Monday, June 22, 2009

The Diplomacy of Moral Support   [Kathryn Jean Lopez]

As Corner readers know, Michael Ledeen has a long history trying to give voice to the Iranian people thirsting for freedom. He is currently Freedom Scholar at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies and author of many books, including The Iranian Time Bomb. He took a few questions today on the current situation on Iran.

Lopez: Does Paul Saunders have a point in the Washington Post? Is some of the criticism of Obama unrealistic? How much can he actually affect the Persian streets?

Ledeen: His arguments are so silly that he doesn’t believe them himself. After giving us all his reasons we shouldn’t say or do much of anything on behalf of the Iranian democracy forces, he says, "If the crisis escalates, it may be necessary to do more, something the administration itself has said."

It’s interesting that one of his colleagues echoed Obama’s most unfortunate statement to date, namely that there may be no significant difference between Mousavi and Ahmadinejad/Khamenei. But millions of Iranians, risking their lives, give the lie to that one, wouldn’t you say?


Lopez: Is it reckless to encourage the protesting when we’re not really in a position to given them any real support?

Ledeen: It’s not encouragement; it’s political and moral support. Goodness knows we didn’t encourage this. It seems to me that Western governments, including our own, were surprised when it happened. I suspect even the participants, including the Mousavis, were a bit surprised at the dimensions of the rage at the regime.

Second, if anyone thinks we can avoid the accusation of "meddling" by doing nothing, he should read the papers. Khamenei (notice how Ahmadinejad has virtually disappeared from public view) has accused us of being behind these demonstrations from the first minute.

Third, most Iranians like America. Tom Friedman called Iran the "only red state in the Middle East," and he’s right. Even Roger Cohen has realized this, on the streets of Tehran. Those who say we would be blamed, or that we would alienate the Iranian people by supporting the at a time they’re being slaughtered in the streets for the "crime" of demanding their freedom, say that because they don’t believe in America, not because they care about the future of the Iranians.

Anyone who believes in freedom must support these people. To do otherwise brands you forever as an appeaser. 


Lopez: People keep asking me, "How can I help Iranians?" How do you answer that?

Ledeen: The main thing is to help them communicate with one another. We need to serve as a component in triangulating information that comes from Iran, and sending it back in. The Iranian people need to know what is actually going on, all over the country. We can do that. We should have been doing it for years, but we can certainly do it now.


Lopez: Would you have predicted this?

Ledeen: I did, for years. I wanted us to help the Iranians, and I called for it for at least 20 years. It’s been obvious that the Iranian people wanted to change their regime, and I thought we had a moral obligation and every sound strategic reason, to help them. And I wrote on the eve of the election that I didn’t see how street violence could be avoided.


Lopez: You were a critic of the Bush administration on Iran. Did he set any of this in motion with some of this public statements at least?

Ledeen: I don’t think so. The Iranian people didn’t need Bush to tell them they were suffering under an evil regime. When he spoke about it, they assumed that he would actually do something for them. But he didn’t, and they were bitterly disappointed. If you want to make a case for Bush, the defeat of Iranian-sponsored terrorists in Iraq was a major event, and gave heart to the Iranian people. And then the Lebanese elections signified another blow to Iran, since their main terror proxy, Hezbollah, was surprisingly defeated.


Lopez: What would you like President Obama’s next statement be?

Ledeen: Neda must not die in vain. Iran must be free.

06/22 03:28 PMShare