Obama's Dilemma

The Iranian election imbroglio has been posing a political and moral dilemma to President Obama since the results were released on Friday. There is mounting pressure on him to support the Iranian opposition, despite the fact that it would be wildly reckless and run contrary to a half century of Iranian political history.

On the issue of the veracity of the elections, it is often overlooked that President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad does have a significant base of support among Iran's poor, the religious, and in rural areas. Just because we don't like him doesn't mean Iranians don't like him. Challenger Mir Hossein Mousavi has strong support in many middle- and upper-class neighborhoods of Tehran, where many foreign press organizations operated, but it is not clear if his support was as strong elsewhere. Nevertheless, a number of now widely-reported irregularities in the elections have given many Iranians the impression that the outcome was predetermined - their votes were never counted. This impression is not to be discounted. While elected bodies in Iran may not be the most powerful, elections are nonetheless meaningful, particularly when candidates from various political stripes are allowed to contest. Many Iranians are therefore insulted at the possibility that their votes were simply cast aside. And this possibility appears to be very real, though not a proven fact.

So far, Obama has been cautious in his approach to the elections, saying only that he was "concerned" and urging Iran to respect the standards of democracy. Iran, for its part, accused the United States of "intolerable meddling" in its internal affairs. Since 1979 and before, Iran has been highly suspicious and hyper-sensitive about American interference in domestic affairs. Not that it isn't justified; in 1953, CIA covert operations were responsible for overthrowing an elected, nationalist government and (re)installing the soon-to-be-detested Shah who would later be known as one of the world's most repressive dictators. He would be overthrown in 1979 and replaced by the current form of government.

The pressure for Obama to support the protesters is understandable. The United States believes itself to be a beacon of democracy, whatever its shortcomings. We like to stand up for the values that we believe in, and it seems wrong - in a way - to allow thousands of others to put their lives on the line for the right to choose their leaders without the (self-proclaimed) global leader of democracy voicing its support, at the very least. But it is also clear that American support for the opposition can be the kiss of death. Literally. The leadership has announced that it will begin executing foreign agents and agitators, and those receiving support from abroad. It would be a very, very bad idea to give them an excuse to bring out the firing squads. Obama himself has argued against giving the Iranian regime the impression that the protests are American-led. Although the United States is concerned about the violence, he has said, it is an internal issue for the Iranians to work out. At the risk of sounding cold-hearted, the Iranians don't want our "support." It will simply be counterproductive. In this case, the best help is no help at all.