Obama's Iran options
Toolbox
Barrie Dunsmore - Published: June 28, 2009
Throughout history, hard lessons have had to be learned when the masses have protested against the government.
W
When there is a major news story such as Iran, by its very nature 2-4/7 cable news magnifies the event. And as is so often the case, with magnification comes distortion — from the endless repetition of the crowds and bloody images to the less than brilliant commentary of breathless anchors, most of whom have likely never heard a shot fired in anger. There are very few advantages to being old, but if there is one, it is to be able to see contemporary events in a lifetime's perspective.
That said, I do not wish to minimize the courage of the Iranians who have challenged their leaders on the streets of Tehran, nor the loss of life and serious injuries they have suffered. But for at least the first week and a half of this crisis, the actions taken by the Iranian authorities against protesters were not dramatically different from what I saw in Paris in May 1968, when then French President Charles de Gaulle's gendarmes were trying to suppress a major student uprising that had spread to general strikes involving millions of workers; or in 1984-85, when then British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher's police regularly battled with tens of thousands of coal miners protesting her decision to shut down much of Britain's coal industry.
I'm not equating the way Iran violates the human rights of its citizens — with French or British social problems. The comparison is solely with security force tactics, which in the above cases were harsh. In France there were hundreds of serious injuries with at least one death. In Britain, there were 7,000 injured and 10 deaths. (In this country one might recall the way the Chicago police violently attacked protesters at the 1968 Democratic Convention – or that in 1970 National Guardsmen opened fire on an anti-war demonstration at Kent State University, killing four students.) This is not to give a pass to the Iranian mullahs. Rather, it is to highlight the reality that when governments feel threatened by major political or social unrest (even governments of historical democracies), their reactions can be violent. And as tempting as it may be to deliver threats or ultimatums to the offending governments – or to urge the demonstrators on – that usually doesn't help. In fact, if protesters are given a false sense of hope, it could make their situation worse.
A classic example of the sad consequences of creating false hopes took place during the 1956 Hungarian Revolution. In his first election campaign Dwight Eisenhower adopted the Republican theme that President Harry Truman's "containment policy" in dealing with the Soviet Union wasn't working. When referring to Eastern Europe, Eisenhower and his people began talking about the "liberation of captive nations." After his election, the idea of "liberation" became a staple of broadcasts then being transmitted into the Soviet bloc by the Voice of America and the CIA- backed Radio Free Europe.
Then, Secretary of State John Foster Dulles was frequently heard on these broadcasts talking about "rolling back the Iron Curtain." So when Soviet troops and tanks rolled into Budapest to put down the revolt, Hungarians had certain expectations. But as author Michael Korda wrote in "Ike," his recent Eisenhower biography, "The Hungarians might expect arms, support, supplies and even intervention from America, and feel they had been promised all that and more by Radio Free Europe; but Ike needed no threatening message (from the Soviets) to know that all this was out of the question and would very likely trigger a nuclear war."
Stephen Ambrose, another of Ike's biographers put it more bluntly: "Liberation was a sham. Eisenhower had always known it. The Hungarians had yet to learn it." Learn it they did, the hard way. Forty thousand Hungarian freedom fighters died in the rebellion. When it ended, 1,200 people, including virtually all of Hungary's anti-Soviet political leaders, were executed. (I was intrigued to hear U.S. Sen. John McCain, who has been one of the strongest proponents of a much more bellicose American response to the Iranian crisis, concede in his recent appearance on CBS News Face the Nation, "We may have made a mistake when we gave too much encouragement during the Hungarian Revolution.")
Again, I must stress that I am no apologist for any government that systematically brutalizes its own people. Most certainly that applies to the aging Chinese communists who sent troops and tanks against mostly young protesters in Tiananmen Square 20 years ago, killing many hundreds — perhaps even thousands. But the first responsibility of any president of the United States is to pursue policies for the greater good and protection of the American people.
When you sit in the Oval Office you cannot be guided by the passions provoked by television images, no matter how compelling. Criticism by political opponents and pundits is to be expected. As President Obama noted in his news conference last week, politicians have the freedom to say pretty much what they please — the president can do no such thing. In his responses, he continues to weigh both the last 60 turbulent years in American-Iranian relations — and the likely effect of his words or actions on American's long term interests. Over the past week, the president has escalated his rhetoric in condemning the violence used against the protesters although he has notably refused to threaten specific "consequences" for the regime's actions.
After numerous crises over many decades, the Cold War ended peacefully because with each crisis, the policy of talking instead of fighting ultimately prevailed. Today the United States has significant political and economic (although not exactly warm) relations with both Russia and China, formerly its two greatest enemies. Likewise, regardless of what happens in Iran in the coming weeks and months, eventually the United States is going to want to deal with whatever powers-that-be in Tehran, on issues that are of great importance to this and many other countries — Iran's spoiler role in the Middle East and its potential threat to the region if it becomes a nuclear power. America's ability to directly influence current events inside Iran is slim to none. Keeping the diplomatic option open, may not feel satisfying — but it remains the best policy.
Barrie Dunsmore is a veteran diplomatic and foreign correspondent for ABC News now living in Charlotte.
31