The news from Tehran over the past week has become increasingly alarming. Journalists expelled; communications cut off;
protesters shot seemingly at will. A botched attempt to rig a democratic presidential election has brought a vast amount of popular unrest to a country with a government infamous for popular suppression. Though it maybe be too early and overly optimistic to say, these events seem to be a catalyst for the people of Iran to reject a government that has, for a long time, rejected them. President Obama has been deafeningly silent on these historic events. His few public comments have been in an effort to, essentially, speak without saying anything. I think this is a huge mistake and may be viewed in the future as a giant missed opportunity for the security interests of the United States.
Essentially, two arguments against have been put forth by both the administration and liberal (as well as some conservative)
bloggers. First, that the United States should not insert itself into the dialogue in Iran, further inflaming tension and creating more ill will toward the protesters. Second, that the United States should not enter into a conflict that is not in its interests. Effectively, lets not go to war with Iran.
To address the second argument first, I have seen no one advocate, nor do I here, for any sort of armed intervention in their internal struggle. I simply postulate that President Obama use his bully pulpit and his position as the leader of the free world to provide his vocal support. This is a straw man argument that can be easily disregarded, as no one credible is actually advocating military action.
As for the first argument,
Obama's non-involvement policy has already received condemnation as "meddling" by the theocracy in Iran. Plus, since when do we let the Iranian
government define our foreign policy OR our moral compass? If the United States government is already seen as meddling in the affairs of Iran, in what way would ACTUALLY MEDDLING alter the rhetoric of the Iranian "government." Building credibility with a
government that already gives us none is not progress, it is treading water, and it is bad policy. Also, does anyone truly believe that, if the mullahs like us enough, they will suddenly abandon their nuclear program?
Ahmadinejad as already said that the nuclear book is "closed."
Lets pause and think about the implications of the overthrow of the Islamic Republic government in Iran. Iranian funding for Hezbollah dries up, potentially putting an end to their reign of terror in Lebanon and the Middle East as well as their support for terror against the United States, Israel, and their collective interests. Is there any way this could be construed as not providing for a more secure United States, at home and abroad? The majority of the Iranian population is young, sympathetic to the west, educated, and not anti-American. Would popular sovereignty of a group thus described not lead to a truly democratically elected government that is not only not anti-American, but may have the potential to become a U.S. ally in the region? Would ratcheting down the anti-Israeli rhetoric somehow not add to the stability of the region, a region that controls the vast majority of the world's oil, an economic as well as a security concern for the people of the United States?
All of these things are incontrovertibly in the security interests of the United States. In fact, there is almost no downside whatsoever. This is an opportunity for the United States to achieve real change in a dangerous, American hating part of the world without firing a shot. It is a security imperative that we provide this protest our full-
throated support, in the hopes that we achieve real, tangible security gains for America.
UPDATE: If you haven't already, listen to what Reza Pahlavi said today at the National Press Club. Pahlavi is the son of the Shah of Iran and is begging the international community to stand up for his Iranian brethren. Is there anyone who understands the situation better than he does?
