The right response

With Iran’s political and social dynamics in a state of upheaval, writing about the country’s deepening crisis with any degree of consistency can be difficult. It’s the type of situation that frustrates doctrinaire prescriptions and sweeping formulas.

That’s why President Obama has deliberately abstained from ideologically charged language and opted instead for a more neutral defense of universal human rights. Despite accusations of timidity and appeasement, the president has adopted a brand of foreign policy realism.

To understand the logic behind Obama’s approach, one must come to grips with the national security priorities driving the administration’s policy toward Iran, a country whose support of Hezbollah, vocal hatred of Israel and pursuit of a nuclear weapons program have set security experts on edge. Early in his presidency, Obama broke with tradition and offered diplomatic relations to Iran’s President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, with the lofty hope that dialogue might prevent Iran’s nuclearization. As naive as this attempt might sound, it’s one of our last options.

Along with Obama’s hope for reconciliation, however, comes a realistic cynicism toward the nature of American-Iranian relations. Although the chances for a breakthrough with Ahmadinejad are already slim to none, a scathing personal attack of his leadership would undermine the potential for diplomacy if he remains in power.
With this in mind, Obama has responded to the Iranian conflict with restrained, measured tones.  

The president’s realism, therefore, combines the optimism of ambitious diplomatic goals with the cynical execution necessary for dealing with Iran. The paradox of his approach necessarily begs the questions: At what point does diplomatic realism come at the expense of honest, principled condemnation of the evils in Iran? And at what point is the possibility of a nuclear dialogue with Ahmadinejad no longer worth a tempered assessment of his crimes?  

Like any tough policy decision, there is no formula or logical proof that can identify the appropriate point for a political reversal. It is a hard truth of political leadership that the best decisions often involve choosing the lesser of two evils, without access to complete and thorough information.  

Of course, God only knows who will be leading Iran a year from now. Nonetheless, America’s foreign policy must not necessarily devolve into a strategic guessing game, for two things are almost certain: First, American leaders will still be gravely concerned about the Iranian nuclear program no matter who becomes president, and secondly, constructive dialogue might still be the best bet.  

Though it’s never the ideal choice, pragmatic foreign policy in the global era suggests the necessity of engaging even the most grossly totalitarian and undemocratic regimes. Obama’s response to Iran this past week goes back to this fundamental truth and so has sustained the possibility of a nuclear discussion.

More importantly, though, the president has demonstrated that principled objection to government abuse must not evolve into rash interventionism. An effective leader can offer criticism of evil in terms of universal rights and wrongs without striving to insert himself or his country directly into the political turmoil of another.

And after the lessons learned in the last six years, should we really expect anything less?