Republicans and Iran: the Gorillaphant in Action
Republicans, and neocons in particular, have done a lot of chest thumping about Iran lately. The “Party of No” gets a lot of mileage out of focusing on emotional tone, bandying it about in lieu of substance, straight facts, or deep thought on the issues. This is reflective, perhaps, of the authoritarianism inherent in conservative thought, and its corollary of “tough talk” as a rhetorical means to express disapproval and dominance. The problem is when “tough talk” becomes a substitute for calculated action formulated with a strategic plan in mind. There is probably no quicker way for Congress to torpedo American interests in the foreign affairs arena than to give in to the fleeting emotional gratification of posturing and verbal rebukes to other governments loudly broadcast on the international stage.
The proper mouthpiece for rebukes and harsh language to other nations is the President of the United States or his proxy, the Secretary of State. Congress has a limited role in foreign affairs, and rightly so. The office of the President is charged with setting our international diplomatic priorities and develops a calculus of olive branch and stick, cooperation and sanctions, back channel chat and public pronouncements, that is often delicately balanced and orchestrated to achieve desired ends.
With Obama in office, however, we have also seen the vocal entrance into foreign affairs of an 800-pound gorilla (or is that elephant) that wants to thrash about and wreak havoc in a tantrum of public outcry whenever it a) doesn’t like what’s happening abroad and b) feels the President is not responding as the gorillaphant thinks he should. The gorillaphant has been in high dudgeon on this score lately, starting with politicians’ verbal condemnations of Obama’s measured response to Iran, then proceeding with a resolution from Congress condemning the Iranian government, to a move to limit loans to an Indian oil company that might supply Iran with gasoline, and most recently Sens. McCain, Lieberman and Graham’s push to fund technology and media programs intended to help Iranians gain access to information.
All of these measures are intended to deliver a rebuke to the Iranian government and signal support for the protesters on the street. Some of these measures may make sense and some may not – to critique them is beyond the scope of this post – but what is clearly driving each of these items is an emotional urgency to “send a message to Iran.”
Tough Talk and Dissidence
In justifying his proposal for “freedom of information” aid to the Iranian people, McCain displayed a reductionist take on liberal (and for that matter, centrist) attitudes in order to justify more “tough talk” on Iran. At a June 26 press conference he declared,
“The liberal left, during the Cold War, so warned that if we spoke out for the people who are captive nations, members of captive nations, that that would lead to greater oppression. We found out after the Berlin Wall came down that we were, in their words, a beacon of hope and liberty and freedom for them. So the liberal left will, again, continue to argue that we should be nice to the Iranian regime and we shouldn’t encourage dissidence. That is in direct contradiction to the fundamental principles of the United States of America.”
Let’s put aside for the moment the fact that we generally manage to ignore dissidence and oppressed citizenries all around the world, failing to routinely speak out for “members of captive nations” unless it suits our political or diplomatic goals of the moment. Somehow we do not feel “morally obligated” to vociferously aid dissidents in Myanmar or Tibet, for instance, or myriad other troubled regions in the world. But Iran has become our focus du jour, and therefore – in gorillaphant-think – worthy not only of our attention, but our assertive intervention in some way, shape or form.
More to the point here is McCain’s specious claim that “the liberal left” says we should be nice to oppressive regimes and not encourage dissidence so as to avoid greater oppression. That is a warped misrepresentation of a school of thought not held exclusively by the left, liberal or otherwise.
The real issue here is not about whether or not oppression is increased, which ultimately will be a decision and act of the target government itself. Rather, the concern is about whether or not we piss in the pond we have to negotiate in afterwards. The left – and thoughtful centrists, experienced diplomats, and conservatives who engage their brain and have knowledge of foreign affairs – recognize that there are ways to intentionally provoke anger and hostility in a foreign power, explicitly by making inflammatory statements and assuming an aggressive posture. (North Korea is a good example of such tactics in action.) They rightly point out that doing these things at certain times can be counterproductive, and hinder the achievement of larger strategic goals.
Does it not occur to anyone on the Bellicose Right that if one of our priorities in international relations is to ensure that Iran does not gain a nuclear weapon, that it might be prudent to ensure that whatever the outcome of the current Iranian domestic conflict, at the end of the day we are still in a position to have dialog with them regarding nuclear arms? Does it not occur to the gorillaphant that jumping up and down and trumpeting loudly right now might feel good, but won’t tangibly help street protesters and is likely to ratchet up intergovernmental tensions to the point where we can’t talk about nuclear arms – much less any other regional concern – when this is over?
“U.S. efforts to manage Iran through isolation, threats and sanctions…have not solved any major problem in U.S.-Iran relations, and have made most of them worse.” Experts on Iran Report, Nov 2008.
The ability to negotiate about arms and regional security is more important to our strategic interests than whether or not Iranians on the street have freedom of assembly right now. Way more important – and part of that delicate calculus referred to earlier.
Timing as Well as Tone
In diplomacy and foreign affairs, the timing of actions is just as important as how something is said. Hillary Clinton already called for “harsher sanctions” against Iran in April, not 2 months before these elections. One assumes some planning and back-channel conversations have been underway regarding what appropriate sanctions might look like. The Department of State tries for a measured response: something firm enough to transmit a chosen message, yet not over the top enough to break down communications.
In its knee-jerk reaction mode on Iran, Congress has gone off half-cocked. Perturbed at Obama’s measured statements and lack of emotional chest thumping, they felt a burning need to Make a Firm Statement on the issue. They have done so in ways described above, as well as continuing the rhetoric of belligerence. Sen. Lindsey Graham summed up the driving sentiment behind these words and actions: “[H]ow can you sit on the sidelines and watch this?…It’s about right and wrong.”
Well, unless you want to take off like a dog chasing a car every time a flamboyant Wrong occurs in the world (and apparently you don’t), here’s how you sit on the sidelines and watch this: you let the President and the State Department handle things at the international and diplomatic level where priorities are set, stances are taken, and statements made on the international stage. Republicans were exceedingly good at letting Bush make pronouncements without jumping the gun and second-guessing what statements, tone, and actions to take in various matters of international upheaval. Now that it is a Democrat calling those shots, they can’t stand to pipe down and let someone else drive.
Sen. Graham got it exactly wrong when he said, “Because people say outrageous things and thugs and dictators will try to twist your words, that’s no reason to stop speaking those words if they’re true.” The reason to stop speaking those words, Senator, is because there’s a time and a place for them. Certain words should be coming from the Executive, not the fractious herd of cats that is Congress. Sadly, reactionaries with their tin ear for diplomacy have demonstrated they also lack an appropriate sense of time and place for such pronouncements.
It’s time for the gorillaphant collective to take a step back and let the President direct the ship of state: not because they lost an election, but because a sitting President deserves the support of Congress, not its premature criticism, when he is handling volatile foreign affairs in a manner calculated to foster strategic objectives and long-term interests.
They afforded such a space to Bush, though it may be because he often led the pack in posturing and saber-rattling. No doubt this was emotionally gratifying to neocons who believe that democracy can be introduced at gun point, and who – until street protesters “fighting for liberty” put a humanized face on the country – were champing at the bit for a reason to invade Iran. Now, though, it is time to heed the advice of diplomatic experts who noted in a November 2008 report that
“U.S. efforts to manage Iran through isolation, threats and sanctions have been tried intermittently for more than two decades. In that time they have not solved any major problem in U.S.-Iran relations, and have made most of them worse.”
If we want to make progress strategically and also restore our political capital in the world, we have to abandon this frenzy to “call a spade a spade” and echo Reaganistic cries of “Tear this wall down.” Experts on Iran, experienced diplomats, and world observers concur Obama’s taking the right tone. The chest thumpers should shut up and let the man work.