City of Brass

City of Brass

What if the Green Revolution fails?

A remarkable thing happened yesterday at President Obama’s afternoon press conference – he took a question from an Iranian, relayed via Nico Pitney at the Huffington Post. Pitney solicited questions via the Iranian Farsi-language social networking site Balatarin and invited the community to vote on which one to ask Obama, and the question that received the most support was the one he asked. It is important to note that the White House approached Pitney to ask the question, and did not know the question in advance. This is a tremendous milestone in citizen journalism – and predictably infuriated the mainstream Beltway media gatekeepers who see the idea that a President might engage directly with people as a threat to their privelege. Which it is -and there’s a movement underway now to push the President to accept one citizen-generated question at every press conference from now on.


That’s enough meta – let’s get to the substance of the question itself. The question that Pitney asked was this: “Under which conditions would you accept the election of Ahmadinejad, and if you do accept it without any significant changes in the conditions there isn’t that a betrayal of what the demonstrators there are working for?” I have transcribed the President’s answer below:

Well look, we didn’t have international observers on the ground. We can’t say definitively what exactly happened at polling places throughout the country. What we know is that a sizeable percentage of the Iranian people themselves, spanning Iranian society, consider this election illegitimate. It’s not an isolated instance, a little grumbling here or there. There is significant questions about the legitimacy of the election. And so ultimately, the most important thing for the Iranian government to consider is legitimacy in the eyes of its own people, not in the eyes of the United States, and thats why I’ve been very clear ultimately this is up to the Iranian people to decide who their leadership is gonna be and the structure of their government.


What we can do, is to say unequivocally that there are sets of international norms and principles about violence, about dealing with the peaceful dissent, that spans cultures, spans borders. And what we’ve been seeing over the internet, and what we’ve been seeing in news reports, violates those norms, and violates those principles. I think it is not too late for the Iranian government to recognize that there is a peaceful path that will lead to stability and legitimacy and prosperity for the Iranian people. We hope they take it.

The President here separates two issues that are indeed wholly separate (though Republicans have been doing their best to conflate them, for partisan political gain): 1. the legitimacy of the Iranian election, and 2. the violent suppression of the reform movement, including murder. Accepting the outcome of the election in Iran is not a betrayal of the Green Revolution on the streets – and in fact if we are to retain any leverage over Iran, to further the cause of human rights, then we as a nation must remain engaged with Iran to exert pressure, not abandon the Iranians to the tender mercies of their regime and turn our back on them.


Even conservatives I respect such as Reihan Salaam are advocating a isolation policy towards Iran – sanctions, preconditions for diplomactic recognition, etc. The effect of such a policy would be to give the regime more leeway to impose totalitarian control over the populace, not less. Is there even one example where diplomatic and economic isolation has resulted in improved human rights, let alone regime change?

An analogy and comparison between North Korea and China is instructive, and illustrates the fundamental diffference between autocracy and totalitarianism. We have zero leverage over North Korea, where decades of economic sanctions have only led to literal starvation of the masses while the elite remain untouched. There is no way for the plight of the NK people to reach the outside world, for NK citizens to get onto the internet or even ask a question of an American President. It is literally a black hole. In stark contrast, after the massacre at Tiananmen Square, there were many voices calling on President Bush Sr. at the time to impose sanctions and isolate China, but instead our relationship with China has grown since then. The result is a China where the heavy hand of the state may still censor the Internet and forbid public critique of the regime, but where also capitalism has been embraced and the average family can live their life with relatively high standards of living and social ambitions. The people of China themselves reacted angrily to Western critique of China during the Olympic Games in Beijing – an authentic nationalism that found its voice on the Internet, Youtube, and social networking sites just as the Green Revolution has. There is a trend towards increasing freedom, correlated intimately to increasing economic success, in China that would not exist had we attempted to isolate that nation after the tragedy of 1989.


Ultimately, if the Green Revolution fails, we need to still maintain a relationship with Iran to ensure that it becomes more like China and less like North Korea. That’s the best we can do short of outright invasion and forcing regime change, to help maintain breathing room for reformists to change their society and government from within. As the old adage goes, “the perfect is the enemy of the good”. In Iran, even with a successful Green Revolution, an Iran with a President Moussavi is still going to be one that neoconservatives will lambast and label as evil incarnate. But if the Green Revolution fails, and Ahmadinejad remains in control, then severing ties with Iran would indeed be a betrayal of all that the people have Iran have fought and even died for these past few weeks.


Related: Here’s video of President Obama’s response to the Iranian question. Also, an excellent diary at DailyKos about the neocons’ love-hate relationship with Ahmedinejad, and their total lack of credibility with respect to the cause of freedom for the people. With friends like these, the Green Revolution hardly needs enemies. Also, a surprisingly apolitical and excellent diary at RedState about the internal fissures within the Iranian regime, divisions that will bear fruit in time if the Iranian regime is not spurred towards the path of totalitarianism. Finally, Chris Bowers at OpenLeft reminds us how foreign involvement in a nation’s election process can often strengthen the incumbent regime – and invokes the letter-writing campaign by the UK Guardian newspaper in Clark County, OH during the 2004 election with actual data to prove his point.

Comments read comments(1)
post a comment

posted June 25, 2009 at 10:40 pm

While I believe it’s true that a continuing aggressive line against Iran would only cement the regime’s power, the regime is likely to cement its power even further anyway if it is able to effectively suppress the current movement. Provided it’s clever. The Chinese regime post-1989 has been pretty clever, particularly in the past few years as its brand of capitalism has flourished. The regime has not given up power; if anything it has increased its control and tightened restrictions within China. It can do this so long as the average Chinese person (or at least the average Chinese person who counts- ie not the rural peasant, who is left out of the equation for the most part) is fairly content with his daily situation. Thus the regime has cracked down hard on almost all forms of dissent, including those that were operating within strictly legal channels such as the lawyers’ movement.
Of course, a good deal of the Chinese model’s success hinges upon a continuing good economy (again, for some of the people) that will keep a sizable middle class and the uber-rich elite happy. Unrest exists in China now and has for some time, but much of it tends to be among the peasantry, who rightly feel themselves left out of everything other than increased control and (often class based, ironically enough) exploitation. But peasants aren’t much of a long-term threat; you beat heads and round people up and that’s that, usually. If the east-coast and other big industrial, uber-capitalist parts of China start to feel unrest, the regime has serious trouble. The same is probably true of Iran: provided that the regime can keep the economy afloat and maintain its sizable base, things will chug along. If things go horribly wrong economically it could push the regime to the breaking point; or alternatively, Iran becomes North Korea or Zimbabwe. Sanctions and threats of military action are likely to only have a negative impact in any of the possible scenarios; while they might push the regime economically, they also provide the counterbalance of an external agent to blame, which takes some of the pressure off of the regime for its economic policy. Plus cracking down on dissent is even more easily justified by simply labeling everyone who disagrees with the regime as collaborators with the enemy. So it’s a lose lose situation.
In short, I tend to think that if the regime can hold up through the current unrest, it is quite likely to emerge stronger, particularly if the US ratchets up the anti-Iran rhetoric and action. I would like to believe that both Iran and China are on the brink of a more open and freer society, but I’m not very sanguine about either’s possibilities. For that matter, I think American imperial policies are in fact in pretty good shape, all things considered, barring a disinvestment from the dollar… But that’s a whole different topic…

report abuse

Previous Posts

Deen and Mohabbat: There is no faith without love
This is a guest post by Yusuf Zakir. My religion--Islam--is discussed and portrayed in the media quite a lot these days, much to my chagrin. The American public is, generally, fearful of Muslims. Anti-Islamic sentiment is at an all-time ...

posted 10:10:30pm Oct. 07, 2015 | read full post »

nationwide hate rallies planned at mosques Oct 9-10, Homeland Security conf call
This weekend, there is a planned, armed protest "in every country, at every mosque" by a group called the "Global Rally for Humanity". So far, the protests are falling short of global, but they do have 21 mosques, community centers and ...

posted 1:40:08pm Oct. 06, 2015 | read full post »

why don't they condemn?
Ever since 9-11, and well before it, this is the litany of accusation that ordinary Muslim Americans have had to endure: Muslims do not condemn - there is no million Muslim march against terrorism. Islam is an inherently violent ...

posted 1:47:45pm Oct. 02, 2015 | read full post »

a Republican, Muslim Mayor of St Louis?
Umar Lee is many things - a native ...

posted 1:09:57am Sep. 30, 2015 | read full post »

Abrahamic Convergence - inspiration, forgiveness, and tragedy
This week is a truly portentous one for Muslims, Jews, and Catholics. In one week, we have Yom Kippur, the Day of Arafat and Eid ul Adha, and Pope Francis' first visit to the United States. I like the term "Abrahamic Convergence" for this sort ...

posted 3:08:38pm Sep. 24, 2015 | read full post »


Report as Inappropriate

You are reporting this content because it violates the Terms of Service.

All reported content is logged for investigation.