of the jurisconsult" is probably the most absurd, least legitimate basis for sovereignty in modern history -- and the fact that millions of Iranians curse it every day of their lives attests to it. That they do so in private out of fear of imprisonment or worse does not reduce the IRI's massive legitimacy gap.
what a shame
by anonymous fish on Tue Jan 27, 2009 03:05 PM PSTthis was probably the most reasonable article written on the subject. one would think by kurushs response that the article was written by a westerner. fred wants to overthrow the government. and alborzi is talking about reagan. (didn't he die awhile back? i don't think he's president anymore).
i hope that participation improves on this VERY important subject.
thank you. it seemed very sincere to me.
Not the Eastern way
by Alborzi (not verified) on Tue Jan 27, 2009 02:35 PM PSTUnfortunately carrot and stick will not work for IRI. The IRI is (among the mullahs) very democratic. They are all afraid to be accused of being liberal (even if they think the right thing is to negotiate). During the hostage situation, people who blinked got sacked and even executed, What finally worked is the bribes thar Ronald Reagan and his goons paid to Rafsanjani. He is the man.
A well-meaing watse of effort
by Fred on Tue Jan 27, 2009 12:17 PM PSTGiven Iranian history is basically a long story of her population being oppressed by foreign and also domestic forces, through ages it has developed survival mechanism which include not revealing one’s true opinion and just saying that which is expected.
Absent a true democracy where people are rest assured their contrary opinion will not be costly, speaking of any opinion surveys in such society is immaterial.
One thing is certain the Islamist regime loves these surveys for they reinforce its claim that the nation is behind it in its drive to acquire the full cycle nuclear capability. It follows to claim the purported “domestic support” is a figment of the Islamist regime’s propaganda and populace’s fright from voicing their opposition.
After all an Islamist regime that is a control freak and on regular bases chops limbs, gouges eyes and rapes its political opponents has let it be known that it likes its subjects’ opinion as long as it toes the official line.
This well-mening idea of assuring the Iranian nation of their right to nuke is irrelevant for the people have no say in any policy making in the Islamist republic.
The only viable solution remains to empower the Iranians with material and moral support to overthrow this Islamist regime.
Stop Pontificating to Iranians!
by Kurush (not verified) on Tue Jan 27, 2009 12:14 PM PSTThe west, for your informaton, has been, for the past 30 years, sending 'warm' messages through Voice of American, BBC, and LA crowd who been betrying their homeland by collaborating with the same countries that overthrew Mossadegh in '53 and installed a puppet regime in his place. They certainly do not need your ingenious scheme. Moreover, you do not decide whether or not the Iranian government is legitimate. The inheritors of Khomeini's revolution are perfectly legitimate, and thanks god, are in power in Iran. Furthermore, without any need for your exhortations, the various intelligence agencies, from MI6 to CIA, in the West have been pouring money and manpower on their propaganda & psychological warfare against the legitimate government of Iran ever since the legitimate Iranian Revolution. Why? Because they do not want a legitimate Iranian government in power in Iran that is not under their control. Finally, with regards to Iran's Nuclear projects, given the thousands of nuclear warheads, from hydrogne bombs to plutonnium warheads of all possible sizes with veariety of delivery systems, in possession of the Western countries and their proxy poodle Israel used for balckmailing the whole world, Iran has no choice not only to have nuclear technology but to weaponize them as soon as possible. More power to the legitimate government of Iran who is engaged in furthering the interests of the Iranian nation. If the West was sincere in a nuclear disarmemnt, they would of course start with themselves. But if you are waiting for that to happen I wish you the eternity becasue that's how long you need to wait for such an improbable event. Just out of curosity, where were you when the western countries with utter secrecy and without having to worry about IAEA and others possessing the nuclear weapons hypocritically wagging fingers at them to stop 'their' secret nuclear bombs?