E.J. DIONNE (WASHINGTON POST) INTERVIEW – 28th June 2009
Now to Iran, and with the death and trouble on the streets of Tehran
refusing to go away and with obstinate religious leaders refusing to
call a fresh election, the whole idea of dialogue with a
nuclear-inclined Iran could actually turn into a political minefield
for one Barack Obama. Immediately before he was elected back in
November, less than eight months ago, the eloquent one promised to
directly engage, he said, with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Iran's powerful
clerical hierarchy "without precondition". Now, though - despite his
heavier tone of late - Obama is remaining committed to his 'no
meddling' diplomatic approach to a situation that could hardly be said
to be getting better, let alone closer to any sort of peaceful,
democratic solution. To gauge current thinking in Washington - the
White House in particular - on both Iran and the start, in just a few
days time, of the staged American military withdrawal from Iraq, George
Negus spoke with US commentator E.J. Dionne.
GEORGE NEGUS: E.J., thanks very much for your time. If we
could talk
about both the 'I' words if you like, both Iran and Iraq, because on
everybody's mind right now for quite different reasons, one, because
America is getting out of Iraq and you could say they are trying not
get in to Iran. How do you describe the situation in Iran where Barack
Obama is concerned?
E.J. DIONNE, WASHINGTON POST: Right, well, on Iran, I think you have to
look at a lot of what has been said about Obama in the United States in
the context of our domestic political debate. The Republican Party for
years had an advantage - or thought it had an advantage - on foreign
policy, that the Democrats were seen as a party soft on foreign policy
and suddenly, because Obama did not speak out immediately in denouncing
the Iranian regime, some Republicans saw an advantage in denouncing him
for not speaking up. There are also other voices in the Republican
Party who are less sympathetic to the Bush policy in Iraq, who are less
sympathetic to a purely bellicose policy toward Iran, who actually
supported Obama's initial caution, and said Obama was right, that, if
he had spoken out too strongly too early, it would have been easy to
cast the opposition in Iran as tools of the United States, and so they
supported his gradual escalation of rhetoric.
GEORGE NEGUS: Could I put it to you, though, he's been
described as
weak and impotent. That is pretty stern criticism. What is the reason
for his caution?
E.J. DIONNE: I think words like weak and impotent are coming from
entirely partisan people here in the United States. I don't think
that's a general... that is a majority view, first of all. Secondly,
Obama was reluctant to speak out strongly initially, and everybody in
his administration has said this, A, because we were not sure what was
happening in the days immediately after the election, and secondly,
because he did not want the opposition to get tagged as doing this
because the United States was pushing it. They did not want to be
complicit with that strategy on the part of the Iranian regime. And
then, as time went on, it became more and more clear that a strong
voice was needed to say, "Look, we want to negotiate," the
Administration says, "but we condemn what's happening on the streets of
Iran."
GEORGE NEGUS: His rhetoric has become much stronger, but
meanwhile, the
deaths are continuing to occur on the street. I guess not just his
critics, but a lot of other people would ask, "How long do we have to
wait, how long does this caution go on, how many deaths have to occur
before somebody actually acts?"
E.J. DIONNE: Right, and I think the question that I would ask back is,
"Act how?" What is the United States or what are Western countries
supposed to do in response to this? I don't think anybody is looking
for an invasion of Iran. I think the one thing that would end the
opposition movement immediately is if we move right away and started
bombing their nuclear facilities, so I think you're already seeing the
democracies begin to try to isolate this government, to say, over the
long run, there will be a price to be paid.
GEORGE NEGUS: Is it the ultimate liberal dilemma for a man
like Barack
Obama that, on the one hand, what you're saying, this caution, is
totally understandable, on the other hand, what do you actually do
about the people who are suffering in the meantime?
E.J. DIONNE: It is a difficult situation for liberals to be in. On the
one hand, the instinctive reaction of liberals is to support opposition
movements pushing for democracy, for greater freedom of expression, let
alone for an honest counterbalance. On the other hand, liberals do, on
the whole - certainly in the American sense of the term liberal -
favour negotiation over war, favour engagement, and so those two strong
impulses are, if not at war with each other, in tension with each
other, and especially so the more the government crack down in Iran,
and I think Obama is trying to walk that liberal... or walk down that
liberal or progressive road, and it's a hard road to walk.
GEORGE NEGUS: Sure. Could I ask you this - not as a conspiracy
theorist
but just as an analyst - is it possible that the Iranians, Ahmadinejad
and the ayatollahs, particularly Khamenei, are they goading, if you
like, the US and Obama in particular, goading them, taunting them to
intervene, taunting them to actually meddle the way he said he's not
going to meddle?
E.J. DIONNE: I don't see it that way myself. In fact, what I see coming
out of Iran is an enormous effort on their part to exaggerate the role
of the United States, if anything, to exaggerate American power in this
situation, because they're trying to tie this whole opposition to the
CIA, to the United States, so I do not see this as about thumbing your
nose to the United States, but there seems to be a real division
opening up within the Iranian ruling class, among the mullahs
themselves. Rafsanjani's role is fascinating. It's hard to see him as
an anti-establishment force, and yet he is now right up against
Ahmadinejad, so I think that you are seeing a weakening of that regime.
I think if we back off a few steps, there is something very heartening
about what has been happening over there, that I think a lot of people
in the country discovered there was more of an opposition than I think
they even knew, and it could be a very long struggle. The regime may
succeed in putting this down for now and yet not succeed in putting it
down permanently. It took a long time for the revolution against the
Shah to lead to the rise of Khomeini. This could be a long struggle for
freedom or at least greater freedom.
GEORGE NEGUS: Yeah, we are talking about a revolution here.
What's
going on there is quite revolutionary and are people all that sure that
Mousavi, for instance, is the appropriate alternative? I mean, his
background is not exactly... that of a great democrat.
E.J. DIONNE: You know, it's fascinating that I think sometimes people
are pushed into roles that they didn't initially want to play, and it
wasn't clear a month or a month and a half ago that this man would end
up catalysing this great movement of opposition, but now that he's
there, he seems to have embraced this role which, if you had asked him
two months ago, "Is this what you're trying to do?" he probably would
have said no. He has become either a leader or an important figurehead
in a very new movement.
GEORGE NEGUS: E.J., we don't like to bring religion into
politics or
politics into religion for that matter, but how much of this dilemma is
because the ayatollahs, the clerics, the mullahs, call them what you
will - the ultimate leadership in Iran - believes that what they're
doing, they're doing because God says it's fine, it's OK? They're doing
the killing even in God's name. How the heck do those of us who don't
see the world that way contest and combat a situation like that?
E.J. DIONNE: You know, I ponder... or I've sort of thought and written
a lot about religion and politics and I always ponder what it means
when somebody expresses utter certainty about God's will and utter
certainty that they are embodying it. I've always thought that faith in
the Almighty suggests a certain humility on our part, before we
interpret His will. I think a lot of the people in the leadership in
Iran may well be authentic in their religious views, but are still
viewing this much more through the eyes of realpolitik. Rafsanjani
certainly seems like a realpolitik sort of character. A lot of these
mullahs seem to be motivated by rather worldly concerns about power,
politics and the influence of Iran as a country.
GEORGE NEGUS: During your election campaign in November 2008,
Barack
Obama said that he would engage with the Iranians, no preconditions. Do
you think that's seriously a possibility in the current climate?
E.J. DIONNE: We don't know where this is going to go yet, and I think
there are a number of scenarios imaginable. If the crackdown continues
and the regime survives this round of opposition, it is very likely to
delay any kind of engagement, certainly from the schedule that I think
Obama wished, had hoped for before all of this happened. The other
scenario that's being floated around here is that the regime will see
itself as weakened, see itself as isolated in the world and therefore
be prepared to negotiate, may actually soften its line a bit toward the
outside as it hardens its line on the inside.
GEORGE NEGUS: With the withdrawal from Iraq, the staged
withdrawal over
a couple of years really, is it going to be all that smooth and will it
happen the way the plan says it should happen, starting in a couple of
days time?
E.J. DIONNE: Nothing in Iraq has gone according to any plan that anyone
laid out. The surge worked better than some of the critics said, but on
the whole, I think it's going to be a very difficult withdrawal. Yep. I
still think Obama is committed to this withdrawal, I think he believes
it is necessary partly 'cause he wants to turn more attention to
Afghanistan.
GEORGE NEGUS: In a few words before you go, testing times for
Barack
Obama?
E.J. DIONNE: These are pressing times for the US and the world and
therefore for Barack Obama, it's true, and when he signed up to take
this job, I think he did have some sense of the messes he'd be walking
into.
GEORGE NEGUS: E.J., good to talk to you. Thanks again for your
time.
E.J. DIONNE: Very good to talk to you. Thank you.