Make no mistake about it, the_Security_Dilemma is at play right now between the US and Iran.
For those who are not intimately familiar with IR theory ( to be honest, that includes me), I will try and explain the term. Basically, it refers* to the dilemma that occurs when two hostile states try to interpret each other’s intentions and figure out how they should respond. While state A might have peaceful intentions, this does not mean State B will interpret them this way, or vice versa. Countless times throughout the Cold War, the US or the Soviet Union misread the other’s intentions, leading to unnecessary conflict.
Take for example the Korean War when North Korea figured that they could invade the South without provoking an American response. There was some reason for them to believe this. After all, the US had done nothing when China “went Communist” in 1949 so why would they care about much less important Korea? Not to mention that top American officials in 1950 had publicly stated that Korea was outside of the US security blanket in Asia.
On the other hand, America also made serious miscalculations during the Korean War. Lots of American soldiers died because the US military assumed (or maybe it just never occurred to them) that the Chinese wouldn’t feel threatened as Allied forces approached the Chinese border. Obviously this was incorrect and the Chinese Army launched a devastating suprise counter-attack on behalf of the Koreans.
In any case, it is critical that the US understand how Iran today perceives American actions — and vice versa. Here’s an important quote by Abdel_Bari_Atwan, a major Arab journalist at Al-Quds Al-Arabi:
اسرائيل وقوى غربية عديدة لا تؤيد المظاهرات الاحتجاجية في طهران، وهي مشروعة، كشفت عن نهج حضاري سلمي منضبط، من منطلق حرصها على الديمقراطية وحقوق الانسان، وانما لرغبتها في اضعاف ايران، وتمزيق نسيجها الاجتماعي من الداخل، وضرب وحدتها الوطنية والترابية، لخوفها من مواجهتها من الخارج بالوسائل العسكرية، لما يمكن ان يترتب على ذلك من نتائج مكلفة.
“Israel and numerous Western powers do not support the demonstrations in Tehran – which are in themselves legal and have revealed a civilized, peaceful and controlled behavior – based on their aspiration to democracy; rather it is due to their desire to weaken Iran, rip its social tissue from within and hit its territorial unity due to their fear of confronting her militarily from outside the country and the resulting costly consequences.”
The majority of pundits and bloggers in America (perhaps subconsciously) have sided with the Protesters, though some stick out more than others (see here and here.) I have no doubt that they see themselves as acting within the Wilsonian tradition of Democracy promotion, something they see as critical to the advancement of US National Security Interests. I have yet to hear anyone in the American media openly state that they support the protests in order to destabilize Iran, as Atwan suggests.
But if many Americans view themselves as altruistic Wilsonians, fighting nobly for the cause of Democracy in Iran, this is certainly not the dominant view from “the other side.” The majority in the Arab world would agree with Atwan, not to mention those inside Iran who voted for Ahmedinijad (probably a majority), and certainly his supporters inside the Security Apparatus. From their viewpoint, the US position can only be interpreted in one way: an attempt to destabilize Iran. How else to interpret the State Department’s special_request to Twitter to delay repairs in order to facilitate the protesters? Or President Obama’s calls_for_”justice” and comparisons between the Iranian protesters and Martin Luther King? ( keep in mind those who voted for Ahmedinijad see him as having won fair and square, so after a certain point, continued protests are no longer protests.) Certainly they wouldn’t see these kinds of statements as neutral.
A bear is most dangerous when threatened and this is what could potentially be happening right now. There is no doubt that the Iranian regime, especially the Security Apparatus, shares Abdel Bari Atwan’s view — that the US supports the protests in order to destabilize Iran. Why is that important? If events in Iran were happening in a vacuum, it would not be. But noone should assume that what happens in Iran, stays in Iran, and won’t affect Iranian foreign policy calculations in Iraq, Lebanon, and even Afghanistan. Raghida_Durham_of_Al-Hayat is probably correct on this point:
Obama should expect of Ahmadinejad more stringency and strictness towards the United States after what happened, no matter how much the US President tries to cling to caution, in order to avoid and defend against the accusation of interfering in Iran’s affairs. He should expectthe mullahs of Tehran, led by Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, to take preemptive or vengeful measures, not necessarily in Iraq or Afghanistan, but rather in Palestine and Lebanon. He should be careful, aware and wakeful of Iran and Israel implicating the United States in order to undermine Barack Obama’s insistence on making peace in the Palestinian issue. He should anticipate preemptive policies, so as not to find himself chasing the events, as did his predecessor Jimmy Carter in Iran 30 years ago.
One Obama advisor on Iran says_this:
“We clearly have to be on the right side of history here,” says Karim Sadjadpour of the Carnegie Endowment and an informal adviser to the White House. But he cautions that “if we try to insert ourselves into the momentous internal Iranian drama that’s unfolding, we may unwittingly undermine those whom we’re trying to strengthen.”
Noone would disagree with the above underlined statement. Seriously, who would actually want to be on the wrong side of history? But what’s the right side in this situation? Is it the protesters who may or may not have a valid claim that the overall results were fixed? Or is it the side that officially won — and may have actually and decisively won? It would seem to me that extreme prudence is critical. And although many Americans probably see their country’s actions so far as prudent and neutral, this is definitely not how they are being seen by many on “the other side.”
UPDATE: I hadn’t even noticed this, but two days ago the US Congress passed resolutions formally endorsing the Protesters which probably explains the President’s ratcheting up of rhetoric today. Read Kal at the Moor Next Door’s savage_critique of the bill.
* A smart reader informs me that I may have my IR terms wrong (I got alot of Cs in IR classes). Perhaps instead of “Security Dilemma” I am actually talking about “miscommunication.” The point of the post stays the same but here’s his comment:
“Then maybe you should take out the ’security dilemma’ part of it. I always understood security dilemmas as arms races where you build up your side because you don’t feel secure enough, and that is seen as threatening by the other side. i think you are talking about just straight up miscommunication.”