What Democracy Promotion Looks Like Posted by Max Bergmann

Robert Kagan's column today that Obama and progressives don't care about promoting democracy and freedom is worth reading only if you want to remember how truly scary it was to have these people running U.S. foreign policy. In an open letter to Kagan, Matt Duss shows some empathy: 

These last years have been extraordinarily unkind to your grand theories about the transformative potential of American explosives. e potential of American explosives. President Bush’s “global war on terror,” the invasion of Iraq, his so-called “freedom agenda,” turned out to be a real carnival of bad ideas, for which you were a key intellectual barker. It’s hard out here for a neocon. But I have to say, Mr. Kagan, your op-ed this morning is really beneath you. You can’t actually believe that President Obama is “siding with the Iranian regime” against the Iranian people, or that Obama’s outreach to Iran depends upon keeping hardliners in power, can you? You’re far too intelligent to buy the brutishly simplistic “realism” that you attempt to hang upon President Obama’s approach.

What Kagan and other conservatives don't get is that this is exactly what democracy promotion looks like:

This is not what democracy promotion looks like:

Iranian demonstrators were not inspired by tanks going into Baghdad or by threats of American bombings, instead they were inspired - in perhaps a small but significant way - by the the prospect for change - a prospect that only increased with Obama's outreach efforts. That is what democracy promotion looks like.

Iranian Protests Go Underground Posted by Adam Blickstein

Literally, to the Tehran subway:

Why Killing Protesters in Iran is a Bad Idea Posted by Patrick Barry

Reuters is reporting that Mir Hossein Mousavi has called for "peaceful protests or gatherings in Mosques on Thursday to mourn those killed" in the fallout from the disputed elections.  From Mousavi:

"A number of our countrymen were wounded or martyred,"

"I ask the people to express their solidarity with the families ... by coming together in mosques or taking part in peaceful demonstrations"

In a society that expresses deep veneration for martyrs, this move carries potentially huge political implications.  Watch for these gatherings to evolve into much larger-scale demonstrations, of the kind we've seen so far in Tehran, Isfahan, and elsewhere.  Juan Cole had some smart speculation on this subject a few days ago:

The problem with shooting protesters in Iran is that there will be a funeral, which will be another occasion for protest; and then a memorial service (more protest) and then a 40-day memorial (more protest). If more protesters are shot at these commemorations of the fallen, there will be memorials and protests around them, too. This thing could grow.

Update: It's already happening - Go to Nico's always excellent coverage to see this dynamic in effect.

'MargaUighurville' Rhetoric Furthers Obstructionist Agenda Posted by The Editors

From NSN intern William Benet:

Rep. Steve King (R-IA) uttered these words yesterday regarding the Obama administration’s decision to relocate innocent Uighur detainees from Guantanamo Bay to Bermuda:

We could avoid this criticism and shut down an operation that has actually been built up to accommodate the people that are there now, including the Uighurs, who are now wasting away in MargaUighurville from what I understand. I can’t even say it because I get Jimmy Buffett and Warren Buffett mixed up, I think.

Umm… what? Where, then, would you like these innocent Chinese Muslims to go? Not the US, not Bermuda, not anywhere? Offering no solutions of their own – aside from prolonging the unlawful detainment of civilians whose release was ordered by a federal court in 2008 – conservatives have relentlessly fought efforts by the Obama administration to potentially relocate these detainees within the US. Even after the White House has found a place outside of the US willing to take them, however, conservatives like King continue to belittle their situation. This language only serves to further the conservatives’ obstructionist strategy, and offers no constructive alternative.

On another note, a United States congressman who gets Jimmy Buffett and Warren Buffet mixed up… what?

Leave Your Broad Brush At Home Posted by Michael Cohen

I'm really befuddled, and a little annoyed, about what George Packer has written here:

It’s remarkable how difficult it’s been for writers of many different ideological persuasions to say that scenes like this (referring to attacks on demonstrators in Iran) are shameful. The reason, of course, has everything to do with the wars of the Bush years, at home and abroad, which have left so many thoughtful people incapable of holding onto the most basic thought. But it’s a mistake to let your attitude toward historic events be shaped and deformed by the desire not to sound like a neo-con, or to sound like a neo-con reborn. Trust the evidence of your eyes.

This is both untrue and unfair. Most everyone agrees that Iranian behavior is shameful, but what many on the left disagree about (and I won't speak for the conservative commentators here) is what the US should be saying in support of the demonstrators in Tehran. Surely Packer understands (and he seems to concede as much) that the calls for the US to avoid sticking its nose too directly into this battle are based on a fear that it could play into the hands of the ruling clerics and that the US image in Iran - not to mention our history of meddling in Iranian domestic affairs - might undermine our case. 

Packer argues, "being called agents of America is among the least of their (the demonstrators) worries, which may be why, in the days since Saturday, more and more of them (and of their Iranian supporters abroad) have been asking the world at least to speak up." Well I'm not so sure that's accurate and much of what I've read suggests the opposite. But does Packer really believe that the words of the US President are going to tip the situation in the demonstrators favor? He seems to be advocating fulsome rhetoric on democracy . . . for the sake of fulsome rhetoric on democracy.

The simple fact is that there is a huge difference between what Barack Obama said today (which Packer praised) and what John McCain is advocating.  One sounds like a neo-con, the other doesn't. I would imagine that many of the folks Packer attacked as being caught up in Bush over-compensation syndrome, like Stephen Walt and Spencer Ackerman, would associate themselves with the President's smart words.

So I'm not sure I understand Packer's point other than drawing overly broad and suspect assumptions about the motivations of liberals. Surely he must understand that those of us who are advocating for the US to keep its powder dry are doing so not because we are afraid to speak up in support of democracy . . . its because we are worried that specifically speaking up in the wrong way about democracy in Iran could have a deleterious impact. 

Maybe we're wrong about that, but I think Packer has a responsibility to differentiate between knee-jerk anti-Bushism and an argument based on a sober analysis of Iranian politics and US rhetorical influence.

Iranian Security Forces Posted by James Lamond

NAIC and Andrew Sullivan both post this chart of the power structure for Iranian security forces, from a Rand report:

Mike Pence Undermines the Iranian People Posted by Adam Blickstein

Out of touch conservatives continue to fall off their rocker over the situation in Iran.

President Obama has made it explicitly clear that it would be counter-productive for the U.S. to intervene in the Iranian election and take sides in the political turmoil now roiling the nation. Indeed, even former Bush administration State Department spokesman Nick Burns said:

"President Ahmadinejad would like nothing better than to see aggressive statements, a series of statements, from the United States which try to put the US at the center of this, and I think President Obama is avoiding that, quietly rightly."

And the most important (if not only) Republican spokesperson on foreign policy, Sen. Dick Lugar, concurs with the President and Nick Burns:

The ranking Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee sees no reason for the United States to intervene in the Iranian presidential election dispute at this time. ‘Our position is to allow the Iranians to work out their situation

And someone with very erratic views on national security, Pat Buchanan, actually made complete and eloquent sense, concurring with the President, Burns and Lugar:

When your adversary is making a fool of himself, get out of the way. That is a rule of politics Lyndon Johnson once put into the most pungent of terms. U.S. fulminations will change nothing in Tehran. But they would enable the regime to divert attention to U.S. meddling in Iran’s affairs and portray the candidate robbed in this election, Mir-Hossein Mousavi, as a poodle of the Americans.

So leave it to complete Republican political hack Mike Pence to play into the hands of Iran's oppressive regime and do exactly what Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has been waiting for:

Today I'm introducing a resolution that will do just that. It will express its concern regarding the reported irregularities of the presidential election of 12 June, 2009. It will condemn the violence against demonstrators by pro-government militia in Tehran in the wake of the elections. It will affirm our belief in the universality of individual rights and the importance of democratic and fair elections. And lastly, and most importantly, it will express the support of the American people for all Iranian citizens who struggle for freedom, civil liberties and the protection of the rule of law.

There is nothing that the very people Pence is decrying would like more than to show how this is an "us versus America" battle and paint the dissidents and Mousavi as tools of the American government. And creating at least an appearance of disunity in the American government provides ample ammunition for the regime and Ahmadinajad government to do just that. Pence is treading on some pretty dangerous ground, and he will invariably become a talking point for the thugs and Iranian officials who are attacking the opposition and embarking on violent suppression of dissident Iranians. I just hope Pence understands that political posturing like this should stop at the water's edge, especially when thousands of lives and the future of a nation are at stake.

But for Pence and other Republicans, they really seem to care more about themselves and their own political lives than the actual lives of the Iranian people.

And this is something, at least anecdotally, Iranians deeply understand and appreciate:

I'm an Iranian living in Canada. A few hours ago I talked to my brother who is a student at Sharif University, he was at the big rally yesterday and they were only feet away from Karoubi when they marched from the university entrance to Azadi square. He asked what had Obama had said and I started reading the transcript. When I got to "the United States can be a handy political football, or discussions with the United States [can be]" my brother sighed and said thank God this guy gets it.

The Tehran Beat - UPDATED Posted by Michael Cohen

None of us really know what's happening in Iraq right now - or what's going to happen. We're truly in the midst of "interesting times."

Since everything I know about Iran I learned in a great seminar with Nasser Hadian at Columbia University (and that was 7 years ago), I'll do my best to pass along smart analysis of the situation.

At TNR, John Judis makes a great argument as to why the Obama Administration should say less not more about what's happening in Iran:

The Obama administration has to be very careful about backing, or even placing great hopes on, someone like Iran's Moussavi and even on his impassioned followers. If we are seeing the beginning of another revolution--or structural transformation--in Iran, it is worth remembering that before the dust clears on this events, Kerensky can become Lenin and Bani Sadr can become Khomeini. The U.S. should use its influence--and get European countries to use theirs--but we should be careful and not allow ourselves to get into crusading mode where we think we can protect or defend one side against the other.

This take from Noah Milman is worth a read:

America should be playing it pretty cool right now. There are states that could plausibly bring pressure to bear in support of proper democratic procedures and against stealing elections or shooting protestors, but they would have to be states with real credibility both as democracies and as friends of Iran – i.e., places like Germany or India, not us. But it’s not obvious to me why Germans or Indians would want to interfere like that. We, unfortunately, can’t do much more than watch.

Finally, Trita Parsi tells us all to get a grip . . . sort of:

What's often forgotten amid the genuinely awe-inspiring spectacle of hundreds of thousands of long-suppressed people risking their lives on the streets to demand change is the fact that the political contest playing out in the election is, in fact, among rival factions of the same regime. Ahmadinejad represents a conservative element, backed by the Supreme Leader, that believes the established political class has hijacked the revolution and enriched themselves and is fearful that the faction's more pragmatic inclination toward engagement with the West could lead to a normalization of relations that will "pollute" Iran's culture and weaken the regime. Mousavi is not really a reformer so much as a pragmatic, moderate conservative who has campaigned with the backing of the reform movement because it recognizes that he has a better chance of unseating Ahmadinejad than one of their own would have.

Also keep an eye on Andrew Sullivan and Nico Pitney and Spencer Ackerman who are all on top of this in a big way.

UPDATE: Laura Secor has a fascinating post as well over at the New Yorker blog:

This is uncharted territory for the Islamic Republic of Iran. Until now, the regime has survived through a combination of repression and flexibility. The dispersal of power throughout a complex system, among rival political factions, and with the limited but active participation of the voting public, has allowed a basically unpopular regime to control a large population with only limited and targeted violence. There have always been loopholes and pressure points that allow the opposition and the regime to be dance partners, even if one or both of them is secretly brandishing a knife behind the other’s back. That has been less true under Ahmadinejad than in the past. But the culture of the organized opposition under the Islamic Republic has tended to remain cautious and moderate. Many of the protesters of recent days are not calling for an end to the Islamic Republic. They are calling for their votes to be counted. More nights like last night, however, when some seven protesters were allegedly shot, could swiftly change that.

So is there any way Khamenei can dial the situation back even to the unhappy modus vivendi of June 11th? He could have the Guardian Council concede that the official figures were wrong, and assert that the vote was close enough, after all, to send the election to a second round between Mousavi and Ahmadinejad. If this had been the initial announcement from the Interior Ministry on June 12th, it would have been entirely plausible. Ahmadinejad has a reliable base that could comprise as much as thirty per cent of the country, as well as all the advantages of incumbency, including access to state television; his conservative challenger, Mohsen Rezai, had amassed little momentum; and, at least until Mousavi’s late surge, there was a real contest between Mousavi and Karroubi for the hearts of the uncommitted. A split vote and a run-off would hardly have raised an eyebrow in the first instance. But to call one now, after having already endorsed a landslide victory for Ahmadinejad and called out riot police to enforce it, would be an admission that a brute power grab had been attempted and abandoned.

NSN Daily Update: 6/16/09 Posted by The National Security Network

For today's complete daily update click here.

What We’re Reading

The two US journalists who were imprisoned last week in North Korea have admitted that they entered the country illegally, and have accepted their sentences.

U.S. nuclear experts said North Korea has made significant progress in its nuclear program, stating that last month’s test had an explosive yield much greater than its first test three years ago.

Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi has agreed to accept three detainees from the Guantanamo Bay.

An audit by the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction and the State Department's Inspector General found that the State Department overpaid the security contractor Blackwater Worldwide by at least $55 million.

U.S. envoy to Pakistan Richard C. Holbrooke has attempted to regain trust within Pakistani refugee populations by convincing refugees that U.S. is on their side.

Commentary of the Day

A young Iranian living in Britain says that Iranian youth can no longer be suppressed, and that technology is opening up Iran faster that the regime can contain it.

A New York Times op-ed analyzes the political shuffling between the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Justice in the federal government’s efforts to combat the drug war on the U.S.-Mexico border.

The Moscow Times discusses Defense Secretary Gates’ political maneuvering prior to the U.S.-Russia summit next month.

Mr. President, Tear Down that Virtual Wall Posted by Adam Blickstein

Amidst continuing conservative cries of "apology tour" at a time where the situation in Iran remains precarious, there's this nugget in the British Telegraph that demonstrates President Obama's deft diplomacy:

Arguably, it was Barack Obama who brought down the virtual wall between Iran and the West with his conciliatory and hopeful Nowruz (Iran’s New Year) message on YouTube. I looked on as my friends and family watched his message with adoration in Tehran. “Why can’t he be our president”, one aunt gushed. It hit a chord, mainly because it made Ahmadinejad look foolish.

Why do conservatives celebrate the tearing down of walls only when it benefits their own political agenda?