The Belgravia Dispatch: Obama's Statement on Iran

June 21, 2009

Obama's Statement on Iran

President Obama's statement:

The Iranian government must understand that the world is watching. We mourn each and every innocent life that is lost. We call on the Iranian government to stop all violent and unjust actions against its own people. The universal rights to assembly and free speech must be respected, and the United States stands with all who seek to exercise those rights.
As I said in Cairo, suppressing ideas never succeeds in making them go away. The Iranian people will ultimately judge the actions of their own government. If the Iranian government seeks the respect of the international community, it must respect the dignity of its own people and govern through consent, not coercion.

Martin Luther King once said - "The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice." I believe that. The international community believes that. And right now, we are bearing witness to the Iranian peoples’ belief in that truth, and we will continue to bear witness.

This is basically pitch-perfect. And shows real conscientiousness in its drafting, for which kudos are in order. To deconstruct some, keying off the key phrases:

1) “The world is watching”—A powerful admonishment to the Iranian regime as they calculate how severe a crack-down they can afford to contemplate and/or pursue, one issued personally by the world’s most prominent leader (and also a statement that will provide something of a back-door morale boost to the protestors, albeit accomplished indirectly via the more direct, explicit warning the statement portends to the key players around Khamenei);

2) “We mourn each and every innocent life that is lost”, not just ministerial fare, but rather showing this Administration is sensitized to the growing humanitarian toll;

3) A call on the Iranian Government to “stop all violent and unjust actions” against its people, as Andrew Sullivan has pointed out, the word “unjust” will resonate strongly on the ground, but still, this carefully parsed language is calibrated enough that it cannot easily be portrayed as incitement by a foreign power;

4) “The universal rights to assembly and free speech must be respected, and the United States stands with all who seek to exercise those rights”. “Must be respected” risks sounding somewhat diktat-like, but this is softened by a reference to “universal” rights (and although Obama further risks sounding overly vague here, he is nonetheless careful in specifying the rights of ‘assembly and free speech’, which of course carry a clear import for Moussavi’s supporters, but while again being wisely couched in the language of the general rights of man);

5) Next, a nod to the Cairo speech, and that suppression of ideas “never succeeds in making them go away”, essentially linking the events in Iran to his key-stone speech to the region a fortnight or so earlier, in this way, further highlighting the historic import of the events underway in Iran;

6) “The Iranian people will ultimately judge the actions of their own government”, very able again, in its ambiguity (what actions is he speaking of precisely?) as here he appears to be both a) staking out a U.S. position less hectoring than some European states who have weighed in too far I believe on the falsity of the electoral results, by more properly suggesting in the absence of internationally approved election monitors and the like having been on the ground the Iranians themselves will need to sort out electoral adjustments, if any, but also, and more likely his meaning here b) this is of course referencing too the crackdown, another warning shot across the bow that the Iranian public will be judging events, buttressed further by his next line: “(i)f the Iranian government seeks the respect of the international community, it must respect the dignity of its own people and govern through consent, not coercion.” (dignity is a very well chosen word in this context);

7) The MLK quote is splendid, as our first African-American President it resonates all the more to quote him, as “(t)he arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice”, could well describe how someone like Obama could ascend to the great office he holds today, given the long, painful struggles with slavery, Jim Crow, civil rights and so on in this country;

8) He reinforces and personalizes "7" immediately above, given again the dramatic heft these lines are given by the man delivering them, by stating: “I believe that”, and then without sounding the least bit presumptuous, stating the international community does too;

9) Perhaps the most important line, in terms of signal to the regime in Iran, “we are bearing witness to the Iranian peoples’ belief in that truth” to which he stresses again, we will continue to “bear witness”, as bearing witness is not the same as crudely intervening, an important signal really to all the players there (including too the protestors, who after all, must not be led on that the cavalry is coming as they make their courageous internal calculations in the coming days), and regardless, is all told the most we could offer at this juncture, while also affording the regime an opening to step back from the brink (though I doubt they will); and

10) Last, I can’t help saying it, what a relief to have some competence back at the helm, and if I shudder some to think at the Bush 43 statement that would have been issued, I shudder far more at the quasi-crazed meanderings a McCain-Palin Administration would have had us sketching out here, helping scuttle possibilities of avoiding more of a large-scale Tiananmen event (though alas we may still face one, but at least not yet) and rendering even more incendiary a hugely fraught situation.

Let’s admit it, we are all damn lucky Obama won, with many of his (increasingly frothing & rabid-like) opponents simply deeply envious of his extremely strong political talents and gifts. Worth noting too, I am all but sure he personally drafted and/or reviewed in depth this statement, which again shows real care and high intelligence and sophisticated understanding of history, to include the current Iranian situation, and regional sensitivities. Yes, he is very, very good. Frankly one of my few concerns as he goes about implementing his policies (both foreign and domestic) is that he not get overly cock-sure on occasion, there are flashes of conceit here and there (a conceit perhaps that by his very transformative being, perhaps, dramatic changes might more easily occur in forlorn spots around the globe, or for that matter, states nearing 15% U-3 unemployment like Michigan), but then again, we have Michelle for this!

Posted by Gregory at June 21, 2009 08:07 AM

Comments

I am all but sure he personally drafted and/or reviewed in depth this statement, which again shows real care and high intelligence and sophisticated understanding of history, to include the current Iranian situation, and regional sensitivities.

Strongly seconded. His claim to foreign policy knowledge based upon having spent time in Pakistan (and Indonesia) was widely laughed at in the primaries -- with some truth! But now we see in this, as well as in the Cairo speech, the other truth; spending time in a region with the "people" (for lack of a better term this early AM), as opposed to the elites, gives a perspective on events that is powerful. I can't imagine anyone coming up through the normal American-based political policy apparatus and being positioned to approach these issues with the balance he has.

Also worth noting -- and it says something to the media coverage that in all the babble but the Administration, no one has spoken to this -- Valerie Jarrett, a long-time friend and part of the "inner circle" of the Administration, was born and spent her early years in Iran. I've been led to understand that part of how she bonded w/Barack, since she knew Michelle first, was over their shared experiences growing up in those areas. I wouldn't be surprised to find she's deep in these discussions, and helping to buttress Obama's likely "hands-off, this is about the Iranian people" stance.

Posted by: Woodrow at June 21, 2009 09:49 AM | Permalink to this comment

I think Obama should speak out more.
If you think, by placating the Supreme Murderer in Iran, that Iran will give up there nuclear ambitions, then you're just out of touch with reality.
You can read what I've written about Iran over the past 10 days, and stick around for more good content.
Even if you don't like the politics, check out the humor.
http://libertarianhumor.com/category/iran/

Posted by: BigEdsBlog at June 21, 2009 11:23 AM | Permalink to this comment

"If the Iranian government seeks the respect of the international community, it must respect the dignity of its own people and govern through consent, not coercion."

Oh, please. This is not new "realism," this is fatuous pablum. The MLK reference is lyrical, but using it to justify passive neutrality in response to oppression does no honor to Dr. King.

I don't argue that Obama's studied position may not serve a broader purpose, but the idea that it is a "pitch-perfect" signal to either the regime in Iran or its challengers is simply a leap of faith devoid of reference to the nature and history of the Islamic Republic itself. Notwithstanding your long paeon to subtlety, Obama's cautious imperatives (he is oxymoron personified) will be useful to the regime and discouraging to dissenters -- I note that Mousavi himself issued a plea for international rallies in support of his cause.

It seems like just yesterday that working in concert with our allies was the diplomatic sine qua non. It's telling that your exegesis is all about Obama. In that one respect, you do indeed, represent current U.S. foreign policy quite ably. If Obama is still looking for substantive progress by December, he'll need to jumpstart those "tough, hard headed negotiations" he keeps promising sooner, rather than later. He'd be holding a stronger hand if he were, in fact, willing to coordinate his response with European heads of state instead of hitting the unilateral moral high road, now perversely applauded by the left.

Posted by: JMHanes at June 21, 2009 02:31 PM | Permalink to this comment

I don't think JMHanes's take on President Obama's statement is quite fair. It might be if it were the only statement made by the American government, but it's too soon to call it that. It's not a great statement; it is a start.

JMH does have a point worth thinking over. A Presidential statement on developments in Iran can be valuable in several ways, but it is unwise for the American government to make the President its main spokesman on a subject of this kind. He simply has too much else to do; a rapidly changing situation could leave his administration with a choice between standing mute and having him neglect more important though less urgent and dramatic business.

What's the alternative? Well, the traditional spokesperson for the American government on foreign affairs has been the Secretary of State. I though Hillary Clinton's appointment to that position was a terrible idea at the time, but she's got the job now. She's been kept quiet on Iran for the last several days. That's not a harbinger of disaster by itself, but if it continues people are going to get the idea that Clinton is an appendage to rather than an essential component of a foreign policy operation centered in the Oval Office.

Interestingly, Bill Clinton had a comment on Iran the other day (http://www.daytondailynews.com/news/ohio-news/clinton-says-iran-tries-to-deny-modern-world-171335.html), off the cuff and not comprehensive though containing an element of truth.

Posted by: Zathras at June 21, 2009 10:09 PM | Permalink to this comment

She is an appendage, Zathras, where is the statement about freedom from oppression. Why else would they give Ross the Iran portfolio (now
rescinded) Holbrooke, the South Asian portfolio,
Mitchell the Palestinian one. Jones has been marginalized, in a particularly shameful way. Two speech writers, Rhodes
and McDounough seem to hold
sway at the NSC. Now there used to be some comment on how only warriors not civilian leadership should hold sway in policy discussions. Brennan apparently has been too. The clandestine service cannot have confidence with Panetta's halfhearted defense of the Agency
against Pelosi, or the fact that Phillip Mudd was forced to back down. When Al Ahram, the Mubarak regime's mouthpiece is editorializing against the timidity of the administration's response, you know you have got a problem. A torture state, pwning you for the fact that you consider guns and billy clubs 'a robust debate'.

Posted by: narciso at June 21, 2009 11:48 PM | Permalink to this comment

Obama used the MLK quote in his inaugural address. I'm not sure what sort of rhyme he was trying for in this repetition: perhaps an invocation of new beginnings?

Clinton had surgery yesterday for a fractured elbow. Apparently she took a nasty fall a couple of days ago. Bad timing for it.

Posted by: Jackmormon at June 22, 2009 01:41 AM | Permalink to this comment

How can Obama's statements be seen as placatory? They are factual and inspirational without crossing the line into overt support for one side or another. This might seem thin gruel for those who prefer the George W. Bush, John McCain, or Woodrow Wilson style of interventionism (Axis of Evil, anyone?), but given the recent track record of such a policy, one would think that a bit of introspection is in order.

It is hard to watch the footage coming out of Iran without getting emotionally involved in the struggle. However, my Iranian friends are uniform in their desire that the US stay out. They should know, and far be it for me--or advocates of of unsuccessful and counterproductive policy--to gainsay them.

Posted by: Tom S at June 22, 2009 10:23 AM | Permalink to this comment

Apparently there is a significant difference between having experienced the rhythms of daily life in another culture and being able to see Putin's backyard from your bedroom window. Who knew?

I wondered during the campaign how much of that early, organic knowledge Obama had retained. Plenty, apparently.

The speech scans, signifies, and balances. And he had time to take the kids out for ice cream.

Makes ya proud t'bea Murakin.

Posted by: Adams at June 22, 2009 01:43 PM | Permalink to this comment

You can find a less fulsome, well-grounded, reaction to Obama's position by Trita Parsi, of NIAC, in the Christian Science Monitor. Of course there are some, to use Obama's own strawman formulation, who say that Iranian ex-pats are as out of touch with the Iranian populace as anyone else. I suspect the only certainty in Democratic foreign policy these days, is that Obama will be credited with virtually any success, and George Bush blamed for every setback. Suffice it to say, reality is considerably more complex.

Obama's cavalier treatment of what realists used to call "strategic interests" in Iraq may come back to haunt us. Al Sistani's rumored involvement at Qom suggests that our best hope for changing the underlying dynamics with Iran -- and thus the outcome of Obama's "negotiations" -- lies in the flow of influence and pressure from Iraq to Iran, not vice versa. As far as I can tell, Democrats have been almost universally, if not willfully, blind to such possibilities for years. They have certainly sponsored zero public discussion of Iraq as a potential, extremely valuable ally in the region. Regardless of how one views Bush adventurism, there are serious Democratic failures, with far-reaching consequences here, too. Obama's politically generated timetables and his lack of substantive engagement in Iraq may be one of his most serious missteps in the Middle East.

Posted by: JMHanes at June 22, 2009 05:09 PM | Permalink to this comment

Al Sistani's rumored involvement at Qom suggests that our best hope for changing the underlying dynamics with Iran -- and thus the outcome of Obama's "negotiations" -- lies in the flow of influence and pressure from Iraq to Iran, not vice versa.

Except that, of course, the Entire Point of Obama's statements is that the Iranian regime is eager beyond measure to use any measurable interference by the West as a tool for additional repression. This is self-evident in their misrepresentations of Obama's statements, and their explicit demagogery of PM Brown's words. And in the space between those, you can see the difference. For 30+ years, America has been the Great Satan for the regime, with Bush's "Axis of Evil", and post-9/11 snubbing, adding fuel to that fire. Now, Obama has taken the oxygen away, to the point where Khamenei is forced to resort to demonizing Britian, who's not been involved in Iranian issues nearly to the extent we have (their last major entry being a co-starring role in the '53 Operation Ajax action).

To your point regarding Iraq, using Sistani as a "back-channel" is possible, in theory, of course. We already have used him as an intermediary within Iraq when our interests align, and I have no doubt that, despite your commentary, we continue to do so. But it would be DEADLY to speak about it publicly in this instance, whereas you seem to think we should plaster it on the front page. Already, Hearsh's '07 reporting on the 4-500 million dollar US operation to destabilize Iran is being pressed by the regime as evidence this is all a CIA plot. Can you imagine how toxic Sistani would become to the process of mediating this Iranian situation if he was to be seen as merely a puppet of the "American invaders of Iraq"?
Moreover -- Iraq is Not Our Puppet. And it's also a country struggling mightily to stay upright, and to manage a very difficult internal situation. In no way would any other country in that region accept Iraq diplomatic intervention if it was clear from "public discussion of Iraq as a potential, extremely valuable ally in the region" that they were simply acting on American interests, rather than joint, and well-defined, US-Iraq interests. Even with that, they will be suspect for some time, and thus simply not of much use in these discussions.
And your statements risks conflating Sistani with the Iraq gov't. The entire point of having interactions with Sistani to being with is that he's his own power base in his region, as well as elsewhere, esp. his "home state" of Iran. His influence with the Iraq gov't is substantial, but not enough to control it (and that seems to be the way he likes it, thank goodness.)

I note that Mousavi himself issued a plea for international rallies in support of his cause.

I also note that Mousavi has NOT asked for a stronger statement from anyone, much less Obama. Indeed, his one criticism was in Obama's conflating him with Ahmadinejad; if he perceived a stronger need for vocal support from Obama, what better time than when saying "I am not Ahmadinejad?" At the very least, if he was so in need of such support, he could have thanked those who have spoken out more strongly, yet he did not do that, either. Just as with Obama saying Americans are free to support as citizens, so too does Mousavi direct his appeals to the citizens of the world, NOT their governments. Indeed, despite the severe crackdown Mousavi has access to a Facebook page, his near-daily statements and public appearances are translated ASAP; if he wanted Obama's support, or if any of his primary supporters wanted Obama to speak on this, they have the ability to get the message out. Their silence on this speaks volumes, as the silent protests have. Posted by: Woodrow "asim" Jarvis Hill at June 22, 2009 09:41 PM | Permalink to this comment

While I like Obama's general handling of the situation, I'm not sure rampaging kudos for an artfully drafted release is in order. Obama chose to write the statement -- rather than deliver it. It seems a kind of luke-warm way of handling things, don't you think? If Obama really wanted to send the Iranian students a message, he could have done it on TV, and put a little more punctuation on his message. He has no qualms about appearing on TV otherwise. As Zathras says, "it's a start". But it is a start made in a context where Obama has made the unforced error of comparing the Iranian presidential candidates, and not seeing much difference between them.

Well, maybe the news conference today will reinforce the message of the release. And that will be good. But Obama's performance in this situation is an ongoing event, and giving him an A+ or an F- for the corse, when we've barely had the first pop quiz, seems awfully premature.

Posted by: Appalled Moderate at June 23, 2009 10:24 AM | Permalink to this comment

Thank you for your analysis

Posted by: Desert Diva at June 23, 2009 04:54 PM | Permalink to this comment

Of course you all know Martin Luther King was acting out and promoting peaceful, passive resistance against an amoral, malignant entity, the government of the United States, an entity now and at that time engaged in the murderous suppression and marginalization of people both socially and economically. That a black man, President, whose military is actively engaged in the destruction of disenfranchised human beings, misuses King's "arc of the universe/justice" phrase only further reduces the meaning to pure pablum. I bet King would be appalled to witness his message so bastardized. Black and President does not entitle anyone to abuse such a lofty moral message even for "diplomatic" purposes.

Posted by: RICH at June 28, 2009 12:36 PM | Permalink to this comment