Yesterday I was fortunate enough to attend a short meeting between Dr. Shirin Ebadi and a group of reporters and think-tankers at George Washington University. Ebadi is an Iranian lawyer and longtime human-rights activist who won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2003.
Many of the questions centered around Iran's democratic green movement. Dr. Ebadi expressed strong opposition to economic sanctions, which she characterized as harming the people rather than the regime, but said that political sanctions, like the travel ban against certain Iranian officials are "very good for the spirits of the people." She largely demurred on questions of what the U.S. could do to help the green movement, but she said that "it’s better for America to focus on human rights rather than nuclear energy. ... Focusing on human rights proves that America finds itself obligated to the international principle of human rights. It does not attract people’s nationalistic sentiments in favor of [Iranian President Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad." She did urge the U.S. to ratify the International Criminal Court, saying that justice, like trade, must be "globalized."
In her speech later on, she was particularly critical of the use of military force to achieve change in the Middle East. "The worst solution is a military attack," Ebadi said. "Democracy is not merchandise to be exported to a country, democracy cannot be purchased and sent to another country, therefore; wars and military attacks on non-democratic countries should be forgotten. ... The dictators like to be attacked by the foreigners, so on the excuse of national security, they can put away their opposition."
This points to the fine line the Obama administration has been walking with it's Iran policy. Foreign-policy types have been urging the administration to pursue two goals. One is curtailing Iran's nuclear program through targeted sanctions and possibly, sometime in the future, even a military strike. The second is supporting Iran's democratic green movement. But they may be mutually exclusive. Pursuing the first option triggers a nationalistic impulse that could sustain the regime indefinitely (and might not even achieve its objective), while pursuing the latter path may result in Iran eventually developing nuclear capabilities.
(Flickr/Olivier Pacteau)
