Should We Forget the Iranians?

For the second time this year, the Iranian people have spoken through the ballot box. And once again, their voice was not heard.

As Michelle Moghtader over at niacINsight explains, Time Magazine has given the shaft to the Iranian people. According to Moghtader, more than 536,000 people voted that the Iranian protesters should be named Person of the Year, outnumbering the second and third runners up combined. Yet not only did Time overlook the Iranian protesters for Person of the Year, they didn't even include them on the shortlist of runners up.

Admittedly, Time never promised to adhere to the online poll and one could certainly argue that the eventual winner, Ben Bernanke, deserves the title. Nonetheless, to not even include the Iranian protesters on the shortlist seems, in the words of Moghtader, nothing short of "disheartening."

She continues:

Perhaps Time didn’t realize the impact that this award could have had for the Iranian people [...]Honoring them would have shown Iran that the world is still watching; as a result, putting pressure on the government to reform its behavior. The Iranian people want to be part of the international community, but how can they, especially if we fail to recognize them?

While I'm not certain it's the role of Time to make political points, they certainly missed an opportunity to make a difference in the lives of all Iranian people. I can't imagine what it's like to face down baton-wielding basij in the street, but I can imagine what it's like to know that you're not alone in this struggle for freedom, to know that the world is with you against tyranny.

Person of the Year or not, Iranians must know America is with them. All Americans have watched the Iranian people in their struggle for the very rights we have struggled for throughout our history: to live our lives, to enjoy our liberties, and to pursue our happiness.

Yet at the same time, I am concerned that we Americans might act brashly in a clumsy attempt to show our solidarity. Or even worse, some policymakers might seek to use the righteous cause of the Iranian people for unrighteous ends.

Already, the House has overwhelmingly passed the Iran Refined Petroleum Sanctions Act that Iran experts know won't work and the Green Movement has rejected as harmful to the Iranian people. Meanwhile, some are calling "the case for using force in Iran [...] a slam dunk." It's hard to imagine how the Iranian opposition could benefit from not being able to heat their homes, let alone when bombs are falling on their heads.

Of course, there are more nuanced and thoughtful policy ideas out there, but it's not clear that reason will win the day. Given the choice between doing something harmful and doing nothing at all, we must choose the latter. Ultimately, if America cannot express our solidarity wisely, then perhaps it would be better if, like Time Magazine, we forget all about the Iranian protesters.

For those interested, I lay out three principles for how we should proceed with Iran in a previous post here.

Reading Iran Between the Lines

Today, Secretary Clinton delivered a fabulous speech at Georgetown University about the need to promote human rights and democracy.

Among other good parts: "this isn’t just about what we do; it’s about who we are. And we cannot be the people we are - people who believe in human rights - if we opt out of this fight. Believing in human rights means committing ourselves to action.”

That's exactly why I want to work in government and make foreign policy.

On another note, she referenced human rights in Iran more than any other country - five times by my count. Given that the Obama administration has been carefully toeing the line between rhetorically supporting the Iranian opposition and engaging the regime in Tehran (and rightly so), I'm sensing a shift of emphasis.

And the timing is important here. As Trita Parsi and Dokhi Fassihian argue:

Time is of the essence. Iran's human rights abuses must be addressed now and not just when our focus turns to punitive measures. Otherwise, the administration will unintentionally signal that the rights of the Iranian people are used solely as a pressure tactic against Iran when it fails to compromise on other issues.

Considering Secretary Gates predicted "significant additional sanctions" on Friday and Congress seems prepared to pass the Iran Refined Petroleum Sanctions Act (IRPSA) this week, it seems the punitive measures are well on their way.

Unfortunately, IRPSA will do little to change Iran's behavior and do plenty to hurt Iran's people.

Secretary Clinton is right that our belief in human rights compels us to action. But someone better remind Congress she means action in the name of human rights, not for the sake of venting frustration.

PS Sorry for the radio silence. Posts should be more regular again.

I'm Not the Next Great Pundit

The Washington Post is hosting a contest to determine America's Next Great Pundit. Almost 5,000 people submitted op-eds to become one of ten finalists, who will now go on to duke it out in a Survivor-like competition. The ultimate winner gets a column in the paper for 13 weeks. Considering one of the finalists is a Nobel laureate, it's not much of a surprise I didn't get chosen. In any case, here's my failed submission:

I recently visited the Israeli Holocaust Museum Yad Vashem that memorializes the victims and honors the countless heroes who resisted the Nazi genocide. The museum cuts like a chasm on top of Mount Herzl, creating a near-overwhelming feeling of constriction as the walls close ever tighter around you. By the end, it’s hard to breathe.

I thought I had left the Holocaust behind me when I returned home to the United States. I was wrong.

Apparently now in Washington, issues are too cumbersome, earnest debate too burdensome. It’s much easier to claim you caught the other side practicing their best “Sieg Heil!” in front of the mirror. Like Yad Vashem, American politics has become suffocating.

When Jews discuss the Holocaust, we often invoke the mantra “Never Again.” We promise ourselves that never again will the Jewish people submit to subjugation and annihilation. We promise ourselves that never again will the Jewish people precariously cower behind the inconsistent protection of other nations. Most importantly, we promise ourselves that never again will the Jewish people allow a similar fate to befall another group.

Listening to the rhetoric, it appears some American politicians have adopted the same “Never Again” creed. In fact, it seems they see a looming Holocaust everywhere they look, exaggerating comparisons to inflame emotions. Thus, intellectual integrity is sacrificed for political points.

Take for example Congressman Grayson’s (D-Fla.) speech blaming Republicans for the “Holocaust” of allowing thousands of Americans to die from lack of healthcare. While letting so many Americans slip through the cracks is simply despicable, it hardly compares to a system designed to efficiently murder six million people. But at least Rep. Grayson seeks to address a real problem, unlike the ridiculous and harmful myth of Nazi-inspired death panels.

Every spurious claim of genocide not only cheapens the political debate, it also dishonors the memory of the victims of the real Holocaust. Worse yet, for every real genocide we allow on our watch – like Cambodia, Rwanda and Sudan – we fail our moral obligation to humanity that underpins the “Never Again” creed. Clearly, some politicians have lost the right to ever again say “Never Again.”

When visitors of Yad Vashem funnel out of the museum, they suddenly find themselves atop Mount Herzl overlooking the lush Israeli countryside. Both figuratively and literally, they can finally take a breath of fresh air – a gift we desperately need now in Washington.