A blog about politics.

Obama Aide on Iran: "It's not about us"

Despite the occasional English-language sign toted amid the protesting masses in Tehran, one fact remains: the protests in Iran this week, unlike the turmoil that preceded the 1979 Iranian revolution, does not have so much to do directly with the United States. The dispute now gripping the Iranian streets is one of domestic politics in the most literal sense, with different factions of the government and political elite struggling against each other over mostly domestic issues.

That's not to say that Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad wants to take the United States out of the conversation. In his press conference Sunday, Ahmadinejad described the contested Iranian election as a "blow to the tyrannical pillars of the ruling nations of the world," also known as the "domineering and hegemonic capitalist system that lacks culture."

But the White House is consciously working to avoid any statements that might provide fuel for Ahmadinejad's populist rants. All of the public comments so far have sought to minimize the United States role in adjudicating or intervening in the Iranian dispute. "The point is this is not about us," said one administration official, who has been working on the issue of Iran. "The point here is we will continue to monitor the situation to see how it, in a sense, resolves itself over the coming days. The pressure is on them to demonstrate to the world that this was a legitimate election and that the outcome reflects the will of the Iranian people."

This message is likely to be repeated later today, when President Obama takes questions from reporters at around 5 p.m. following a meeting with Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi. Look for the president to express concern over the election results and the violence, while calling for patience as the true winner of the election is sorted out. As Vice President Biden said yesterday on Meet the Press, "Look, we just don't know enough. . . . It's been less than 24 hours since the polls have closed." There is no message here for the Iranian people. No attempt to intervene publicly in its domestic politics. No urgency to congratulate a winner in the election, or declare the current election results invalid.

This position makes diplomatic sense. Obama is seeking expanded relations with the Iranian government no matter who controls the presidency. But as Scott Wilson points out in the Washington Post today, the wait-and-see approach is also not always the rule in U.S. diplomacy. It took just one day for the Bush Administration to recognize the unelected interim government in Venezuela, after Hugo Chavez was briefly toppled in a coup in 2002. The decision quickly turned into an embarrassment for the White House, as Chavez regained power a few days later.

UPDATE: As expected, Obama made very clear Monday afternoon that the U.S. did not want to meddle in Iranian affairs. His full comments after the jump.

Obviously all of us have been watching the news from Iran.  And I want to start off by being very clear that it is up to Iranians to make decisions about who Iran's leaders will be; that we respect Iranian sovereignty and want to avoid the United States being the issue inside of Iran, which sometimes the United States can be a handy political football -- or discussions with the United States. Having said all that, I am deeply troubled by the violence that I've been seeing on television.  I think that the democratic process -- free speech, the ability of people to peacefully dissent -- all those are universal values and need to be respected.  And whenever I see violence perpetrated on people who are peacefully dissenting, and whenever the American people see that, I think they're, rightfully, troubled.

My understanding is, is that the Iranian government says that they are going to look into irregularities that have taken place.  We weren't on the ground, we did not have observers there, we did not have international observers on hand, so I can't state definitively one way or another what happened with respect to the election.  But what I can say is that there appears to be a sense on the part of people who were so hopeful and so engaged and so committed to democracy who now feel betrayed.  And I think it's important that, moving forward, whatever investigations take place are done in a way that is not resulting in bloodshed and is not resulting in people being stifled in expressing their views.

Now, with respect to the United States and our interactions with Iran, I've always believed that as odious as I consider some of President Ahmadinejad's statements, as deep as the differences that exist between the United States and Iran on a range of core issues, that the use of tough, hard-headed diplomacy -- diplomacy with no illusions about Iran and the nature of the differences between our two countries -- is critical when it comes to pursuing a core set of our national security interests, specifically, making sure that we are not seeing a nuclear arms race in the Middle East triggered by Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon; making sure that Iran is not exporting terrorist activity.  Those are core interests not just to the United States but I think to a peaceful world in general.

We will continue to pursue a tough, direct dialogue between our two countries, and we'll see where it takes us.  But even as we do so, I think it would be wrong for me to be silent about what we've seen on the television over the last few days.  And what I would say to those people who put so much hope and energy and optimism into the political process, I would say to them that the world is watching and inspired by their participation, regardless of what the ultimate outcome of the election was.  And they should know that the world is watching.

And particularly to the youth of Iran, I want them to know that we in the United States do not want to make any decisions for the Iranians, but we do believe that the Iranian people and their voices should be heard and respected.

  • Print
  • Comment
Comments (55)
Post a Comment »
  • 1

    [...] calling for popular uprising and then spin it into American interference in Iranian politics.  And remember how well the wingnuts played it in 2002 when this happened? It took just one day for the Bush [...]

  • 2

    I heard Ahmadinejad said these were not massive demostrations but instead massive turnouts for "Iran's got Talent." In which case I guess he was lying about the soccer game.

  • 3

    "But as Scott Wilson points out in the Washington Post today, the wait-and-see approach is also not always the rule in U.S. diplomacy. It took just one day for the Bush Administration to recognize the unelected interim government in Venezuela, after Hugo Chavez was briefly toppled in a coup in 2002. The decision quickly turned into an embarrassment for the White House, as Chavez regained power a few days later."
    .
    Run together like that. Absolutely makes no sense.

  • 4

    ..."It's not [always] about us"...
    .
    The sooner we realize that on a number of levels, the better off we (and the rest of the world) will be for it.
    .
    Jeez, I often don't recognize this country these days.

  • 5

    Absolutely makes no sense.
    .
    It makes sense to me. Obama is cautious. Bush was an idiot. The difference has real-world consequences. What's not to get?

  • 6

    As Vice President Biden said yesterday on Meet the Press, "Look, we just don't know enough. . . . It's been less than 24 hours since the polls have closed." There is no message here for the Iranian people. No attempt to intervene publicly in its domestic politics. No urgency to congratulate a winner in the election, or declare the current election results invalid.
    .
    I don't say this often, but Biden said exactly the right thing yesterday. Any attempt by us to call a winner in this election will result in massive blowback; Iranians are (justifiably) extremely sensitive when it comes to the perception that Americans are meddling in their internal affairs.

  • 7

    PD,
    .
    Just seems to me we have needed this cautious outlook on foreign affairs for a number of years now in that part of the world. I'm old enough to remember the return of the Ayatollah from France. Our involvement in that part of the world has been one mis-adventure (or ovcer-reaction) after another.
    .
    Time to step back, take a breath, and let them sort out what all of this means.

  • 8

    From what I am hearing in various accounts, the Iranian people do NOT hate Americans. The understandably DO hate the interference of our government in their affairs over recent history.
    .
    We have a chance to reclaim some good will here.

  • 9

    I think it is telling that Ahmadinejad is using the same tactics the GOP has.
    .
    This really is not a partisan observation. Bush and McCain/Palin invoked Iran numerous times during the campaign. Ahmadinejad has invoked the US and Israel.
    .
    Also, I think MS is dead on right here. This is Iranian democracy in the making, and by no means does this mean that should Mousavi prevail, Iran will just swoon into our arms.
    .
    I'm hoping that the end result will be the replacement of Ahmadinejad. If this happened, it would effectively isolate Netanyahu on the world stage, and might be the impetus needed to finally move Israel into a real peace mode.

  • 10

    53_3...
    I agree that a Mousavi victory would be somewhat effective in the isolation of Israel. It would de-legitimize Netanyahu's hawkish approach by greatly improving the international image of Iran. However, Iranian policy would essentially be unchanged. Ahmadinejad/Mousavi are simply rhetorical in nature, they have no real authority over policy direction. Therefore, were Netanyahu to play that card he could still garner support by leaping over Mousavi and targeting Khamenei...I'm not sure how much a Mousavi victory would in fact be positive.

  • 11

    It wouldn't be a big deal if it weren't for the fact that the revolts taking place are because of Khamenei's (appearance of) interference in the election. If Mousavi had won, no one would be protesting like they are currently. If this really takes off to be the beginnings of a revolution, there is the possibility of actual major changes in Iran, instead of just a new figurehead.
    .
    This is turning out to be a much bigger election than I think most people were expecting.

  • 12

    Ahmadinejad/Mousavi are simply rhetorical in nature, they have no real authority over policy direction
    .
    Don't you think that the Mullah's inability to declare the winner in the election might have a bearing on their ability to continue to direct policy?
    .
    If the results don't matter then why would they have intervened in the first place?

  • 13

    Whatever happens, I think we can all agree that this is excellent news for the McCain campaign.

  • 14

    Who intervened? Do we even know this much at this point? I don't think so...

  • 15

    No, there's no way to know who (if anyone) intervened, but I would imagine Khamenei would be one of the first to point fingers towards. He is ultimately the one in charge and there seemed to be quite a rush to get the election results out and announce a winner, and from what I've been reading from Sully, the Basij have been out in full force today.

  • 16

    Khamenei, by the way, has opened an investigation into allegations of fraud. Whether or not this is merely a political ploy to protect himself remains to be seen, but if it is in fact sincere than what does that suggest?

  • 17

    pafro - remembering good times.

  • 18

    neorationalist86 - in response to you at 3:55 pm, see our own TIME magazine.
    .
    http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1904729,00.html?xid=rss-topstories

  • 19

    Maybe I'm cynical, but it looks like he's trying to cover a mistake. The vote totals were far more extreme than he was expecting and not easy to pretend that they're correct.
    .
    Or it could mean that somewhere else there's underlying corruption that is hidden even from Khamenei, and he wants to root it out before it jeopardizes his authority.

  • 20

    [...] In the meantime, the U.S. response seems to be the right one: express concern and wait-and-see. [...]

  • 21

    Any word from Joe? I'm assuming he's still somewhere in the Middle East.

  • 22

    Thanks so much for this report, Michael Scherer.

  • 23

    Michael Scherer:
    .
    BTW, this is a joke, right?
    .
    They wouldn't put this up during a potential political watershed moment in Iran (with enormous implications for the Obama Administration)...right?

  • 24

    @Southernbell....
    .
    Could Ayatullah Khamenei Be Vulnerable?
    By A TIME Reporter in Tehran

  • 25

    Ivy_B:
    Thanks for the link, interesting article.

Add Your Comment:

You must be logged in to post a comment.
Swampland Daily E-mail

Get e-mail updates from TIME's Swampland in your inbox and never miss a day.

Quotes of the Day »

Get & Share
MICHEL SIDIBE, UNAIDS executive director, to South African President Jacob Zuma, just before Zuma announced that the country would treat all HIV-positive babies and expand testing; South Africa has the most HIV-infected people in the world