Obama's Response to Iran Compared With His Response to Egypt Raises Troubling Questions
Egyptian President Mohammed Morsi’s power grab and the resultant upheaval in Egypt, along with the ever-progressing nuclear program and ever-deteriorating human rights situation in Iran, lead us back to the Arab Spring and to President Obama’s troubling response.
Compare his response to the Green Revolution in Iran with his response to Egypt’s revolt against Hosni Mubarak. Why did President Obama ignore the plight of Iranian protestors and their pleas for support while being quick to support protests against Mubarak? Egypt was an essential American ally in desperate need of domestic reform; Iran was a declared “enemy” of America, so fanatical that reform would never be enough. Why support for Egyptian youths, but not Iranian youths? Why was Mubarak told by Obama to “go now,” if the much worse Ahmadinejad, in the face of a more widespread collapse of support, was not?
2009 was the wrong time to send supportive signals to the leaders of Iran. The time was right, instead, to combine strong geopolitical pressure with a strong moral stand, for the “unity” Khomeini had touted and depended upon had evaporated.
In a December 2008 article in the New York Post, Amir Taheri noted the strength and popularity of the resistance movement and asked, “Could this develop into a nationwide movement that could upset the regime’s calculations before the June election? Is Iran entering a pre-revolutionary phase that could threaten the Khomeinist regime?” Indeed, in June, 2009, millions of Iranians took to the streets to protest rigged elections, marking the largest anti-regime demonstration Iran had seen since the final days of the Shah. Sixteen Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps officers publicly pledged to join the movement, signaling that their once solid support for Ahmadinejad was cracking. Given the horrible fate awaiting those who disagree with the regime, the movement was remarkable.
After the revolution was snuffed out, Sarah Morgan and Andrew Apostolou argued in Foreign Affairs:
Washington will only neutralize Iran by exploiting the regime’s main vulnerability: its false claim to legitimacy. The ayatollahs’ hold on power is inherently unstable because they have no popular mandate. Since staging a rigged election in 2009 … they have relied on repression and brutality to silence opposition, jailing journalists, torturing detainees, and executing critics, real and imagined. … Focusing on human rights violations will allow the United States to expose the hypocrisy of the regime and remind Iran of its domestic troubles as it tries to expand power and influence.
Obama and Clinton have done the opposite. In contrast to their stance toward Mubarak and Egypt, they hold that respect for Iran as a whole requires respect for Iran’s repressive leaders.
2011 was the wrong time to send supportive signals to the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, whose doctrinal goals include Sharia Law and the destruction of Israel.
The April 6 movement that led to Mubarak’s ouster had overt democratic and human rights goals. One of the reasons the Muslim Brotherhood was able to co-opt the movement was their collusion with the Egyptian military: The military wanted Mubarak out, since Mubarak’s son, Gamal, was promising reform that would weaken the military’s political role. Realizing they needed each other, the military and the Muslim Brotherhood worked together to marginalize and intimidate other groups. Given this - and given Iran’s schemes for an Islamist Egypt and the fact that a constructive relationship with Egypt is essential to Israel’s existential concerns - it behooves us to ask: Why didn’t the U.S. put more effort into encouraging moderate political forces?
Instead, outreach to the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood has been a constant of Obama/Clinton foreign policy. As the revolution heated up (but before Mubarak’s exit) the Administration encouraged the Brotherhood’s participation in Egypt’s “political dialogue.” This stance was new for the United States. Brotherhood participation in presidential elections was so controversial, both within and without Egypt, that, even after Mubarak’s ouster, Brotherhood leaders themselves promised not to run for election. On the day before Mubarak resigned, the White House sent Intelligence Czar James Clapper to Congress to testify that the Brotherhood is a “moderate” and “largely secular organization” that has “eschewed violence” and has “no overarching goal, at least internationally.”
As Egyptian Islamists ran for and won elections, reneged on promises of representative government, and took hostile action toward secular-reformist groups, Christian Copts, women, and Israel, U.S. supportiveness remained, to the point that Obama and Clinton rejected placing conditions on a massive aid package. Freedom House President David Kramer lamented, “The decision to waive the conditions, partially or in full, on military aid sends the wrong message to the Egyptian government – that U.S. taxpayers will subsidize the Egyptian military while it continues to oversee the crackdown on civil society and to commit human rights abuses.”
Obama’s passivity in the face of Morsi’s recent assumption of dictatorial powers continues the trend. It is significant that Obama and Clinton have not sided with protestors against Morsi, as they did with protestors against Mubarak. It is significant that they sided against Mubarak, but not against Ahmadinejad. The United States is a country that has lost its way.
- Comment (13)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (4)
Comments:
Sep '10
Re: Obama's Response to Iran Compared With His Response to Egypt Raises Troubling Questions
It seems to me the policy of the US has been – "that U.S. taxpayers will subsidize the Egyptian military while it continues to oversee the crackdown on civil society and to commit human rights abuses.” for well over a decade. Does O's policies in the area make much sense - no, but neither did his predecessor's. At least he isn't running around starting wars that eliminate Iran's enemies. Please note whose air space Iran is using to supply Syria. Obama is hardly a foreign policy guru, but he is an improvement over GWB.
Oct '12
Re: Obama's Response to Iran Compared With His Response to Egypt Raises Troubling Questions
Great to read an article like this FINALLY bringing to light, as you have Anne, the comparison and contrasts of Obama's responses to the Arab Spring revolutions. I would love to see this message reach many, many outlets and people...it NEEDS to be read and understood!!!!!
Re: Obama's Response to Iran Compared With His Response to Egypt Raises Troubling Questions
The Bush admin. actually imposed behind the scenes pressure on Mubarak for reform, and reform was coming, albeit too little too late.
At some point, we need to evaluate Obama/Clinton foreign policy on its own merits.
Re: Obama's Response to Iran Compared With His Response to Egypt Raises Troubling Questions
Anne, how do you think this all ends? My guess: simmering revolt in Egypt until it's close to a failed state. And Iran emerges as the only stable regime in the region.
In other words: not so good.
Re: Obama's Response to Iran Compared With His Response to Egypt Raises Troubling Questions
Rob Long: Anne, how do you think this all ends? My guess: simmering revolt in Egypt until it's close to a failed state. And Iran emerges as the only stable regime in the region.
In other words: not so good. · 2 minutes ago
I never underestimate the power of the people to (eventually) find their way to human rights and individual rights, which I view as one and the same. But, given the dirth of principle and of defense strategy in current American policy, and given Iran's eagerness to enable and exploit every upheaval in the Middle East, I am not optimistic.
Oct '12
Re: Obama's Response to Iran Compared With His Response to Egypt Raises Troubling Questions
Great post, Anne. It is mind boggling to me that people don't see these blatant inconsistencies.
Aug '12
Re: Obama's Response to Iran Compared With His Response to Egypt Raises Troubling Questions
[Washington will only neutralize Iran by exploiting the regime’s main vulnerability: its false claim to legitimacy. ]
1 True - but you can't ignore the US' role in propping up even more unrepresentative regimes in the region, and in fact within living memory in Iran itself (ie the Shah). Americans may have forgotten, but the Iranian people definitely haven't. Fox, henhouse, etc.
2 Democratic legitimacy os precisely why Mursi's administration in Egypt, however much one may dislike it, is actually head and shoulders above the Iranian regime. The Muslim Brotherhood was elected - for now, it would be very unwise to assume that its dictatorial instincts have de facto made it unrepresenstative. Not so, or at least not yet.
Nov '10
Re: Obama's Response to Iran Compared With His Response to Egypt Raises Troubling Questions
Anne R. Pierce
I never underestimate the power of the people to (eventually) find their way to human rights and individual rights, which I view as one and the same. But, given the dearth of principle and of defense strategy in current American policy, and given Iran's eagerness to enable and exploit every upheaval in the Middle East, I am not optimistic. · November 28, 2012 at 12:54pm
Ma'am, I have gone from being a cautious optimist on that score to a confirmed pessimist. And, I have done so based upon a fair bit of reading about what the Mohammedans believe. Unless and until their theologians work their way through to a wholly different way of understanding the Koran, God, and His creation, I foresee little chance of their having a better political life and of our living at peace with them.
Re: Obama's Response to Iran Compared With His Response to Egypt Raises Troubling Questions
M1919A4
Ma'am, I have gone from being a cautious optimist on that score to a confirmed pessimist. ..........
We agree that many are extreme, but how many are extreme? Do you believe -and does your reading lead you to believe - that extreme views are preponderant? Here's what I said in response to a comment to my addendum to this post: I believe Egypt is more divided than you indicate, and recent protests against Morsi are not surprising. Most in the original April 6 movement, and many in Egyptian society, wanted genuine democratic reform. It is true that the Brotherhood was already a formidable, popular force, in part due to so many Egyptians returning from work in Saudi Arabia converted, and due to the newly powerful influence via media of Wahhabi preachers. But, I would argue that the majority of Egyptians were not converts. I recommend the Arab Human Development report, reports by Human Rights Watch and Human Rights First; books by James Gelvin, Allaa Al Aswany and Shadi Hamid; work by journalists/scholars: David Kramer, Frida Ghitis, Richard Davis Hanson, Stephen McInerny, Carolyn Glick and Barry Rubin. A broader picture emerges.
But, I'm open to your recommended reading.
Re: Obama's Response to Iran Compared With His Response to Egypt Raises Troubling Questions
Zafar: [Washington will only neutralize Iran by exploiting the regime’s main vulnerability: its false claim to legitimacy. ]
1 True - but you can't ignore the US' role in propping up even more unrepresentative regimes ...
2 Democratic legitimacy os precisely why Mursi's administration in Egypt, however much one may dislike it, is actually head and shoulders above the Iranian regime. ...
1. As Michael Oren, Robert Lieber and others have shown, America's role in the Middle East has very often been toward assisting the people and opposing imperialism, even though we have at critical times made our enemy's enemy our friend - and that has come back to haunt us.
2. The Egyptian presidential election gave the people a choice between the Brotherhood's Morsi and Mubarak ally Ahmed Shafiq. The original reform movement boycotted the election. Pre-election machinations in the parliament indicated that democratic procedure was not being followed. Please see http://www.thestar.com/news/world/article/1216440--mohammed-morsi-declared-egypt-s-new-president, and also an article titled "Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood refuses to boycott presidential election" in The Telegraph, June 15, 2012. Yes, there was huge support for Morsi, but not majority support.
Nov '10
Re: Obama's Response to Iran Compared With His Response to Egypt Raises Troubling Questions
Sorry, Ma'am, for the delayed response.
My opinion has been formed by the work of three authors: Robert R. Reilly in The Closing of the Muslim Mind; David Pryce-Jones in The Closed Circle; and, Bernard Lewis in The Crisis of Islam. I have tried reading the Koran, but it was a tough go and I need to reread it.
Tomorrow, when I have a few minutes (before Alabama takes up defeating Georgia) I will point out the sections in Reilly's book that succinctly put the proposition for me.
Nov '10
Re: Obama's Response to Iran Compared With His Response to Egypt Raises Troubling Questions
Ma'am, The part of Robert Reilly's The Closing of the Muslim Mind that I think particularly relevant to the present discussion is found in Chapter Six, "Decline and Consequences" under the topic "The Logic of Despotism", at pages 128 - 141. After he has gone to some length to trace and explain the ascendance in Sunni orthodoxy of the Ash'arite view (one opposed to any role for reason and philosophy in Islamic thought and theology), he comes to this conclusion:
His argument seems sound to me. And, I think it is buttressed by Pryce-Jones's account of "shame and honor" in Moslem personal relations in Chapter Two of The Closed Circle.
Re: Obama's Response to Iran Compared With His Response to Egypt Raises Troubling Questions
M1919A4: Sorry, Ma'am, for the delayed response.
My opinion has been formed by the work of three authors: Robert R. Reilly inThe Closing of the Muslim Mind; David Pryce-Jones inThe Closed Circle; and, Bernard Lewis inThe Crisis of Islam. I have tried reading the Koran, but it was a tough go and I need to reread it.
Tomorrow, when I have a few minutes (before Alabama takes up defeating Georgia) I will point out the sections in Reilly's book that succinctly put the proposition for me. · November 30, 2012 at 9:01pm
Have read a bit of Bernard Lewis, but not Reilly or Price-Jones. Will do. Thanks. Although I rarely say this, given the complexities of the situation and the region, we might both be right!