Patience and Care With Iran

Kishore Mahbubani is Dean of the School of Public Policy at the University of Singapore. He has published articles in the scholarly journal Foreign Affairs, The New York Times, and The Wall Street Journal.

Yesterday I was watching "Fareed Zakaria GPS" on CNN, where Mahbubani was being interviewed, and he articulated a position I've asserted here in a couple of my postings: "The whole world is dreading an attack on Iran. That would be a disaster."

Why would I be against an American presence in Iran, but approve of our presence in Afghanistan and Iraq?

Those (Americans and Europeans) who don't see a difference between Iran, Iraq, and Afghanistan, reveal their ignorance of these countries, which indicates a probable ignorance of most, if not all, Middle Eastern countries.

What makes me say this?

Because I can hear certain people saying, "Why have we sent our troops to Afghanistan and Iraq, but not Iran?"

I am imagining this protest as coming from a liberal who believes we should not have sent our troops to any country, and who is trying to uncover an inconsistent and arbitrary U.S. government policy towards these Middle Eastern countries.

(I would like to say I don't have anything against "liberals" or "conservatives" per se, I am only against incorrect or uninformed ideas.)

Each country poses a different set of circumstances, and each has a different relationship with the U.S. We became involved with Afghanistan after 9/11 because the Taliban harbored members of al-Qaeda (and now it can be argued that they have merged, that their ideas have become closer). Afghanistan, due to poverty, corruption, and weak government (and the strength of its tribal warlords), was unable to root out al-Qaeda (not to mention its oppressors, the Taliban).

For me to address Iraq is to invite all kinds of criticism, but I'll do it anyway. We had no right to invade Iraq for the reason George Bush gave.

But what if our government in 2003 had said we were going to invade Iraq because Saddam Hussein was an oppressive and inhumane dictator, and that it was in our interest to - not just depose - but eradicate in terms of his whole party infrastructure? (meaning we didn't want his sons or second-in-commands or advisors taking his place).

The most common argument I heard from my acquaintences in 2003 who were against our invasion of Iraq was that we should "stay out of Iraq's business," that it should be up to the people of Iraq to depose Hussein - that they needed to achieve democracy at their own pace, when they were ready for it.

There are two problems with this argument. First, there is no way the Iraqi people could have gotten rid of Saddam Hussein. He abused and slaughtered people at will for 30 years. He ruled unopposed and with impunity. It is estimated in a 2007 article in The New York Times Magazine that Hussein murdered about one million citizens under his care:

he murdered as many as a million of his people, many with poison gas. He tortured, maimed and imprisoned countless more.

I propose that it is completely unreasonable to claim that the Iraqi people could have deposed Saddam Hussein.

The second problem with the argument is that Iraq was somehow "not ready" for democracy. What a condescending view: that somehow the Iraqi people were developmentally behind, and could not achieve or understand democracy.

Look at the Kurds in northern Iraq. Once they were made safe from Saddam Hussein by our Air Force (after the First Gulf War) they rapidly constructed a democratic and prosperous society.

So what's different about Iran? The government is oppressive, true. But Iranians have shown they can and will fight the police and military. All they need is something, or someone, to tip the balance, to provide leadership, and it's very possible they could bring about a change in government themselves.

A New York Times article quotes Iranian filmmaker, Mohsen Makhmalbaf, today: "People of my country are killed, imprisoned, tortured and raped just for their votes...Every award I receive means an opportunity for me to echo their voices to the world, asking for democracy for Iran and peace for the world."

Let's not forget what Pres. Obama said in his "Cairo speech" in June 2009:

I know there has been controversy about the promotion of democracy in recent years, and much of this controversy is connected to the war in Iraq. So let me be clear: no system of government can or should be imposed upon one nation by any other.

That does not lessen my commitment, however, to governments that reflect the will of the people. Each nation gives life to this principle in its own way, grounded in the traditions of its own people. America does not presume to know what is best for everyone, just as we would not presume to pick the outcome of a peaceful election. But I do have an unyielding belief that all people yearn for certain things: the ability to speak your mind and have a say in how you are governed; confidence in the rule of law and the equal administration of justice; government that is transparent and doesn't steal from the people; the freedom to live as you choose. Those are not just American ideas, they are human rights, and that is why we will support them everywhere.

The two important words here are "impose" and "support." The U.S., and anyone else who is thinking of getting involved with Iran, needs to be patient and treat the situation with great care. To impose anything - or to be viewed as imposing anything on another country - is wrong. To support when support is wanted is the key.