Romney should embrace the Iranian opposition
By Dr. Ivan Sascha Sheehan – Jun.21, 2012 – A recent Washington Post/ABC News poll found that more than half of American respondents trust U.S. President Barack Obama to manage international issues better than his Republican rival, Governor Mitt Romney. With the U.S. presidential election in full swing and just a third of respondents voicing confidence in his leadership on global matters, Mr. Romney’s failure to draw sharp distinctions on foreign policy may cost him needed votes in November.
The U.S. election is likely to focus on domestic concerns, but if Team Romney is looking for Obama’s Achilles’ heel, it’s hard to believe that the U.S. president could be weaker than in his dealings with Iran. The consensus in Washington is that Iran is determined to become a nuclear power and that negotiations are being used as a tactic to buy time. Israeli President Shimon Peres is right to warn that “time is up” for Iran but U.S. candidates don’t seem to have yet received the notice.
President Obama’s carefully cultivated reputation for not flinching on matters of national security isn’t borne out by his ongoing diplomacy with Tehran. The U.S. president’s reluctance to support the Iranian opposition and his willingness to allow nuclear talks to drag on without tangible results leaves him open to criticism from the American right. It also leaves him vulnerable to claims that the White House is in over its head on the nuclear issue.
Mr. Romney can capitalize on Obama’s mismanagement of the Iran problem, but his message to the American electorate must be clear: Only a conservative is equipped to manage the Iran threat.
Mr. Romney has made criticism of Obama’s leadership on the world stage a cornerstone of his campaign but with the exception of his emerging stance on Syria and calls for restraint on cuts to the U.S. defense budget, it isn’t entirely clear what he would do differently. Tough talk is not enough to substantiate allegations that Mr. Obama is making the world less safe, nor is it enough to counter criticism that the former Massachusetts governor lacks foreign policy know-how.
Contrary to Romney’s claims, the U.S. electorate isn’t likely to accept that their current Commander-in-Chief is impotent on matters of national security when his targeted takedowns of Al-Qaida leadership, including mastermind Osama bin Laden, are evidence that he is quite comfortable pulling the trigger.
What is not clear is whether President Obama is good at distinguishing between existential dangers and lesser concerns. What is even less evident is whether he prefers the anonymity of drone strikes and covert operations to exercising the real muscle necessary to contain and deter would be global powers from their potential rise.
It also isn’t certain that the U.S. President has the clarity of mind- evoked by Israeli leaders- to see Iran for what it is: the primary fountainhead of terror in the modern world and a state-sponsor of violence that will only grow more powerful with the bomb.
With four months left before Americans cast their ballots, Mr. Romney can articulate a sharper distinction with his incumbent rival by signaling that he will tighten the screws on Iran and impose new economic and political sanctions. He can indicate that he will forgo further discussions on nuclear matters unless there are real and immediate concessions. He can articulate what measures he will take to compel Iran to live up to its obligations under the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. And he can outline how he will work with Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu to push back on Iran. Together, they are the best combination for changing Iran’s calculus in deciding whether to pursue the nuclear option.
The Romney camp’s recent expressions of support for the organized resistance challenging Syrian President Bashar Assad should now be followed with a similar approach to the Iranian opposition’s Mujahideen-e-Khalq or MEK, the largest movement in the National Council of Resistance of Iran. The Paris-based de facto parliament-in-exile seeks a secular, democratic, and non-nuclear Iran. No other opposition movement is as organized or as effective. That the group is responsible for exposing most of Iran’s major nuclear sites illustrates how support for the organization is consistent with both U.S. and Israeli security interests in the region.
A bi-partisan group of U.S. Congressional leaders and former lawmakers have already expressed support for the Iranian opposition. Conservatives have been among MEK’s most vocal advocates, calling for freedom, democracy, human rights, and the rule of law in Tehran.
President Obama’s willingness to send U.S. negotiators to Moscow this week, after diplomatic sessions in Istanbul and Baghdad failed to result in concrete proposals, provides fertile ground for sharp disagreement and policy contrast in the election. There’s never been a better time for Mr. Romney to demonstrate his support for the Iranian opposition.
Mr. Romney should make the case that unleashing opposition groups to counter state-sponsored repression and violence is a necessary means of confronting authoritarian regimes and placing the world’s tyrants on notice that the U.S. will stand on the side of those who promote good governance. He should also look for a partner in Israel.
Thousands of expatriate Iranians will be gathering in Paris this weekend, on June 23, to rally in support of the Iranian opposition; delegations of world leaders will be in attendance to show their support for their determined resistance.
For real change to be realized, anti-regime uprisings need to be embraced, Israeli clarity requires integration with U.S. foreign policy, and the Iranian people need support to throw off the chains of their oppressors.
Mr. Romney can make this case, but time is running out.
Dr. Ivan Sascha Sheehan is the director of the Negotiation and Conflict Management program in the School of Public and International Affairs at the University of Baltimore. The opinions expressed are his own.
