Have you been racking your brain these past few weeks, trying to figure out what makes the Obama administration's Iran policy "realistic"?
It's a good question. "Realism" in foreign policy has purportedly returned to power after 16 long years in exile. Obama and his allies in and outside government take great care to distinguish their approach to the world from the unbridled idealism that supposedly characterized George W. Bush's administration (and, implicitly, Bill Clinton's). Brent Scowcroft, the prominent realist and former national security adviser to President George H.W. Bush, has the current president's ear. Another realist veteran of the first Bush presidency, Robert Gates, is the secretary of defense. One of the president's biggest boosters in the media--but we repeat ourselves--is the realist Fareed Zakaria. In fashionable coteries of opinion, Woodrow Wilson is out. Reinhold Niebuhr is in.
This ought to be welcome news. American foreign policy makers should always be aware of our country's limits and conscious of its capabilities. It is always good to have people at the helm who understand that American primacy undergirds an international system that has produced more wealth, and more peace, for the world's people than any other in human history, and who therefore seek to promote that system and protect against threats to its stability. Such people are aware that the contest between powers does not end, and search for opportunities to tilt the balance of power in America's (and prosperity's and tranquility's) favor. Such people, in other words, recognize that the turmoil in Iran is an opportunity.
Millions of Iranians no longer see the Ayatollah Khamenei and President Ahmadinejad as legitimate rulers. The violence the regime has deployed to silence dissent only underscores that illegitimacy. Here is a moment, you would think, for America and its allies to heighten the regime's internal contradictions by keeping solidarity with, and helping wherever possible, the Iranian men and women taking to the streets. After all, the more time the Revolutionary Guard spends securing its internal position, the less time it has to obtain nuclear weapons and pursue hegemony over the greater Middle East. A forward-leaning U.S. policy would not only further the cause of liberal democracy, it would strengthen the U.S. position vis-à-vis Iran. And a weakened Iranian regime is more likely to negotiate in good faith with America and her allies.
None of this has happened, however. Instead, the realists in power have adopted a policy of inaction in foreign affairs. They are content to sit back and pine for a fantasy world where the United States is an "offshore balancer" that needn't concern itself with protest marches in Persia. Furthermore, in the face of all contrary evidence, today's realists clutch to their belief that the only obstacle to an accommodation with the thugs who rule Iran was George W. Bush. Play nice, they tell us. Sit back. Everything will work out. Don't ruffle any feathers. Taking action will do more harm than good.
Faced with a jerry-rigged election and widespread discontent in Iran, President Obama first downplayed the differences between Ahmadinejad, a man the Iranian opposition calls a "dictator," and the reformist candidate Mir-Hussein Mousavi. Then Obama told Americans that their government's historical legacy of "meddling" in Iranian affairs cautioned against intervention in the current crisis. When the regime's brutality in the face of its people's democratic aspirations became undeniable, however, Obama called "on the Iranian government to stop all violent and unjust actions against its own people." Too little. Too late.
The president has intensified his rhetoric. But he hasn't done much else to support the protests or to sanction the Iranian regime for its actions. The White House's passive language is revealing. In a June 20 statement, President Obama reminded the Iranians that the "world is watching," that Americans "mourn each and every innocent life that is lost," that "we are bearing witness" and will continue to do so. Lovely sentiments. No question that a 20-something student beaten up by Basij militiamen appreciates them. But he probably also wants something more. The Iranian nuclear program, meanwhile, barrels on.
Obama did not say that the United States would take active steps to help the Iranians conduct free and fair elections. He did not propose an international conference devoted to the Iranian opposition. He neglected the opportunity to remind the world that an Iran without nuclear weapons is a global public good. He took care not to give any sign that American power or American ideals are involved in the uprising. The president and his so-called realist advisers' overriding concern, after all, is that America not "own" the protests.
Why? Because Ahmadinejad is "already accusing the United States and Britain of interference," writes Fareed Zakaria. "Our strategy should be to make sure that these accusations seem as loony and baseless as possible." Historically, the "Tehran government" has appealed to nationalist feelings in order to cement its power. If Ahmadinejad successfully portrays the Mousavi revolt as part of "an on going anti-Iranian campaign," then support for the protestors may collapse. American action will have a perverse effect. The United States will frustrate the very end it is trying to achieve.
But Ahmadinejad has already disproved this argument. As Zakaria mentions, he has been blaming the pro-democracy protests on the United States and Britain since the day they began. Did the protestors believe him? They did not. Did a single antigovernment protestor walk away from the marches when he heard that Obama condemned the violence? Nope. Would one of them shake her head and say, "Well, now I know Ahmadinejad won fair and square!" if she heard that Obama supported her cause? Of course not. The democrats rallied until the guys with the guns showed up and started shooting.
Obama's muted response might have assuaged uneasy liberal consciences in New York and Washington. Outside in the world, however, where nations vie for advantage, Obama neither won America any friends nor set back any of her adversaries. To the contrary: Ahmadinejad has been emboldened, harassing workers at the British embassy and demanding an apology from Obama.
Today's realists are so afraid of America's shadow, so convinced that the nation is in relative decline, that they counsel inaction even when solidarity with the Iranian opposition would accelerate the demise of Iranian theocracy and hence improve America's regional power position. "[A]t the heart of realist thought today," Robert Kagan wrote more than a decade ago in Commentary, "is a hostility to any foreign policy which seeks to foster American ideals abroad-- whether it is safe to do so or not" (emphasis in the original). Little has changed.
The hostility is blinding. It prevents the realists from recognizing those moments when American interests and American ideals intersect. Moments when forceful words and concrete actions help the democrats' and America's cause.
The realists' lackadaisical attitude in the face of democratic fervor is partly a consequence of their view that a regime's character is largely irrelevant to its foreign policy. It is partly confirmation that Obama's team is more interested in restricting the scope of American ideals, interests, and ambitions than in capitalizing on moments when history might shift decisively in our favor. But, taken as a whole, such a mindset isn't "realistic." It's obtuse.
Matthew Continetti is associate editor of THE WEEKLY STANDARD.