Better understanding the events in Iran

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

In an interview with CBS Evening News' Randall Pinkston on Sunday, Hooman Majd (author and Iranian political observer) explained that current events in Iran are not comparable to the Iranian Revolution in 1979. "There's no similarity, and anybody who thinks there is I think is either engaging in wishful thinking or reading something into it that isn't there. Mousavi, Khatami, Rafsanjani, the three major personalities on the opposition side are all talking about this vote, this one thing that is actually against the Islamic Constitution, that is against the Islamic Republic. So they're talking about preserving the system, not about bringing it down."

Watch CBS Videos Online

CNN's Fareed Zakaria interviewed former National Security advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski on his Sunday program GPS discussing the Iran election crisis. CNN.com – Transcripts (6/21/09):

ZAKARIA: Tell us what the difference is. Why is this not going to look like 1989 in Europe, or the flowering of freedom in the former Soviet Union?

BRZEZINSKI: One very important reason. And I was up to my ears in dealing with it, and trying to steer it and to manipulate it.

The revolution in Eastern Europe, the Solidarity movement in Poland, or the other movements in the Czech Republic and Hungary, and so forth, were for democracy. And there are aspects to what is happening in Iran which are similar for democracy.

But the movements in Eastern Europe were also intensely nationalistic. That is to say, they were opposing foreign domination, foreign imperialism, direct control from another capital, namely from Moscow. That element is not there in Iran.

We're dealing with a country which is very nationalistic. Parts of that country may not be as hostile to us as the ayatollahs have been over the last 30 years. But they're not struggling against a foreign domination. And that makes the movement somewhat weaker. It isn't quite as united as in Eastern Europe. And thus, in Iran, we have two different forces at work. You have those who are for more democracy, but who are also nationalistic. And there are those who are supporting the regime, who in many respects are like our neocons — very similar to our neocons.

They're Manichean. They look at the world as divided into good and evil, and many of them see America as the personification of evil. So, that makes it much more complicated, and makes our role much more sensitive.

ZAKARIA: And, Zbig, does that mean — you point out that we need to be sensitive here, because Iran is a nationalist country.

Do you think that President Obama has struck the right tone, trying to offer some support, but being very clear to say this is an internal Iranian affair? We are not trying to pick sides. We are not trying to — you know, we don't have a dog in this fight, in that sense.

BRZEZINSKI: Fareed, I never hesitate to criticize presidents when I have a different point of view.

But I think on this, he has struck absolutely the right note. He's offering moral sympathy. He's identifying himself morally, historically with what is happening in Iran.

But he's not engaging himself politically. He's not interfering, because that would turn badly. And it could be exploited by the neocons in Iran to crush the revolution, to wipe it out.

I don't know if the revolution will prevail. It may take time. The longer it lasts, the better are its chances. But we don't want it to escalate into a total showdown, because if there's a total showdown now, the chances are that the worst elements — the Iranian neocons — will prevail.

ZAKARIA: Is it fair to say, Zbig, that this was the concern that George H.W. Bush had during the revolutions of '89, which is why he was cautious about, as he put it, going to Berlin and dancing on the Wall? His fear was that either the communist regimes in Eastern Europe would crack down, or that the Soviet Union would crack down, and therefore was trying to play this balancing game of offering some support, but not so much that you insert America into the process.

BRZEZINSKI: Absolutely. And I was a private citizen at the time, but he called me in a couple of times to discuss this with him. And he was prudent and intelligent — and, ultimately, masterful — because things worked out the way we wanted them to work out.

I think Obama has redefined America's relationship with Islam. And thereby, he has weakened the capacity of the ayatollahs to present us as a satanic force.

But we should have no illusions that Iranian nationalism is going to be easy to deal with. And even if Mousavi wins, for example, we'll still have a complicated problem in the nuclear area. But hopefully, the nature of the dialogue, the atmosphere will change for the better.

ZAKARIA: Finally, Zbig, how does one ensure that this works its way out to be something more like Eastern Europe, and not something like Tiananmen Square? How do you think the — you know, what's the trajectory here?

BRZEZINSKI: Well, I think it will not work out the way Eastern Europe worked out. And hopefully, it will not end the way Tiananmen Square ended. Eastern Europe became intensely pro-Western, pro- American, and so forth.

I think we should have no illusions about this. The Iranians have a long historical memory. They look at the West, and particularly at America and Britain, with somewhat critical eyes. They have grievances against us, and they feel that we have done things to them which they weren't entitled to have happened.

So, I think the accommodation will not be easy. But once we no longer have a Manichean, black-and-white, good-and-evil type of a regime confronting us in a hostile fashion, it will be easier to deal with the specific problems that we confront.

One of the paradoxes here domestically is that many of the people who call for the most energetic involvement by Obama in the process, they simply would prefer to have an American-Iranian showdown.

Whereas, in fact, if there is a change of regime in Iran, there's a greater chance of accommodation. And I think that is to be fervently wished for.

But that requires patience, intelligent manipulation, moral support, but no political interference.

Brzezinski hit the nail on the head. Neoconservatives in the U.S. are heavily invested in their political propaganda for an American-Iranian showdown. Neoconservatives have been demonizing Iran and clamoring for war with Iran for years.

Now they are engaged in the mischaracterization of recent events in Iran as a pro-American movement for democracy in order to criticize President Obama for not speaking out forcefully enough in support of a democratic revolution in Iran. The Neoconservatives are completely off-base, per usual.

What is occurring in Iran is not a pro-American movement for democracy, but an internal struggle between the leaders of the Islamic Revolution for control of the future direction of the Islamic Republic. It is foolhardy to "Americanize" this dispute by injecting the U.S. into internal Iranian politics. No Iranian party to this conflict wants to be seen as aligned with the Americans. This would only strengthen the hand of the regime's hard-liners and weaken the opposition.

President Obama has struck the right tone in speaking out for universal democratic principles while not falling into the trap of meddling in internal Iranian politics.

Now that the world has seen that not all Iranians are the demons that U.S. Neoconservatives have portrayed them to be, it will be much more difficult for the Neoconservatives to convince Americans that the U.S. should go to war with Iran. The protests in Iran are as much a setback for U.S. Neoconservatives as it is for the Iranian regime's hard-liners. A U.S. war with Iran would only serve to unify the disparate groups marching in the streets of Iran today against the U.S. "Great Satan." Careful U.S. diplomacy and having the patience to take the long view, as Obama is doing, will in the end produce far more favorable results for the U.S., and for the people of Iran.

Neoconservative critics like our own Sen. John McCain rightly should just shut the hell up and not give the Iranian regime's hard-liners something with which to use against opposition leaders in order to defeat their opposition. But U.S. Neoconservatives appear more interested in maintaining their demonization of Iran in support of their long-sought war with Iran. Neoconservatives are directly undermining our U.S. foreign policy interests in Iran, and they should be brought to heel at this critical moment.