[Marxism] WaPo siezes on Iran repression to push "regime change, " reject talks

["Fred Feldman" <ffeldman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Iran's Lessons
Shouldn't 'realism' mandate regime change?

Saturday, June 27, 2009 



EACH DAY Iran's extremist regime offers the world new lessons in its true
nature. Yesterday we heard the cynicism of the Guardian Council, which
announced that this month's presidential election, in the words of its
spokesman, "was the cleanest we have ever had." On Thursday the belligerent
arrogance of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was on display, as he demanded
that President Obama apologize for condemning the massive human rights
violations his security forces have perpetrated. All week we have witnessed
the cold ruthlessness with which "robocops" attack peaceful demonstrators on
the streets of Tehran and the mass arrests of opposition political activists
and journalists. 

It's still too early to say whether Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and Mr.
Ahmadinejad will succeed in their hard-line coup; de facto opposition leader
Mir Hossein Mousavi remains publicly defiant. Yet it is becoming quite clear
-- for all who care to see it -- what the Khamenei-Ahmadinejad regime will
offer if it survives: harsh repression at home and unrelenting hostility
toward the West. If the regime chooses to "engage" at all with the United
States, it will be to bolster its shaky legitimacy, not to surrender its
nuclear program or its support for terrorism. The only plausible path toward
ending the threat it poses is that demanded by the demonstrators: regime
change. 

Some have theorized that Mr. Ahmadinejad's repression of the massive popular
uprising could at least make it easier for the United States to build a
coalition able to impose tough sanctions. But this week brought a
depressingly familiar indication of how that diplomacy will unfold. Russia,
which along with China has recognized Mr. Ahmadinejad as the election
winner, blocked a Group of Eight meeting from even condemning the
government's violence. "Isolating Iran is the wrong approach," said Russian
Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, repeating his standard line. With U.S.
support, the G-8 ended up renewing its invitation to Iran to open
negotiations on its nuclear program -- even though the blood on Tehran's
streets is not yet dry. 

That stance would seem to contradict the position Mr. Obama took on Tuesday,
when he denounced the regime's violence, said the protest movement was "on
the side of history" and suggested that his policy of engagement would be
put on hold. After meeting with German Chancellor Angela Merkel yesterday,
Mr. Obama refined that stance, saying that while "multilateral discussions"
with Iran could proceed on the nuclear program, the "direct dialogue between
the United States and Iran" would be subject to the wait-and-see approach.
There may be some tactical sense in that: The administration could preserve
the international coalition it is trying to build while denying the shaky
supreme leader the political boost that would come from direct dialogue with
Washington. 

Still, by now it ought to be clear that the best chance to protect what Mr.
Obama calls "core U.S. security interests" lies in a victory for the Iranian
opposition. That may look unlikely for now. But it is considerably more
probable than a turn toward detente by those now engaged in murdering young
women. There may not be much that can be done to help the opposition, though
some tangible steps -- more money for broadcasting into the country, for
example -- are readily available. But at the least, nothing should be done
that would harm the cause of change. That is not just the moral course; it
is the most pragmatic and realistic. 




________________________________________________
YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
Send list submissions to: Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Set your options at: 
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40archives.econ.utah.edu