Iran: Kissinger & Lugar on the US response

[nerdgirl 0]

The realist perspective versus the criticisms of President Obama’s “cautious, almost neutral stance designed to avoid ‘meddling’ in Iranian affairs,” is well-illustrated, imo, by contrasting those criticisms with the observations of former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger and Senator Dick Lugar.

From an interview on Fox News yesterday (video, worth watching, imo) Former Secretary of State Kissinger:

“Well, you know, I was a McCain supporter and -- but I think the president has handled this well. Anything that the United States puts us totally behind one of the contenders behind Mousavi, would be a handicap for that person. And I think it's the proper position to take that the people of Iran have to make that decision.

“Of course, we have to state our fundamental convictions of freedom of speech, free elections, and I don't see how President Obama could say less than he has, and even that is considered intolerable meddling. He has, after all, carefully stayed away from saying things that seem to support one side or the other. And I think it was the right thing to do because public support for the opposition would only be used by the -- by Ahmadinejad -- if I can ever learn his name properly -- against Mousavi.”

Dr. Kissinger also notes that while Mr. Mousavi may be more liberal and less erratic compared to Mr. Ahmadinejad, he is unlikely to be pro-Western.

It would be a-historic ... & perhaps even disengenous (?) ... to not note that Dr. Kissinger -- as a master of realpolitik -- has had little to no interest in regime change or pro-democratic movements. His interest was in regimes/governments that would cooperate beneficially with the US in support of US foreign policy goals, e.g., Latin America policy of the 1970s supporting less than upstanding representatives of free democracies, such as General Pinochet’s regime in Chile, with the oppressive military junta in Argentina, Uruguay, etc.


Another conservative voice -- & one of my favorite Senators Dick Lugar (R-IN), who’s the ranking minority member on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, commented

“For us to become heavily involved in the election at this point is to give the clergy an opportunity to have an enemy and to use us, really, to retain their power.”

Some resemblence to longer comments I wrote last year … & I’m not sure how pleased or scared I should be that my thinking/analysis is running parallel to Dr. Kissinger’s … making US foreign policy about Mr. Ahmadinejad specifically puts us at a strategic disadvantage and favors him, i.e., it gives him more prestige in hardline Iranian domestic politics.


By comparsion, former DepSecDef Paul Wolfowitz has an Op-Ed in today’s Washington Post “'No Comment' Is Not an Option”:

“It would be a cruel irony if, in an effort to avoid imposing democracy, the United States were to tip the scale toward dictators who impose their will on people struggling for freedom.”

That comment reminded me of a refrain I heard repeatedly last week in various forms: “I wish Afghanistan was going to be as easy as Iraq.”
One might revise that to speculate on whether “imposing [US-style & US-friendly] democracy” on Afghanistan or Iran would be less painful?

/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[ErricoMalatesta 0]

I enjoy the effort and style of your posts nerdgirl but alas I can offer no more than the following...

I hope Kissinger suffers a long, drawn out and horrible death.

[warpedskydiver 0]

I think I might go as far as sending in SGS teams of Iranian decent to help out.

Just have to wash some passports and documents.

[Gawain 0]

I am impressed that the Iranian people are fed-up. Unfortunately, I don't think there would be much of a change with Mr. Mousavi.

All the people on the ballot were picked by the Ayatollahs anyway...by that measure alone, the vote was fixed.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

I am impressed that the Iranian people are fed-up. Unfortunately, I don't think there would be much of a change with Mr. Mousavi.

All the people on the ballot were picked by the Ayatollahs anyway...by that measure alone, the vote was fixed.

If Mousavi did not turn out to be what the people of Iran want, it'll get bigger and angrier.

I think they are correct - stay out of it and let it grow by itself. At least, stay out of clear view.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[TomAiello 26]

Quote

I am impressed that the Iranian people are fed-up. Unfortunately, I don't think there would be much of a change with Mr. Mousavi.

Khatami was probably more of a reformer than Mousavi. Despite being president, he basically got shut down at every turn by the Guardian Council.

The idea that the election was rigged is fascinating, if only because I don't think the establishment is at all threatened by a reformist President. They just circumvent and hamstring all the reforms. That means that the election rigging was done by the current President--not the Supreme Leader (although it may have had the Supreme Leaders knowledge and obviously had his tacit support after the fact).

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

Quote

I am impressed that the Iranian people are fed-up. Unfortunately, I don't think there would be much of a change with Mr. Mousavi.

Khatami was probably more of a reformer than Mousavi.

Concur.

I don't think that there's much expectation by those who follow Iran that Mousavi would be as much of a reformer as Mohammad Khatami. Yes, he’s likely to be different from Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

And if one's perspective/motivation is concern w/r/t Iran's nuclear ambitions, it is worth being cognizant that back when Mousavi was PM in the late 1980’s, he was substantially and substantively involved in the covert deal to acquire centrifuge technology (for uranium enrichment) via Pakistan’s A.Q. Khan that enabled the Iranian nuclear program. Tertiary report on his more recent stance/comments.

More on realist perspective on what should be the US response to Iranian elections/protests from Stephen Walt:

"Obama's measured response to the events in Iran strikes me as more sensible: we can and should deplore the abuses of basic rights and the democratic process, while making it clear that the United States is not interfering and remaining open to the possibility of constructive dialogue. Given our long and troubled history with Iran (which includes active support for groups seeking to overthrow the current government), any sense that we are now trying to back Moussavi is likely to backfire. Trying to steer this one from Washington won’t advance our interests or those of the reformists."

/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying