Iran: Engagement vs. Regime Change
March 4th, 2010 by Josh
Yesterday, the Atlantic Council hosted an event to debate the orientation of U.S. policy vis-a-vis Iran. David Ignatius from the Washington Post moderated a discussion between Michael Ledeen, who advocated for a policy of regime change, and Flynt Leverett, who pushed for further diplomatic engagement with the current Iranian leadership. Full transcript here.
David Frum highlights the principal arguments. First:
Leverett’s key point: …Leverett claims Iranians have in fact cooperated on the issue on which engagement was sought…The historical record: typically it’s the American administration that pulls the plug on tactical cooperation, either because of domestic political blowback or in reaction to some other Iranian provocation unrelated to the area of cooperation.
The last question of the session elicited the key premise of Leverett’s thought: the U.S. is not a hegemonic power in the Middle East any more. It is up to us to first prove our bona fides to Iran, not the other way around. Yes, there are things we need to get out of this grand bargain for it to be worthwhile for us. But we will have to commence with what Leverett agrees to call “pre-emptive concessions.”
And then:
Ledeen’s key point: A grand bargain with Iran is desirable. It just cannot happen with this regime. But the U.S. is giving no support to the Green movement…He has always opposed military action, and continues to oppose bombing Iran…How to support the opposition: give them satellite phones. Above all, let the government of the U.S. endorse calls for release of political prisoners, freedom of speech and press, equal rights for women. But time ends before Ledeen is able to offer reasons for his confidence that this will work.
“It’s hard to imagine either Secretary of State Clinton or President Obama articulating the kind of cold calculus Leverett advocates,” Frum says, but he wonders if the president might at the very least be tempted considering what he views as the failure of administration policies thus far.
Meanwhile, Jennifer Rubin sees this debate as yet another example of Flynt Leverett pass-blocking for the Iranian regime, serving as its mouthpiece for audiences in the U.S. “The mullahs must be delighted,” she said. “All their points covered, all their arguments made.”
Posted in Democracy Promotion, Diplomacy, Freedom, Iran, Reform, US foreign policy, sanctions | Comment »
Iraq: Will Post-Election Iraq Be Stable?
March 3rd, 2010 by Josh
Over at Informed Comment, Juan Cole relays an interesting BBC interview with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, who rejects any notion that the forthcoming elections will destabilize the country. Maliki also brushed aside accusations from Ambassador Chris Hill and others of collusion between the Accountability and Justice Committee and Iranian officials, saying that this view is a symptom of the U.S.-Iran dispute. Elsewhere in the interview, he offered a rejoinder to those who labeled the reinstatement of 20,000 Hussein-era officers transparent politicking, insisting that the move was not related to the campaign or the fallout from the electoral blacklist.
Yet despite Maliki’s assurances that nothing sinister is afoot, Cole worries that the divisive political maneuvering of recent months may wind up reigniting “guerrilla and militia violence in Iraq, and possibly impede the scheduled withdrawal of U.S. military.” But he admits that this scenario is far from a certainty, alluding to Nir Rosen’s recent piece that dismissed the chances of renewed sectarian conflict. “On the other hand…one reason Rosen may be right is that the Sunni Arabs decisively lost the civil war and were largely ethnically cleansed from Baghdad, so it is not clear that they have the social base to put up a further fight.”
Peter Wehner doesn’t share these concerns, however, and takes to the Corner to argue that the emergence of politics and democracy in Iraq “is a watershed event that could come to represent a whole new era in the history of the massively undemocratic Middle East.”
For a thorough analysis of how Iraq’s post-election political wrangling might unfold, check out the Washington Institute for Near East Policy’s latest PolicyWatch piece by Scott Carpenter and Ahmed Ali.
Posted in Elections, Iran, Iraq, Sectarianism | Comment »
Iran: Regime Frees Journalists, Shuts Down Newspapers
March 2nd, 2010 by Josh
Less than one day after releasing six journalists and activists on bail, Iranian officials banned two major opposition newspapers, including the country’s largest reformist publication, Etemad, which had been one of the few opposition journals to withstand the government crackdown after the June 2009 election. According to Etemad’s editor-in-chief, the Iranian Ministry of Culture accused the publication of violating media laws that, among other things, prohibit “insulting Islam [and] libel against authorities and government institutions.”
Mohamed Abdel Dayem of the Committee to Project Journalists welcomed the release of the imprisoned journalists, but cautioned against interpreting this news as an indicator of changed behavior. “We remain alarmed by an escalating crackdown against the press in Iran,” he said. “The revolving door imprisonment policy employed by Tehran continues to detain more journalists than it is releasing.”
Posted in Freedom, Human Rights, Iran, Publications | Comment »
POMED Notes: “Promoting Security through Diplomacy and Development: The Fiscal Year 2011 International Affairs”
February 26th, 2010 by Josh
In a hearing on the administration’s recently released budget request, the House Committee on Foreign Affairs invited Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to give testimony on particular budgetary items relating to U.S. diplomatic and development efforts abroad. Committee Chairman Howard Berman (D-CA) opened the hearing with an affirmation of the value of investing in international diplomacy; not only to promote American values, but also as a method of prevention in order to mitigate the forces that cause international instability. Berman pledged to work with his colleagues to maintain or even increase the overall level of funding – approximately 1 percent of the entire Fiscal Year 2011 federal budget request – but ranking Republican committee member Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL) disagreed, using the poor economic environment as the basis to call for “selective freezes.” In particular, she questioned the wisdom of unconditionally funding the Palestinian Authority and the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA), both of which she accuses of stealing hundreds of millions in foreign aid.
Click here for POMED’s notes in PDF, or continue reading below.
Read the rest of this entry »
Posted in Afghanistan, Congressional Hearing Notes (House), Democracy Promotion, Diplomacy, Elections, Foreign Aid, Freedom, Hamas, Hezbollah, Human Rights, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Morocco, Multilateralism, Palestine, Protests, Sudan, Syria, US foreign policy, Western Sahara, Yemen, sanctions | 1 Comment »
POMED Notes: Foreign Policy Priorities in the President’s FY2011 International Affairs Budget
February 25th, 2010 by Chanan
The Senate Committee of Foreign Relations hosted Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to discuss the FY2011 International Affairs Budget for the Department of State. Senator John Kerry (D-MA), chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations, commenced the hearing by thanking Secretary Clinton for her hard work and travels. Citing a range of issues from the need to fight HIV/AIDS to the importance of supporting diplomats in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iraq, Kerry acknowledged that he “can’t think of a time in our history when we’ve had a greater need for energetic diplomacy to make the case for America globally.”
For POMED’s notes in PDF, click here. Otherwise, continue below the fold.
Read the rest of this entry »
Posted in Afghanistan, Congressional Hearing Notes (Senate), Egypt, Foreign Aid, Human Rights, Iran, Iraq, Oil, Saudi Arabia | 1 Comment »
Internet Activism: The Problem with ‘Techno-Utopianism’
February 22nd, 2010 by Chanan
Evgeny Morozov, a Yahoo! fellow at Georgetown University and contributing editor to Foreign Policy, penned a Wall Street Journal essay over the weekend challenging many commonly held conceptions about the Internet’s impact on revolutions and democratization.
At the outset of the piece, he explains: “The belief that free and unfettered access to information, combined with new tools of mobilization afforded by blogs and social networks, leads to the opening up of authoritarian societies and their eventual democratization now forms one of the pillars of ‘techno-utopianism.’ He laments the recent obsession by DC-based politicians and pundits with social media tools, such as Twitter and Facebook, and wonders whether this fascination is a “mere sign of our desperation with other, more conventional instruments of diplomatic leverage.”
The unfortunate reality, Morozov contends, is that this new medium will not likely lead to waves of mass democratization. He focuses on recent events in Iran as an example, explaining that revolutionary upheavals of authoritarian regimes require strong degrees of centralization, which the Internet does not provide. “Iran’s Green Movement has been split into so many competing debate chambers,” he writes, “that it couldn’t collect itself on the eve of the 31st anniversary of the Islamic revolution.” The Iranian government, like other autocratic regimes, also learned to exploit the Internet’s utility to suit its own means, by squashing online dissent, blocking basic communication and using the Internet as a surveillance tool.
Citing groups such as Hezbollah and the Muslim Brotherhood, he also states that “Facebook and Twitter empower all groups - not just the pro-Western groups that we like.”
Nonetheless, despite the inherent challenges, Morozov still believes that “it would be unreasonable for the American government to simply abandon all efforts to use the Internet for promoting democracy abroad.” One example he provides is the necessity to stop preventing U.S. tech companies, which currently require a “host of waivers from the U.S. Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) to exports Internet services to authoritarian countries.” Such blanket sanctions, Morozov argues, impede productive support for groups like the Green Movement. Rather, resolving these “arcane policy disputes is likely to advance American interests abroad more effectively than the flashy and media-friendly undertakings… of which American diplomats have grown so increasingly fond.”
Posted in Iran, Technology, US foreign policy, sanctions | Comment »
Iraq: Is Iran Meddling in Iraqi Electoral Affairs?
February 18th, 2010 by Josh
In a speech at the Institute for the Study of War, General Ray Odierno — the senior U.S. commander in Iraq — sparked intense debate by plainly accusing two prominent Iraqi politicians of close ties to Iran. Both Ali Faisal al-Lami, executive director of the Accountability and Justice Committee responsible for blacklisting hundreds in the name of de-Ba’thification, and Ahmed Chalabi, chairman of the very same committee, are “clearly influenced by Iran,” according to the general. Expressing his dismay that al-Lami, who was previously arrested after intelligence suggested his participation in a planned attack, was put in charge of the de-Ba’athification commission, Odierno warned of the duplicitous nature of the two men.
Although Chalabi’s Washington liason Francis Brooke flatly denied the allegation and admonished Odierno for a “profound lack of understanding of Iraqi politics,” Josh Rogin brings word that U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Chris Hill not only revealed his support for the general’s analysis, but accused Chalabi of “assuming…a position in a new committee to which he was never named.” Over at the Wonk Room, Matt Duss, noting that Chalabi was long ago disavowed by the Bush administration for his “unauthorized” contacts with Iran, frames Odierno’s comments around what he believes is a particularly acute point of neoconservative inconsistency; many who supported Chalabi prior to and following the Iraq invasion, despite warnings from the CIA and others that he was an unreliable source possibly influenced by Iran, are now attacking advocates of Iranian engagement like Trita Parsi and the Leveretts as “lobbyists for the Iranian regime.”
In an editorial, the Los Angeles Times senses the seismic implications of Chalabi’s manipulative behavior as well, but wonders “who is going to hold Chalabi accountable or insist on impartiality?” Doubting that Prime Minister Maliki has the resolve to eliminate Chalabi’s powerful place in Iraqi politics, the Times concludes that the U.S. and international observers must work quickly “to salvage what legitimacy remains of the March 7 vote, and to keep disillusioned Sunnis from abandoning peaceful politics altogether.”
Unfortunately, this debate continues amidst a climate of escalating violence. A suicide bomber in Anbar province killed at least 13 people today, the latest in a string of attacks that have sparked fears of a new civil war should the electoral divisiveness spur a climate of disenfranchisement and large-scale disaffection.
Posted in Diplomacy, Elections, Freedom, Iran, Iraq, Political Parties | 1 Comment »
Iran: What Should Obama Do Next?
February 18th, 2010 by Maria
National Journal Online recently solicited submissions from a variety of different Middle East experts on what policy steps the U.S. should next take toward Iran. Of the ten submissions that were published, none of them advised Washington to use military force.
- Michael F. Scheuer, an adjunct professor of Security Studies at Georgetown University, believes the administration needs to make four points in its policy. First, to make it clear to Americans that Iran does not currently pose a direct threat; second, to make a public statement that there will be no military action used against Iran; third, tell the Israelis that the U.S. has no intention of supporting a military attack on Iran, should they attack; and fourth, to encourage Americans to ignore the propaganda that will likely ensue from what he calls “U.S. citizen Israel-Fisters.”
- Michael Brenner, a professor of International Affairs at the University of Pittsburgh, argues that the U.S. has very little ability to influence the internal politics of another country in a positive way, and that embracing the opposition movement in Iran would be “the kiss of death.” He says the opposition “does not need us to inspire them. And they surely know that we wish them well and would be forthcoming were they to succeed.”
- James Jay Carafano, Assistant Director at the Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for International Studies, argues that the Obama administration can in fact “help speed the process” for the Green Movement and that it should be quite engaged in a regime change. He believes the U.S. should adopt tough sanctions against Iran as well as “shame Iran for its horrific human rights record.”
- Robert Baer, former CIA officer, believes the most effective policy on Iran can be quite simple. “Don’t do anything about Iran,” he argues. “No statements out of the White House. No support for the opposition. No covert action. If we could get the press to stop covering it, that would be all the better.” He thinks Iran’s military dictatorship thrives on conflict and hostility, and that the regime can “fall under its own weight” if it was ignored.
Posted in Human Rights, Iran, Reform, US foreign policy, sanctions | Comment »
Iran: Claims of Military Dictatorship, But Does it Matter for U.S. Policy?
February 17th, 2010 by Josh
Last Monday, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton delivered a much ballyhooed speech in Qatar, during which she accused Iran of quickly devolving into a “military dictatorship” due to the increasing power and political influence of the Revolutionary Guard. “We see that the government of Iran, the supreme leader, the president, the parliament, is being supplanted,” she said, using this assertion as a pivot point to call upon the UN Security Council to institute a fourth round of Iranian sanctions to target the IRGC. Interestingly, Clinton’s Saudi counterpart, Prince Saud al-Faisal, questioned the utility of new sanctions and demanded a “more immediate solution,” though he did not explicate how that might manifest in the form of policy.
In response, Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khomenei admonished the U.S. for “dispatch[ing] their agent as a saleswoman to the Persian Gulf to spread lies” about Iran. On the punditry front, the Race for Iran published a post by Rami G. Khouri arguing that “Half a century of American foreign policy flatly contradicts [the speech’s] sentiment.” Contrary to Clinton’s insinuation that military rule disqualifies Iran from serious diplomatic relations, Khouri alludes to the history of U.S. engagement in the region to conclude that “if Iran is indeed becoming a military dictatorship, this probably qualifies it for American hugs and aid, rather than sanctions and threats.”
Elsewhere, the New York Times released a news analysis depicting the administration’s recent withdrawal from its Iranian “thesis,” which previously maintained that “the differences between the United States and Iran was subject to diplomatic mediation, that they could find areas of common experience, that we were ready to have a dialogue with each other.” Instead, a new policy has emerged, one which the Times describes as engagement for the purpose of “defusing the worldwide view that the United States is part of the problem, a demonstration that the problem is Tehran’s intransigence, not Washington’s pique.”
Posted in Diplomacy, Iran, US foreign policy, United Nations, sanctions | Comment »
Syria: New U.S. Ambassador Nominated
February 17th, 2010 by Josh
On Tuesday, President Obama officially nominated Robert Ford to become the U.S. Ambassador to Syria, indicating a marginal restoration of diplomatic relations between the two countries. If confirmed by the Senate, Ford, formerly a U.S. Ambassador to Algeria from 2006 to 2008, would be the first American ambassador in Damascus since 2005. In a statement to reporters, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs emphasized Ford’s value in the context of U.S.-Syrian policy, saying that his appointment “represents President Obama’s commitment to use engagement to advance U.S. interests by improving communication with the Syrian government and people.”
Over at Politico, Laura Rozen unpacks the geopolitics of the appointment by suggesting that the administration timed the announcement to “signal Iran that its failure to engage will lead to greater international isolation and pressure.”
Josh Landis unearths another possible impetus, noting that this relative diplomatic rapprochement might have something to do with economic interests. “Several friends have told me that Syria has been hosting one delegation of American and European businessmen after another as Western banks scramble to get in on the bottom floor of the Syrian economy,” he reports. Although Syria has yet to positively reform its legal infrastructure and judicial system, “capitalists are taking notice and no one wants to be left out while Syrian assets are undervalued.”
Posted in Diplomacy, Iran, Syria, US foreign policy | 1 Comment »
Iran: More Analysis on the Green Movement’s Failure
February 12th, 2010 by Maria
Many more are continuing to provide their analysis on the Green Movement’s fizzle during Iran’s revolution anniversary yesterday. Democracy Arsenal’s Michael Allen is upset over those who he says are legitimizing Iran’s repressive moves against its protesters. “They go on to suggest that the regime’s repressive actions — a ‘torrent of abuses’ which, let’s recall, include hangings, the murder of peaceful protesters like Neda Soltan, rape and torture — may be considered ‘legitimate within the context of the Islamic Republic’s political order.’”
InsidieIran.org’s analyst Geneive Abdo argues that the movement could not have been expected to succeed without a big power’s support. “Events in Iran yesterday showed the determination of both the regime and the opposition, but should also provide a lesson for Western governments: unless the outside world aids the opposition, the regime could continue to rule indefinitely through brutal force without an inch of reform to the system.”
Council on Foreign Relations President Richard Haass believes that a “decision to reorient U.S. policy toward promoting political change in Tehran is warranted.” This can be done, Haass argues, by protecting the Green Movement’s access to the Internet, providing additional sanctions against Iran’s Revolutionary Guard and “aligning U.S. rhetoric with what Iranians themselves are saying in the streets of their country — that it’s time for a reform of political rights and an end to economic mismanagement.”
Posted in Freedom, Human Rights, Iran, Protests, Reform, US foreign policy | Comment »
Iran: No Real Change From the Green Movement
February 11th, 2010 by Maria
Marc Lynch just posted his analysis of the Green Movement’s failure to make any real breakthroughs during Iran’s revolution anniversary today. Lynch writes that we should not have expected this kind of regime change today, and that more importantly, President Obama and his administration have done the right thing by keeping its distance from the situation altogether. “We need to accept the limits of American influence over events in Iran,” he argues. “That doesn’t mean that the U.S. shouldn’t push for human rights and criticize repression — I think that the administration should support public freedoms in Iran just as it should across the Arab world (and beyond). But it shouldn’t count on a regime change from below which will largely be shaped by internal Iranian dynamics and not by American posturing.”
Slate’s Jason Rezaian agrees that today will likely be remembered for Iran’s declaration that it is a nuclear state, and not for anything else done by the protesters. “It’s impossible to guess what will happen next, but today it seems clear that the street phase is over,” he concludes. “The protests have been pushed underground, which means that the green revolution everyone has been waiting for will not be televised.”
In related news, Senators John McCain and Joe Lieberman introduced legislation today that would push for human rights in Iran. It would be the first piece of legislation to impose sanctions on Iran for civil rights violations.
Posted in Freedom, Human Rights, Iran, Protests, Reform, US foreign policy | Comment »
Iran: More Analysis on the Revolution Anniversary and Obama’s Policies
February 11th, 2010 by Maria
As reports flood in on Iran’s big day, many are providing some interesting analysis on Iran’s political situation. Today, Council on Foreign Relations published an interview with Farideh Farhi, an analyst from the National Iranian American Council, who says that the Iranian government “has to find a way to get rid of or overcome the gridlock.” Farhi argues that “no matter what happens in coming days — whether there is a violent confrontation or a silent protetst — these fundamental cleavages continue to exist.”
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace’s Karim Sadjadpour doesn’t have much confidence in the regime’s ability to last much longer. “There are any number of possibilities in the short term, but over the long term I have no confidence that this regime will be able to ameliorate the endemic political, economic, and social malaise they’ve wrought,” she argues. “If the Iranian government were a publicly traded stock, I would short it.”
There has also been a considerable amount of attention in the press about how U.S. foreign policy should address Iran. Mark Dubowitz writes in Foreign Policy that our energy sanctions against Iran have already began working. “As Iranians mark the 31st anniversary of the Iranian revolution by taking to the streets Thursday to protest against the brutality and illegitimacy of the clerical regime in Tehran, they will be once again facing off against the Revolutionary Guards,” he writes. “In the end, ’smart’ sanctions are those that can cripple the Iranian energy sector — the lifeblood of the men who rule Iran. But both the Obama administration and Congress have an important role to play in achieving this goal; it’s not a question of one approach or the other.”
Not all agree that the Obama administration has done enough, though. Jennifer Rubin argues in a blog for Commentary that the administration is simply making excuses not to do anything about Iran. “The picture is becoming regrettably clear. International sanctions are a faint hope,” she writes. “Obama has come up with a rationalization to downsize U.S. sanctions,” which Rubin feels is the wrong course of action.
Posted in Iran, Protests, Reform, US foreign policy | Comment »
Iran: Demonstrations Break out, Regime Cracks Down
February 11th, 2010 by Josh
Today, 22 Bahman (February 11), marks the much anticipated anniversary of the 1979 Islamic Revolution. As expected, a mixture of celebratory rallies and opposition counter-protests erupted throughout the country, with violent clashes reported in Tehran and elsewhere. Prior to today’s events, the New York Times reported that the regime disrupted internet service and completely shut down text-messaging in an attempt to eliminate the most significant organizing tool of opposition leaders. Additionally, Reuters is relaying a Wall Street Journal report about a country-wide drop in Google-traffic — despite Google’s network functioning properly — indicating that Iran’s regime has shut down access to the technology giant, and, more importantly, its popular email client, Gmail.
Dozens of protesters have been arrested thus far, according to the activist site, RAHANAH. But the crackdown does not appear to be limited to the grassroots organizers; the Times Online is reporting that opposition leader Mehdi Karroubi and former President Mohammed Khatami were attacked by plainclothes security forces. Perhaps of greater consequence, Zahra Eshraghi, the granddaughter of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, leader of the 1979 revolution, was briefly arrested.
Stick with POMED as we continue to relay news from, and commentary about, the events transpiring today in Iran.
Posted in Freedom, Human Rights, Iran, Islam and Democracy, Protests, Reform | Comment »
Iran: On the Eve of Its 1979 Revolution Anniversary
February 10th, 2010 by Maria
As Iran’s 31-year anniversary of its 1979 revolution approaches tomorrow, the press is filled with commentary and analysis about what this could mean, given the circumstances surrounding the Green Movement. Many are reporting on the regime’s increase in arrests of journalists — Iran now holds more journalists in prison than any other country in the world, according the the New York Times.
While some are predicting the regime’s collapse, Slate’s Jason Rezaian sees this as an exaggeration. “The stakes are higher than ever, especially now that opportunists of every stripe are doing their best to fill the gaps in the Green Movement,” he writes. “Many groups oppose the current government, but few can agree on what a non-theocratic Iran will look like.”
Persia House also released a translation today of a news article from last week’s Mehr News describing the regime’s ideological crackdown within the university system. The article cites Iran’s Minister of Science, Research, and Technology as declaring during a meeting with university deans that “when selecting members of scientific councils, Iranian universities should select individuals who believe in Iran’s Islamic system of government. Universities should also ensure that believing in the rule of the jurist [Supreme Leadership] is a practical prerequisite for obtaining academic scholarships.” Persia House argues that these rules seem to be “both punitive and preventive in nature” and that they would “enable the government to prevent reformists, or those with alleged reformist leanings, from obtaining university faculty positions.”
Posted in Freedom, Iran, Reform | Comment »
Iran: Feb 11th Protests a Turning Point for the Green Movement?
February 10th, 2010 by Jessica
As the anniversary of Iran’s Islamic revolution approaches tomorrow, many speculate on the outcome of potential protests on what has traditionally been a national holiday. An interesting article in The Christian Science Monitor argues that the success or failure of such movements depends on the motivations and strategy of those involved, and that the role of internet tools like Facebook and Twitter may be overstated. Peter Ackerman of the International Center on Nonviolent Conflict in Washington comments, “unless there is a strategy for creating loyalty shifts to the other side and a set of goals everyone can unify around, you’re not going to get where you need to be.” Opposition leader Mir Hossein Mousavi announced his participation in the protests on his website, which could cause an escalation in tensions. Ali Motahari a member and supporter of the current regime, in a letter to Mousavi, admonishes the Green Movement leader, suggesting that his actions are blocking the very reforms that he his seeking to implement.
While the Green Movement has incorporated technology into its strategy to keep activism alive, the regime has also formulated strategies to countermand the opposition. Clifford D. May of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies comments on the steps taken by Iranian government to quell the demonstrations. May’s article compares Iran’s preparation to a “Chinese solution,” describing the importation of approximately 300,000 “volunteers”. Green Movement protesters appear undeterred by these numbers, with speculation that the numbers of opposition members will approach, “3 million increasingly angry people, demanding freedom and justice.” Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei denounced the opposition, suggesting that its participants were being manipulated by Western countries.
In an interesting interview at Foreign Policy, Mohsen Sazegara, a co-founder of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) who later become disillusioned with the movement and the regime, voices the belief that the February 11th protests will be a turning point for both the regime and the opposition. Sazegara predicts that following the protests, the balance of power between the nation and the regime with change in favor of the Iranian people, leading to a “final action” against the regime, “In any movement like that, there is an action that the government can’t return from. Many sources of its power will be overcome by the people … We think the regime can rely only on 30,000 troops among the police, the Revolutionary Guard, and the Basij. They don’t have any volunteers, they have lots of cracks now, and after Feb. 11 they will have less than that. They are melting gradually in front of the nation.”
Posted in Iran, Protests | Comment »
Iran: Arrests in Advance of Next Week’s Planned Demonstrations
February 4th, 2010 by Josh
Kaveh Ghasemi Kermanshahi, a leading Iranian rights activist, was arrested on Wednesday by regime security personnel. The International Campaign for Human Rights in Iran responded immediately by denouncing the arrest and defending Kermanshahi as “one of the most important sources of objective human rights information and analysis in Iran.” Campaign spokesperson Hadi Ghaemi added that “Kaveh has committed no crime, and his arrest is an apparent attempt to shield the authorities from scrutiny ahead of expected protests on [February 11].”
In other ominous Iran news, Chantal Flores of the Nation’s Act Now! blog catches a report about a surge in arrests of female activists, most of whom are students.
As Iran braces for country-wide demonstrations on the anniversary of the 1979 Islamic Revolution next week, POMED will continue to provide updates about how the events may impact the ongoing formulation of U.S.-Iran policy.
Posted in Freedom, Human Rights, Iran, Protests, Reform, US foreign policy | Comment »
A Closer Look at Thomas Farr’s Briefing Remarks
February 4th, 2010 by Maria
Yesterday, POMED released a report about the briefing for the House Subcommittee on International Organizations, Human Rights and Oversight about the status and future of U.S. policy on international religious freedom. Thomas F. Farr, a professor at Georgetown and former American diplomat, was one of the panelists who presented at the briefing.
A PDF file of Farr’s full remarks can be found here.
Some highlights from Farr’s remarks include:
- “Our international religious freedom efforts are widely viewed abroad as only benefiting Christian minorities, as a front for Christian missionaries, and as anti-Islam. This perception is, let me say it firmly, utterly wrong. Indeed, if anything, U.S. foreign policy has tended to downplay the fates of Christian minorities in the Middle East and elsewhere. And it has advocated for the rights of Muslims. But perception is critical, and, in this case, the perception of our international religious freedom policy as pro-Christian and anti-Islam is crippling.”
- “Let me focus here on one critical issue — the President’s Cairo speech and his much praised strategy of engaging Muslim majority communities. It was a good speech. A significant portion was devoted to issues of human dignity and stability, namely, democracy, religious freedom, women’s rights, and development…The president told Muslim communities that religious liberty is central to human dignity and to social and political stability. In light of this, we are entitled to ask why his administration has so far ignored international religious freedom policy in the Muslim world.”
- “…Young Muslim leaders are telling us that they want democracy, and, like most Americans, they want to hear from the United States that we will support democracy in all Muslim majority countries, including Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Iran, and that we will support the rights of Muslims to engage in political life on the basis of Islamic principles. But to achieve this and the other benefits of democracy, Muslim majority communities must embrace religious freedom for others. This means members of their own communities must be able to interpret and even criticize their own traditions; that majorities must forswear privileged access to the civil authority and police powers of the state; and that minorities must have complete freedom of worship and equal access to the democratic public square, and the opportunity to influence law and public policy.”
Posted in Congressional Hearing Notes (House), Egypt, Freedom, Human Rights, Iran, Islam and Democracy, Saudi Arabia, US foreign policy | Comment »
Secretary Clinton: Human Rights a “Priority of the United States”
February 4th, 2010 by Maria
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton spoke at the 58th National Prayer Breakfast this morning, highlighting human rights violations caused in the name of religion as a top priority for President Obama’s administration. “We are working to bridge religious divides. We’re taking on violations of human rights perpetrated in the name of religion,” she said.
Secretary Clinton reaffirmed the administration’s commitment to human rights progress in the Middle East, and specifically mentioned the president’s Cairo speech last June. “Of course we’re supporting the peace process from Northern Ireland to the Middle East, and of course we are following up on the President’s historic speech at Cairo with outreach efforts to Muslims and promoting interfaith dialogue, and of course we’re condemning the repression in Iran,” she said.
On Iran, Secretary Clinton remarked that, “Religion is used to enshrine in law intolerance of free expression and peaceful protest. Iran is now detaining and executing people under a new crime - waging war against God. It seems to be a rather dramatic identity crisis.”
Clinton also made it a point to emphasize the administration’s desire to stand up against violations specifically against girls and women, who she said are denied their basic rights by those looking to perverse religion. “We’re making it clear to countries and leaders that these are priorities of the United States.” The secretary also mentioned it was important to make time to find “common ground” with the governments who are using religion “to promote and justify terrorism.” She said the administration is working with Muslim countries “to come up with an appropriate way of demonstrating criticism of religious intolerance…”
Posted in Freedom, Human Rights, Iran, Protests | Comment »
Iran: Drawing Parallels to South Africa and Poland
February 4th, 2010 by Josh
Following a week of heated debate over regime change policy, Michael Gerson, former senior advisor to President George W. Bush and member of the erstwhile White House Iraq Group, uses his Washington Post column to extoll the virtues of U.S. solidarity toward Iran’s opposition movement. Careful to disassociate himself from those who may promote more aggressive regime change policies — “No one argues that the Iraq model should apply to Iran” — Gerson wonders if Iran is ripe for a South African or Polish approach that utilizes massive shows of international solidarity to produce political change. He underscores the need for more supportive U.S. rhetoric by referencing an exiled oppositionist who said, “When fighting an authoritarian regime, one of their strategies is to perpetuate the notion that you have no power, that you are alone, that nobody can help you.” And although America’s leverage over events in Iran may be limited, Gerson believes that the Obama administration “must cross a mental line — from merely criticizing human rights abuses to creatively encouraging political change.”
Posted in Diplomacy, Freedom, Iran, Reform, US foreign policy | Comment »
