Why The Republican Response To Iranian Protests Is All About American Politics
By speaking out forcefully against the Iranian government, Republicans not only undermine the protestors, but also risk future negotiations with the current regime -- which, for them, would be a victory.
Over the past week, Republicans have persistently criticized President Obama's response to the disputed Iranian election. Despite an emerging consensus among foreign policy experts that Obama's approach has been appropriate, many Republican lawmakers continue to call for a more aggressive stance from the president. Consider the following comments:
Rep. Cantor: "America's moral responsibility to speak out on the protection of human rights wherever they are violated...I urge President Obama to follow the lead of this House."
Rep. Pence: "Now, some observers say that America should remain silent in the wake of this violence and the suppression of free speech and the intimidation and suppression of a free and independent press in Iran. Well, let me say from my heart: the American cause is freedom, and in that cause we must never be silent."
Rep. Issa: "That's what America is about - is looking for the side whose rights are not being upheld and weighing in in favor of saying to the majority, those with all the power in Iran, that they must find a way to give the rights to those people whose aspirations are legitimate and consistent with American values."
Rep. Hoekstra: "Even though foreign policy is complex and is hard, this decision to speak out on behalf of the oppressed people in Iran should not be. This should be a very easy decision."
Sen. McCain: "The president and his administration should be at the forefront, calling on the Iranian regime to annul the fraudulent election, to restore the people's inalienable rights, and to allow peaceful protesters to voice their opinions."
The above statements are noteworthy, mainly because of how selective Republicans are in their concern for human rights. For example, the state department designated Uzbekistan "an authoritarian state with limited civil rights" in 2001. The New York Times reported that "torture in Uzbek jails included boiling of body parts, using electroshock on genitals and plucking off fingernails and toenails with pliers. Two prisoners were boiled to death." But I don't remember Republicans objecting when President Bush smiled for this picture with Uzbek President Islam Karimov, much less calling for Karimov's removal from power.
However, concern for "human rights" emerges when Republicans can use it as an excuse for something else. Remember how the Iraq war was suddenly about liberating the Iraqi people once it was clear there were no weapons of mass destruction?
As the National Security Network notes, "This is American politics and the GOP's political calculation is very shrewd and very insidious." Indeed, in a statement yesterday, Rep. Cantor couldn't resist blatantly politicizing the situation. After denouncing the "human tragedy" taking place, Cantor declared: "This brutal regime cannot be trusted to be reasonable with nuclear power." Nuclear power? I thought this was about human rights. And for what it's worth, I imagine the Iranian protestors -- those who Cantor claims to be standing up for -- believe they have just as much of a right to nuclear power as the United States or any other country.
Unfortunately, it's clear that Cantor & Co. are more concerned about American politics than the Iranian people. For one thing, Republicans almost never pass up an opportunity to paint Obama as weak. For another, Iran has been one of the GOP's favorite political issues for years. In 2007, Sen. McCain famously sang, "Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran." In 2006, Cantor claimed President Ahmadinejad wanted to "cause the end of the world." And, in 2001, he said that the U.S. should be "going after" the Iranian government "without a doubt." Notably, their objections to the Iranian regime have almost always concerned our national security or Israel's, not "human rights."
President Obama's pledge to engage in diplomacy with Iran was a hot button for the GOP during last year's presidential campaign, as it has been since he took office. By speaking out forcefully against the Iranian government, Republicans not only undermine the protestors, but also risk future negotiations with the current regime -- which, for them, would be a victory.
