Obama engages by not engaging

A Tehran election protest on June 15 (Faramarz via Flickr)

President Obama’s first remarks on the Iranian crisis were mild, reserved–but, in the context of these potentially world-historical days, somewhat explosive.

First, to sum up what he said: simply, that Iran has the right to determine its own leadership, but that America will respect its sovereignty. That formulation alone is unique, especially when compared to recent history. For in the Bush era, the second statement would seem to preclude the first. If America was pledging not to intervene militarily in a country, what role could it have in arguing about a country’s internal character?

Plenty, of course. That’s what liberal internationalism of the kind Obama practices believes in: Measured, thoughtful consideration of our complex world, in which responsible policymakers are torn between the legitimate desire to see democracy take root elsewhere and the basic security need to respect others’ borders.

Yet Obama knows–and this kind of subtlety is, I’m sure, lost on Eric Cantor and company–that it would also be dangerous for him to talk too much. One can easily imagine a scenario in which Obama’s words would be turned against Mousavi by Ahmedinejad and company. Obama acknowledged this point, too.

He engaged by not engaging. He was wise enough not to endorse the idea that Mousavi was robbed of victory, because the actual outcome of that race, even if you allow for vote-rigging, is very much in doubt. Yet he made his allegiances clear: “I think that the democratic process, free speech, the ability of people to peacefully dissent, all of those are universal values, and need to be respected,” said the president.

For us Americans watching, his approach represents nearly the opposite of recent policy history, which has too often preferred the company of extremes. And for the Iranians watching? I think it’s fair to assume that a president who is open about his own Muslim family members, who has been respectful toward Islam as a religion, and, who, as an Iraq War opponent has special credibility when declaring he has no intent to violate sovereignty, will be received well by all sides.

America, given its military and economic might, always carries a big stick. But to prevail here–to be on the sides of the democrats without damaging their credibility, let alone the prospects for future diplomacy–Obama will have to speak very softly, barely above a whisper. Today was a good start.

___

Like this post on the Iranian election aftermath? Check out these other posts from True/Slant contributors:

Phil Zabriskie: ‘Winds of Tehran Part II’
Jonathan Curiel: In droves, Iran’s women have come out of their political closet
Mark Drapeau: How the Iranian Elections Turned “CNN Fail” Into a Media Success
Joshua Kucera: What if Twitter is leading us all astray in Iran?
Marc Herman: How Iran ‘Jams’ Election News
Kate Klonick: This is no green revolution
Ryan Sager: Iran: Knowing Nothing