Listening to History

by Keith Cooper

From Broader View Weekly, July 3, 2009

Anyone who has listened to talk radio over the last couple of weeks may be under the impression that President Obama sat idly by while events in Iran unfolded. There was some mention of his being on the wrong side of history, and of his falling behind the historical curve. I am not sure if the phrase “being on the right side of history” actually has any real meaning, but regarding Iran I think the case for that concept is even shakier.

The fact that the Iranian election results of June 12 indicate fraud and corruption is hardly disputed. How the rightful election of Mousavi would play out is a matter for greater debate. While his term as prime minister of Iran can be studied for a hint of how a Mousavi presidency would look, it is difficult to be certain since his service occurred during a transitional period in Iran’s governing structure. I agree that Obama is right not to side with either the devil we know or the devil we don’t.

So the issue of the election becomes less about its legitimacy and more about the Iranian government’s response to the protesters’ outcry.

A look beyond the ranting of conservative punditry reveals that the administration’s policy on that issue has consistently been to uphold the rights of the voting public, encourage investigation of the results, and to warn strongly against a violent retaliation by the state. Without fueling Ahmadinejad’s manipulation of perceived external interference to be used as a weapon against Iran’s citizens, Obama has effectively made a clear statement of what the international community expects of Iran. In fact, rather than waiting for things to shake out, he began focusing the discussion on the democratic process in speeches days before the suspect election results were announced.

Still, words like “weak” and “timid” have peppered the various critiques of the president’s response. My guess is that this characterization is part of the ongoing effort to portray Obama as an ineffective world-leader. A common model of recent comparison is the “bring-‘em-on” cowboy persona of George W. Bush. The implication seems to be that the leader of the free world should wear his title like some measure of his machismo. Apparently some feel that there is historical evidence to suggest that this posturing has made the United States more secure. I believe that such bravado has stirred animosity, especially in the Middle East and has led to complications that haunt us today.

There are lessons to be learned from history. The U.S. has been influential in regards to democracy of Iran – most often to its detriment. Since the CIA engineered a coup in the 1950s to overthrow the democratically elected government, there have been several points throughout history during which the United States has had a dramatic impact on regime change in Iran. Notable is our involvement bringing to power a tyrannical Shah who ruled with an iron fist until the Islamic Revolution led to his exile. Also of interest was the problematic relationship the United States fostered during the Reagan administration with a certain Iraqi leader. The image of the Bush administration Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld (then a special envoy of Reagan) shaking hands with Saddam Hussein, while deals were cemented to provide U.S. weaponry and resources to be used against Iranian military and civilians, has become a symbol of that dysfunctional relationship.

In fact, outside intervention in the affairs of Iran in the interest of securing Middle Eastern oil supplies has done more to defeat the spread of democracy in the region than to encourage it. When it comes to the idea that the Iranian people can look to their neighbors in Iraq and be encouraged by the flames of democracy, the glow of that candle is often difficult to distinguish amidst the explosions in marketplaces that continue to plague the war-torn nation in the wake of the U.S. invasion.

History also shows us inconsistencies in the American approach to injustice and human rights violence. It is interesting to me to hear certain voices crying for action to prevent further violence against Iranian citizens, when those same voices were eerily silent during the Darfur conflict that left hundreds of thousands dead and millions displaced during the previous administration. Perhaps this disparity is evidence of a larger agenda that reflects our interests in Iran and the Middle East.

I think history will clearly proclaim that the world has been changed by the administrations of Bush and Reagan and will probably be changed by Obama’s. The brand of change will be different I’m sure. Perhaps reflective intellect and careful action will trump threats of annihilation and immature posturing. I certainly hope so.