Party of 1

Developments in Iran continue to provoke concern, due to both the regime’s nuclear ambitions and its treatment of domestic opponents like the “Green Movement.” Late last week, writing in the New York Times, Reuel Marc Gerecht waxed eloquent about the possibility of an overthrow of the clerical regime in a “democratic revolution.” Gerecht: “A democratic revolution in Tehran could well prove the most momentous Mideastern event since the fall of the Ottoman Empire….” Gerecht wrote the day before the anniversary of the 1979 revolution, which was expected to be marked by both official celebrations and opposition protests; it turned out that, on the day, the regime was able to quash any protests quite ruthlessly.

Opposed to Gerecht are Flynt and Hillary Mann Leverett, proprietors of the Race for Iran website. The Leveretts describe themselves as foreign policy “realists,” and their attitude toward the clerical regime may be summarized as — “deal with it.” They insist that the Green Movement is overrated, as they are in this op-ed from last month. That commentary drew criticism (for instance, here) for being  far too indulgent of the regime.

Looking at the latest offering from the Leveretts (on their website, as of Friday), one can’t help but suspect that there’s a bit more than cold-blooded “realism” to their view. “Historically, in the 12 months preceding the departure of the Shah from Iran and the founding of the Islamic Republic in 1979, Iranian security forces gunned down thousands—perhaps even tens of thousands—of anti-Shah protestors.  But, even in the face of this brutality, protestors kept coming out, and the crowds demanding the Shah’s removal kept growing until they overwhelmed the Pahlavi regime’s massive security apparatus.  That was a real revolution.” It sounds as though they regard the 1979 revolution as the legitimate expression of the Iranian people — and they would suspect someone like Gerecht of seeking no more than to install a compliant regime under American auspices. Of course, the history of that sort of thing goes all the way back to 1953.

David Ignatius always reflects the view of the American foreign-policy establishment. He wants an “all-of the above” policy — engage the regime, but also criticize human-rights violations. Ignatius: “In thinking about Iran, it’s useful to recall how Washington dealt with the empty vessel that was the Soviet Union. To encourage its eventual crackup, the United States adopted a mix of diplomacy and sanctions; it spoke out about human rights violations, but it never stopped trying to negotiate arms control agreements. Even as it engaged the Russians, it consistently criticized communist rule.”

With reporting from within Iran extremely constrained, it’s hard to know exactly what’s going on, especially with regard to the strength of the opposition. Critics of American foreign policy will be quick to point out that Gerecht’s reputation as a “neocon” precedes him. Nevertheless, to dismiss Gerecht out of hand comes across as just a little cold-blooded these days, especially in the aftermath of such incidents as the death of Neda Agha-Soltan….

Opponents of the clerical regime in Iran suggest that an alternative to sanctions or a military attack might be support for the domestic opposition. Earlier this week the New York Times published an op-ed commentary by Flynt and Hillary Mann Leverett of the New America Foundation, minimizing the strength of the opposition.

By running a piece of this nature, the Times editorial page was playing to type, and perhaps leaving itself open to charges of being excessively accommodationist. The Leveretts’ conclusions have not gone unchallenged, as evidenced by this reply on the New Republic site by Abbas Milani of the Iran Democracy Project at Stanford University.

“The tightening of sanctions is not the right path ahead. They affect the people more than the government. A military attack is something I categorically reject.” So insists Iranian dissident and former political prisoner Moshen Kadivar in an interview with Germany’s Der Spiegel. Nevertheless, “I do not know when, exactly, but I am convinced that the regime will collapse.”

Kadivar, who holds the rank of ayatollah, currently is a visiting research professor at Duke University.

“We have reached the point where air strikes are the only plausible option with any prospect of preventing Iran’s acquisition of nuclear weapons. Postponing military action merely provides Iran a window to expand, disperse and harden its nuclear facilities against attack. The sooner the United States takes action, the better.” So writes Alan J. Kuperman of the Nuclear Proliferation Prevention Program at the University of Texas at Austin in Thursday’s New York Times.

A poignant commentary indeed, appearing as it did with Christmas approaching. It appears to have raised enough eyebrows that I suppose it will be speculated that it may signal a shift in elite opinion, especially given its prominent placement in a forum not known for its hawkishness….

“It’s 1938, and Iran is Germany,” says Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. That is not a view that everyone will accept, of course. Nevertheless, Der Spiegel reports the results of a recent survey, according to which 11% of the Israeli population would consider leaving the country if Iran acquires nuclear weapons….

“The talk in Israel, explicit and open … is about a war in the coming spring or summer…. Binyamin Netanyahu, the prime minister, and Ehud Barak, the defence minister, will then have to decide if Israel can live with a nuclear Iran and rely on deterrence…. Obama will soon have to decide whether to give Israel a green light, and how brightly it will shine. And soon. For spring is fast approaching.” So writes Benny Morris of Israel’s Ben-Gurion University on the Guardian website….

Right-of-center critics in the United States regard Iran’s theocratic regime as illegitimate. In response, progressives, reluctant to sign off on a policy that might culminate in an attack on the Islamic Republic, have speculated that the Iranian opposition, with memories of the 1953 American-backed coup, would prefer gradual reform to an overthrow of the mullahs.

Thomas Erdbrink, reporting from Tehran in Sunday’s Washington Post, finds the Iranian opposition  to be leaderless and divided between gradualists and those who would take a harder line — and “there is no way to measure how widespread the sentiments on both sides are.”

“I don’t want to save the Islamic republic…. I want a total change, something close to a revolution,”  said a 28-year-old identified only as Reza. Several of those interviewed voiced similar settlements, citing the violent crackdown that followed the disputed elections. But a 29-year-old named Ali said: “”We should take this step by step…. If we become extreme, we will alienate many of our supporters.” According to a blogger named Mehdi, “We are united against the government, but we have different thoughts on how far we should go.”

According to Erdbrink, some members of the opposition “are secular, others religious. Many are youths who feel tremendous pressure over losing their few personal freedoms to renewed government attempts to control their private lives.”

“Iran’s beleaguered opposition movement struggled to reassert itself on Wednesday, as tens of thousands of protesters braved police beatings and clouds of tear gas on the sidelines of a major, government-sponsored anti-American rally…. Even some government authorities seemed to grudgingly concede that the opposition had — for the first time — disrupted the annual anti-American rally,” the New York Times reports.

In Washington, the White House issued a supportive statement, but some Iranian dissidents appear to feel  that the Obama administration’s support is too tepid. According to the NYT, witnesses reported a chant: “Obama, Obama — either you’re with them or you’re with us.”

“… Iran experts say the very caustic, and very public, nature of the debate in Iran over the proposed nuclear deal suggests that the deep divisions cemented by the summer’s disputed presidential election have complicated, if not undermined, the ability to resolve such a major issue…. the problem appears, at least in part, to be politics — local politics.” So reports Michael Slackman in Tuesday’s New York Times. Prospects for any kind of agreement with the West may not be auspicious, because rivals of confrontational President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad may be trying to outbid him at vehemence.

See also Doyle McManus in Sunday’s Los Angeles Times, citing Ray Takeyh of the Council on Foreign Relations: “There’s been a breakdown in the country’s foreign policy machinery. Iran doesn’t have a foreign policy right now. It has domestic politics, and its foreign policies are just a sporadic expression of that. It’s not sinister; it’s not duplicitous; it’s just incompetent.”

David E. Sanger reports in the New York Times reports on the “state of play” between Iran and the West, as the inspection of the Qum nuclear enrichment site looms.  Excerpts:

“In Washington… even some of President Obama’s aides are wary that Iran is setting a trap, trying to turn the administration’s signature offer of engagement into a process of endless negotiations. They are acutely aware of the fact that the clock is ticking….”

“The rare public argument under way in Iran about how to deal with the demands suggests that Mr. Obama has already achieved one of the major objectives of his engagement strategy: to force out into the open the splits in the Iranian leadership…. President George W. Bush’s refusal to negotiate with Iran for eight years meant that the United States never forced the country’s ruling mullahs to justify their actions to their own people, who have suffered from sanctions and may be less interested in the nuclear program than in better relations with the world.”

“White House officials are extremely aware of their own political and practical vulnerabilities in dealing with Iran…. But few in the White House doubt how the narrative will be written if the Iranians actually gain a weapons ability on Mr. Obama’s watch.”

“Many people at the negotiating table expect Iran to try to drag out the process. Yet even if Iran took the deal, it would only buy time; it would not solve the nuclear standoff…. The Iranians say time is on their side in this dispute, and as long as their government holds together in the face of rising protests, they may be right.”