USADI Commentary

Empowering the “Outpost of Tyranny”

In public policy statements, presidential State of the Union addresses, and Congressional hearings, the stated policy of the United States was said to be all about empowering the Iranian people in their quest for liberty and democracy and isolating the ruling tyrants. In practice, however, it appears that the exact opposite has occurred.

In the same week the anti-government demonstrations in many Azeri provinces of Iran and at major universities escalated, and at the time Iranians were shouting “death to the dictator” and “down with despots”, Washington bestows Tehran its most sought-after concession by offering to join direct negotiations with the cunning mullahs.

More than a year after President George W. Bush vowed America will stand by Iranians as they make a stand for liberty, Washington made a huge concession to the very regime which has so far killed dozens of democracy protestors and wounded and arrested hundreds of others in a matter of a couple of weeks.

Ironically, there has been no statement of sympathy and no condemnation of the brutal attacks on the demonstrators, and not even a mere acknowledgment of these protests and ensuing killings in any government briefings in Washington.

Kenneth Pollack, the author of the ‘Persian Puzzle’ and interestingly one of the leading advocates of negotiations with Tehran, writes in his book, “The problem with the Grand Bargain is that it does not work in practice. Every American administration since Reagan has put the Grand Bargain on the table and tried to coax the Iranians into accepting it. In particular the Grand Bargain was the explicit core of the Clinton initiative…The problem that lies at the heart of the Grand Bargain – the problem that the Clinton administration stumbled over, much to its disappointment – is the fundamental problem that lies at the heart of the Iranian-American confrontation.” It may be behooving for Mr. Pollack to take advice of his own observations.

To be sure, the Department of State surely has a list of perceived tactical benefits of making this concession, which was further sweetened last week when Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice announced her readiness to personally meet the Iranian officials in the proposed meeting. Strategically, however, Washington has undermined its position and more importantly Iran’s democracy movement.

Washington‘s “carrot” of direct talk could have been a very shrewd diplomatic maneuver if the recipient were not the ideologically driven, terror-sponsoring regime in Iran, hell-bent on acquiring a nuclear weapon at any price. The claims that this “policy gambit” is a win-win move for the administration is at best short sighted, stemming from the quick-fix approach for dealing with highly complex policy challenge posed by the clerical regime.

Already, Tehran has made it crystal clear that regardless of the outcome, it has scored an enormous political point. As the Wall Street Journal Editorial wrote on June 1, “The mullahs always wanted to talk directly to the U.S. for the implicit recognition such talks would convey, and now they have their wish.”

According to the New York Times, “In interviews, the officials and Iranian analysts said the American proposal indicated that Iran's uncompromising approach in its handling of the nuclear crisis had successfully forced the United States to take it more seriously... Earning that measure of respect, many said, is its own reward."

As the so-called moderate Mohammad Khatami neared the end of his terms, the power brokers in Tehran recognized that conceding to the demands made by the West would never bring them nuclear capability. They corrected what they perceived was Khatami's defensive posture vis-à-vis the nuclear program. When Mahmoud Ahmadinejad assumed power, they changed their approach to one of bullying and challenging their European interlocutors, keenly aware that Europe and, for that matter, the Russians and the Chinese had already invested too much in Iran to risk losing their investment. In other words, they became convinced that more belligerence and bullying was key to the success of their nuclear weapons program.

The adverse impact of the policy reversal by Washington is that it will be perceived by the mullahs as a sign of weakness and by the millions who want regime change as a sign that despite all its rhetoric, the US lacks the spine to stand with them in practical terms. They wonder how Washington could be willing to negotiate with the "central banker of terrorism" but would continue to shun the most effective, organized opposition to the murderous mullahs of Tehran for trying to unseat that regime. Sounds somewhat hypocritical, doesn't it? (USADI)

USADI Commentary reflects the viewpoints of the US Alliance for Democratic Iran in respect to issues and events which directly or indirectly impact the US policy toward Iran

Return to Top

The US Alliance for Democratic Iran (USADI), is an independent, non-profit organization, which aims to advance a US policy on Iran that will benefit America through supporting Iranian people’s aspirations for a democratic, secular, and peaceful government.

The USADI is not affiliated with any government agencies, political groups or parties.
Tel: 202-330-5456, Fax: 202-318-0402, E-mail: dispatch@usadiran.org