What Should Obama Say To Iran?
July 18th, 2009President Obama finds himself in a bit of a bind when it comes to Iran. And the dilemma he faces is not unlike that faced by many policy makers when it comes to the Middle East. Who do you support, the government, or the people?
When he ran for the Presidency, Obama vowed to negotiate with Iran’s leaders with respect to such contentious issues as their nuclear weapons program, and their support for terrorist groups. And at the time, the prospect of using diplomacy as an olive branch, seemed to be a reasonable approach, as contrasted with President Bush’s inclination to wield big sticks, with no carrots in sight.
However, in the wake of Iran’s most recent election, and in light of the protests and violent clashes which are taking place there, even as we speak, would negotiations with the newly elected government confer legitimacy to a regime whose legitimacy is being contested by a great many people on the street? And yet, if you ignore the current opportunities to negotiate, even with an unsavory regime, do you lose the chance to find a diplomatic solution to what could otherwise result in war?
But then again, if you fail to give moral support to the protesters, do you run the risk of betraying your ideals, and alienating the people, for that matter, by espousing the cause of freedom here at home, while failing to do so abroad. Do you dare to play politics as usual when freedom is at stake? Is it hypocritical to cherish freedom, on the one hand, but to withhold support from those fighting for it, on the other? And is there a price to pay for such hypocrisy?
In a way, President Obama’s hesitation about supporting the protesters in Iran is symbolic of a much larger picture, whereby Western leaders find themselves torn between maintaining quiet deals and understandings that have been struck with non-democratic governments in the Middle East, and their supposed commitment in the West to the ideals of democratic reform and the right of all people to be free. The gap that often exists between pragmatic arrangements, especially those securing the free-flow of oil, and the moral obligation to empower people in their quest for human rights, is not an easy gap to bridge, and the decision is often made to sacrifice human rights on the alter of what is “real,” and what is “necessary.”
And yet, as is becoming quite obvious in Iran, the voice of the people resonates loudly around the world, and is not easily silenced, even by the most repressive of regimes, using the harshest means of intimidation. Especially now, in the time of the internet, and you-tube, and twitter, and all the other varied tools of instant and ubiquitous communication, the natural inclination to speak out cannot be stifled easily. And as people around the world begin to speak to one another, the collective wisdom of the common man will begin to coalesce, and to make itself heard, and known, and believed, and a new ideology will be born, based on such ancient common sense principles as: the right to be free, the right to speak out and to be heard, the right to pursue happiness, and the right to search for justice whenever justice is denied.
So what advice can we give President Obama as he navigates through these treacherous waters? Perhaps we could tell him, as he takes everything into consideration, that freedom may not always be easy to support, nor practical in the short-run, but it is a moral imperative for many around the world, just as it is for Americans here at home. And therefore, we owe it to those struggling on the street, and to our long-term strategic interests, to find a way to lend our support to the cause of freedom, and to make it clear to all the dictators out there, that sooner or later, they will have no choice but to accommodate the will of the people, and their yearning to be free. It doesn’t have to mean chaos. It doesn’t necessarily have to mean war. It just means that society will only find its peace when the fundamental aspirations of the people are taken into consideration, and become a permanent fixture in the political landscape.
For a possible solution to our most intractable problems, please visit us at www.sellingavisionofhope.org
Loading ...
Loading...
A fair and rightful propose. Yes, President Obama should not shake the bloody hands of IRI seniors. This regim from the beginning had no legitimacy and today is challenged by an increasing majority of people in Iran. People comdemn foreign supporters of the regime chanting “Death to Russia and China” if Obama wants to support people he is welcome, if he seeks complaisance with the regime, he will soon lose cerdentials like Russia and China.
This is a tricky game to play Jahanshah. Obama definitely wants to embrace the possibility of freedom in Iran. But he also needs to cut a deal on the nuclear front, before things get out of hand in that regard. If he bets on the people, and if the protests are then quashed by the existing regime, then he will have lost the chance to negotiate meaningfully with the powers that be. Also, if he supports the people too forcefully, then the regime could use that support to clamp down even harder by saying that the U.S. is once again meddling where it doesn’t belong. If, on the other hand, he begins negotiating with the present leaders, then he loses the people, and if the people ultimately win, it could once again mean a cold relationship for years to come.
What I think will help is for the U.S., and the Western world, for that matter, to come up with a comprehensive strategy for the Middle East, and for the Muslim world, by which we do the following:
Use a new ideological framework based on common sense principles, An Ideology of Common Sense, by which we speak to one another with common sense and with a sense of personal dignity.
Invest in one another to create jobs which grow our economies, which protect the environment, and which help to weaken the hold of extremist thinking.
Use Ideology and Investment to sell people on a Vision of Hope, a vision of Peace, Prosperity, and Freedom, on the Arab street, in the Muslim world, and in the world as a whole.
Sustain the hope by launching a series of public diplomacy programs which are specifically designed to bolster the vision and to carry it forward, such as: a program to Empower Women, a Cultural Exchange, a Student Exchange, an expanded version of the Peace Corps, a Media Campaign, and a series of International Conferences on the economy, the environment, and religion.
Fight against the forces of extremism, and fight hard, but also position the fight within a Vision of Hope. Raise the fight on the ground to a higher moral plain by giving the fight a moral clarity of purpose. People will fight harder once they know what they’re fighting for. We are not fighting a “war against terror.” We are fighting a war to realize a Vision of Hope. There’s a big difference. We are not fighting simply to protect the environment. We are fighting, quite simply, for our lives.
In this way, Jahanshah, instead of simply reacting haphazardly to important events like the protests in Iran, we will be able to harnass that force, the force of the people, in a direction that points to the possibility of change, and ultimately, perhaps, the realization of a Vision of Hope, a vision of Peace, Prosperity, Freedom, and Sustainability.
In Iran, at least there are periodical elections and they change the prisedent every couple of years…. but in the American-supported regimes like Jordan and Saudi Arabia, there has never been elections and they are very backward fudal systems…. and still you are talking of hypocresy? … Yes, all the west is hypocratical and doesnt want to see a free and powerful Islamic State like Iran…. they want only the powerful “israel” in the Middle East
Why “israel” is allowed to have hundreds of nuclear bombs while suppressing a hopeless and helpless people. and your very “democratic” WEST is praising the “only democratic oasis” in the Middle East? And still talking of Hypocresy?… Funny “democratic” WEST!!!
Sami, thank you for your comments.
In my opinion, Israel is not being “allowed to have hundreds of nuclear bombs.” She has those bombs because she was able, of her own initiative, to develop that capability, and she did so because she preceived an existential threat to her existence. I don’t think that that perception was unreasonable, since she has been attacked repeatedly since her inception. And there are those out there, even as we speak, in Iran and other places, which are actively planning her ultimate destruction.
As for your characterization of Israel as the “only democratic oasis,” I do believe that whatever else you may think of Israel, she is a democracy, even if an imperfect one.
But the West doesn’t much care that much about Israel per se. What the West cares about is oil, pure and simple. The Western economic engine runs on oil, and without the free flow of oil, that engine will come to an abrupt halt. This is where Israel’s democracy comes into play. The thinking has been that a strong and democratic Israel could help in stabilizing the Middle East, along with all the quiet arrangements that have been made with oil producing countries, so as to assure the continued production and flow of oil.
So Sami, the question I ask you is: What are your goals, and can your goals be achieved within the context of a nuclear Israel, and a Western world that is hungry for oil. If it is possible that your goals can be acieved within that context, then I think that the West may become convinced, in light on new realities, to help you achieve them. Wouldn’t that be real justice, instead of the make believe justice that the extremists are talking about?
I’m curious on what comments President Obama could make to influence the Iranian government in a specific direction. It’s been my experience, living in a “free democratic” society my whole life, that those with power are more easily influenced by their constituents. Hypocrisy in the “west”, so eloquently stated, is an obvious fact. However one must understand that hypocrisy is the nature of power positions due to a governments multiple and sometimes opposite goals. I’m a firm believer that economic growth is the best way to calm a society. If a country has 25 or 50% unemployment, there are many reasons to be “pissed off” at, well quit frankly, anything you want to be pissed off about.
If the worlds’ governments allowed their people to be free to achieve whatever goals in life they want to achieve, wouldn’t that generally make a more peaceful world? Moreover, what if an economic system was created which allowed personal economic growth without taking from another? The real injustice in the world, irrelevant to which country we’re talking about, is that the rich and powerful (and sometimes outright evil) have a stranglehold on those who just want a peaceful, happy and to be able to fulfill their life’s ordinary goals.
I have created a skeleton of an economic system which I believe helps ALL move forward to achieve real happiness, to be whatever they want, without hurting (either physically or economically) others. My goal was to create something for EVERYONE of this world, not just American’s who are already spoiled rotten. My hope is that the youth of the world, in all nationalities, will understand what real freedom is and take charge to achieve it for all.
With all this talk about every country wanting or getting nuclear arms, I feel we, as the keeper’s of this planet, will fail at our task. Sooner or later one will have to go off, creating a catastrophe for all. My way is a better way. Please I beg for your help! Thanks for your time.
Derick, you make some very excellent points. I would be very interested in the economic system you propose.
I also believe that if we don’t do something soon, that we are all heading toward a dark and desolate place. But there are things we could do.
I am working on a project to promote environmental research in the West Bank. We will offer internet based courses for the brightest students in the region, along with internship opportunities. The researchers will partner with local entrepreneurs to start businesses which create jobs, jobs which protect the environment, and which help curb the hold of extremist thinking.
If our project is successful, it could attract a lot of attention, and a lot of additional investment dollars, so as to fund additional such projects. What begins as a single solitary project could well become the imetus for a movement for change.
Is that the kind of thing you were thinking about? Or do you have other suggestions as to how to move forward?
Ok, speaking about “the West” is like saying the Government of Iran is representative of the Iranian people. We are not all ignorant fools, bent on the selfish destruction of the Middle East for our own benefit. My best friends are in Iran, Egypt, Morocco, Iraq… many of us see peace and unity not for selfish reasons, but because as humans we are so foolish to not get along. You look at this universe and see little Earth and what, will it take an alien attack for us to realize were here together and that by pointing fingers and hurting eachother, no one benefits?! I’m not saying America or Europe are right, we have made soooo many mistakes and as a people we are spoiled, un-appreciative and often ignorant…but I hate to be classified as a group like this. Its just as ignorant as those who would believe all Muslims are terrorists or that the Middle East is only made up of camel riders and it all consists of sand dune filled deserts. Each culture is important and valuable and we should all chose to be educated beyond what the media tells us, or what one extreme group of people does, we are individuals first and as there are bad people everywhere, there are also good. Education is key and “the West” can certainly use some, but do not lose hope in us, we are learning.
Nissim,
I have limited knowledge of Middle Eastern issues but it appears you, and those such as yourself, are seeing traditional relationships in a different (and brighter) light.
It would appear your project is “grass roots” and using what available tools at hand (both economic and social) to complete and I know others in poor countries, such as India, are doing the same.
The economic system I’ve been contemplating for over 7 years now, utilizes Capitalistic concepts such as freedom of choice, but with additional incentives for continuing on with improving the “human condition”. One area of concern I’ve had since the beginning is how other cultures would accept such a system. At its core, the economic system is not much different then the supply/demand system we have today. However, I am implementing an “infinite money supply” system as opposed to our finite system which creates both wealth and havoc. There were other issues to solve with an infinite money supply system, but believe I’ve addressed them.
To give just an example, under this system, simply cleaning the streets would be a paid job. Rebuilding a stone home or giving aid to the elderly are also paid jobs. Not paid by taxes nor charity, but by the Infinite Money Supply itself. In addition, because these are jobs which improve the human condition, they would be paid at above average wages. This concept of above average wages for jobs which improve the human condition (education, medical/health, construction and research and development for example) is the key to this system.
The website is below. You have to understand I’m neither an economist nor a writer so there is no book and the website is still under construction (and not clear in some places). Although many people agree there is potential, I personal believe Western society is too ingrained in its ways to change. A system such as mine would be better utilized in poor countries with their governments willing to put their arms away, make peace and come together for the betterment of all. That in itself is a tall order. If anything, I hope the idea lights a spark in another and so on until a real change for the improvement of ALL of humanity is made. Even if this economic system, or
something like it, is not implemented by human kind, a change IS needed. If you and your acquaintances have the time to read the whole thing (it’s only a few pages) I would appreciate any feedback. Thanks for your time and best
wishes in your endeavors.
Derick S. Bumgarner
http://www.22ndcenturyeconomics.com