oneworldtalk

JOHN KERRY
Published: June 17, 2009

THE grass-roots protests that have engulfed Iran since its presidential election last week have grabbed America’s attention and captured headlines — unfortunately, so has the clamor from neoconservatives urging President Obama to denounce the voting as a sham and insert ourselves directly in Iran’s unrest.

No less a figure than Senator John McCain, the Republican presidential nominee in 2008, has denounced President Obama’s response as “tepid.” He has also claimed that “if we are steadfast eventually the Iranian people will prevail.”

Mr. McCain’s rhetoric, of course, would be cathartic for any American policy maker weary of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s hostile message of division. We are all inspired by Iran’s peaceful demonstrations, the likes of which have not been seen there in three decades. Our sympathies are with those Iranians who seek a more respectful, cooperative relationship with the world. Watching heartbreaking video images of Basij paramilitaries terrorizing protesters, we feel the temptation to respond emotionally.

There’s just one problem. If we actually want to empower the Iranian people, we have to understand how our words can be manipulated and used against us to strengthen the clerical establishment, distract Iranians from a failing economy and rally a fiercely independent populace against outside interference. Iran’s hard-liners are already working hard to pin the election dispute, and the protests, as the result of American meddling. On Wednesday, the Iranian Foreign Ministry chastised American officials for “interventionist” statements. Government complaints of slanted coverage by the foreign press are rising in pitch.

We can’t escape the reality that for reformers in Tehran to have any hope for success, Iran’s election must be about Iran — not America. And if the street protests of the last days have taught us anything, it is that this is an Iranian moment, not an American one.

To understand this, we need only listen to the demonstrators. Their signs, slogans and Twitter postings say nothing about getting help from Washington — instead they are adapting the language of their own revolution. When Iranians shout “Allahu Akbar” from rooftops, they are repackaging the signature gesture of the 1979 Islamic Revolution.

Mir Hussein Moussavi, the leading reformist presidential candidate, has advocated a more conciliatory approach to America. But his political legitimacy comes from his revolutionary credentials for helping overthrow an American-backed shah — a history that today helps protect protesters against accusations of being an American “fifth column.”

Iran’s internal change is happening on two levels: on the streets, but also within the clerical establishment. Ultimately, no matter who wins the election, our fundamental security challenge will be the same — preventing Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. That will take patient effort, and premature engagement in Iran’s domestic politics may well make negotiations more difficult.

What comes next in Iran is unclear. What is clear is that the tough talk that Senator McCain advocates got us nowhere for the last eight years. Our saber-rattling only empowered hard-liners and put reformers on the defensive. An Iranian president who advocated a “dialogue among civilizations” and societal reforms was replaced by one who denied the Holocaust and routinely called for the destruction of Israel.

Meanwhile, Iran’s influence in the Middle East expanded and it made considerable progress on its nuclear program.

The last thing we should do is give Mr. Ahmadinejad an opportunity to evoke the 1953 American-sponsored coup, which ousted Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh and returned Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi to power. Doing so would only allow him to cast himself as a modern-day Mossadegh, standing up for principle against a Western puppet.

Words are important. President Obama has made that clear in devising a new approach to Iran and the wider Muslim world. In offering negotiation and conciliation, he has put the region’s extremists on the defensive.

We have seen the results of this new vision already. His outreach may have helped to make a difference in the election last week in Lebanon, where a pro-Western coalition surprised many by winning a resounding victory.

We’re seeing signs that it’s having an impact in Iran as well. Returning to harsh criticism now would only erase this progress, empower hard-liners in Iran who want to see negotiations fail and undercut those who have risen up in support of a better relationship.

John Kerry, Democrat of Massachusetts, is the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

By David Ignatius

The stormy Iranian elections are one more sign of how the world has been shaken up in the age of Barack Obama. The ruling mullahs are nervous about a threat to the regime; the opposition is in the streets protesting what they assert is a rigged election. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is claiming a new mandate, but what the world sees is the regime's vulnerability.

And what should Obama say about this ferment in Iran, a process that he has subtly encouraged? I'd argue that he should continue with the line he took in his Cairo speech two weeks ago -- speaking directly to Muslim publics even as he proposes dialogue with the repressive regimes that govern Iran and many other nations.

Obama would make a mistake if he seemed to meddle in Iranian politics. That would give the mullahs the foreign enemy they need to discredit the reformers. Obama struck the right tone when he said late Monday: "The world is watching and inspired by their participation, regardless of what the ultimate outcome of the election was." The basic message is: We support the Iranian people and their democracy. Any change in how Iran is governed is their decision, not America's.

The wild card is whether the young protesters will stay in the streets, forcing the mullahs to take strong, and potentially destabilizing, action against them. One knowledgeable former CIA officer says that Iranian protests appear to be "loosely organized," with no outside help. Another former CIA officer who specialized in Iran says the regime's fears of a "color revolution," as in Georgia or Ukraine, are premature. But he warns: "It could get interesting as the summer wears on."

U.S. intelligence officials tell me that it's quite possible that Ahmadinejad actually did win Friday's election -- though with a lower total than the 63 percent that the regime is claiming. "It would appear that the results are inflated," said one official, reflecting what he said was the preliminary judgment of the intelligence community. But he cautioned: "Our ability to peer into the Iranian election machinery is very limited."

Obama's opening to Iran seems to have encouraged the supporters of Mir Hossein Mousavi, the former prime minister who finished second in the official results -- and whose supporters have been rioting the past few days. "A growing portion of the Iranian public sees an opening with the U.S. as positive, and Obama has encouraged that," the intelligence official explained.

The well-spoken Mousavi and his charismatic wife were a tonic for Iranians who have been embarrassed by Ahmadinejad's crude tirades. "They are tired of being laughed at and spurned," said the intelligence official, who closely monitors information from Iran and other Muslim countries.

U.S. intelligence officials consulted with the White House as speechwriters were preparing the Cairo address -- seeking to calibrate the message in a way that would be most effective in countering Muslim extremists. These officials believe that Obama, with his coolly rational approach, is suggesting a new pathway for young people who might otherwise be tempted by jihadist rhetoric.

"What the president has done thus far is create a strategic framework for understanding the U.S. in a different way," said a second intelligence official. Obama is "chipping away" at the radical narrative and "increasing the number of alternatives to that radical view," he explained. "He's making more attractive the idea that change can occur outside the radicalization process."

A similar analysis of Obama's outreach to the Muslim world comes from Tawfik Hamid, a former jihadist from Egypt who was once part of a network that included Ayman al-Zawahiri, the No. 2 official in al-Qaeda. Hamid argued in an interview that Obama has encouraged "critical thinking" among young Muslims -- pushing them to transcend the simple categories of halal (pure and Islamic) and haram (impure and un-Islamic). Hamid recalled that among his jihadist group in Cairo, there was a saying: al fikr kufr, which loosely translates as "To think makes you an infidel." Obama challenges that.

Reason vs. unreason; outreach vs. closed minds; connection with the modern world vs. isolation and backwardness; freedom vs. repression. This is the shape of the debate in Iran and much of the rest of the Muslim world as the age of Obama moves forward. For once, it's an argument that puts America firmly (but unobtrusively) on the side of the people. What we're seeing in Tehran is a reminder that millions of Muslims hunger for change -- but they want to make it themselves.

The writer is co-host of PostGlobal, an online discussion of international issues. His e-mail address is davidignatius@washpost.com.

US President Barack Obama made a major gesture of conciliation to Iran today when he admitted US involvement in the 1953 coup which overthrew the government of Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh.

"In the middle of the Cold War, the United States played a role in the overthrow of a democratically elected Iranian government," Mr Obama said during his keynote speech to the Muslim world in Cairo.

It is the first time a serving US president has publicly admitted American involvement in the coup.

The CIA, with British backing, masterminded the coup after Mossadegh nationalised the oil industry, run until then in by the British-owned Anglo-Iranian Oil Company.

For many Iranians, the coup demonstrated duplicity by the United States, which presented itself as a defender of freedom but did not hesitate to use underhand methods to get rid of a democratically elected government to suit its own economic and strategic interests.

Mr Obama also said: "For many years, Iran has defined itself in part by its opposition to my country, and there is in fact a tumultuous history between us.

"Since the Islamic Revolution, Iran has played a role in acts of hostage-taking and violence against US troops and civilians. This history is well known.

"Rather than remain trapped in the past, I've made it clear to Iran's leaders and people that my country is prepared to move forward. The question now is not what Iran is against, but rather what future it wants to build."