The Challenge Of Iranian Repression

The aftermath of what is generally believed to be a dishonest election in Iran has prompted political debate throughout the United States. President Obama professes concern that substantial American condemnation of Tehran’s repression would be seen as “interference,” and has made only slight mention of the massive violations of human rights, and that only after widespread criticism. Republicans see this as weakness, and question the President’s commitment to democratic principles.

The Iranian government has indeed played on Western sensitivity to its allegations of interference, issuing broad and unsubstantiated charges of U.S. and British influence. The tactic appears to have kept the White House at bay, to the consternation of numerous Americans who have been deeply disturbed at the graphic scenes of outright murder of innocent civilians at the hands of the Tehran regime’s enforcers. Critics have compared the President’s minimal response to the international failure to address Nazi actions towards the Jews in the 1930’s, the lack of response to Soviet actions in Hungary in 1956 and Czechoslovakia in the 1960s, and China’s 1989 use of tanks against its own youth in Tiananmen Square. Each of those foreign policy errors had severe repercussions, and continue to haunt the western conscience.

The dilemma is particularly acute for Obama. Having run on the theme of change and empowerment, it is difficult to justify his successful bid for widespread support of women and college students, with his failure to respond to the blatant and violent oppression of those two groups by Iran. In addition to his domestic audience, the President’s position must be difficult to swallow by Israelis, who have been criticized by his administration for domestic policies that are far less controversial.

Mr. Obama correctly notes that the Iranians are a proud people, who resent western actions that occurred almost a half century ago. But a growing number of critics are concerned that the Administration’s obsession with real or imagined U.S. past errors, most of which occurred decades ago, places America in the distressing position of having its own chief executive as its severest critic. They point to the President’s friendliness with the Castro regime in Cuba and Chavez in Venezuela, as hypocritical, cynical, and, indeed, anti-American. Even those who concur with the President’s determination to work within the confines of the United Nations must be disturbed that Mr. Obama fails to condemn the regimes that he has chosen to broaden relations with, such as those in Iran and Cuba, in their complete refusal to abide by the United Nations Charter.

Congressional critics of the President’s determination to broaden relations with the Muslim world question whether this goal justifies ignoring history. In his Cairo address, Mr. Obama essentially delivered an apologia for American actions. As most objective observers have noted, the U.S. has been far more helpful than harmful to Muslims and Islamic states. From the Suez crisis in 1956, when America opposed its own wartime allies the UK and France in favor of Egypt, to its defense of Muslims in Bosnia, and its assistance to Afghanistan in repulsing the USSR during the 1980s, America has been an ally to the Muslim world. What is the President apologizing for?

Conclusion: Do our principles of freedom and human rights end at our own border? This is the central question raised by Mr. Obama’s stance on Iran. The American people deserve a response.