In 2006, national security expert Flynt Leverett's op-ed, "The Gulf Between Us," was an incredible breath of fresh air. He revealed the Bush administration's refusal to engage diplomatically with Iran even when both countries' interests aligned, and laid out a clear-eyed path toward real engagement. This was before the Democrats won back Congress, before Robert Gates stepped in to become Bush's second secretary of defense, and before many reasonable voices on national security had achieved any prominence -- indeed, Leverett's column would likely not have been published without his messy departure from Bush's National Security Council.Leverett would go on to back Barack Obama's 2008 presidential campaign when the candidate promised to engage Iran. When the Green Revolution began last summer, though, things changed. The popular protests against the Iranian government significantly complicated the U.S. approach to the country. While a regime that seemed impervious to internal change could be engaged while holding one's nose, the organic protest movement -- made possible in part by Obama's early engagement, which robbed the Iranian leader Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of his favored anti-American critiques -- created an obligation for liberals to show solidarity with the green movement.
While many have criticized Obama for not being forceful enough in his rhetoric against the Iranian regime or in favor of the protesters, the administration has, more or less, made the right moves. He's applied pressure to Ahmadinejad while tacitly supporting the Greens -- all without providing ammunition for regime critics who suggest the movement is merely Western intervention.
Disappointing many who had appreciated their earlier analysis, Leverett and Hillary Mann-Leverett, his wife and frequent writing partner, did not react the same way. Instead, they've dismissed the Greens and insisted on more engagement with Ahmadinejad, even comparing Obama to Bush. It's a strange place to be, one that doesn't seem to take into account the events of the last year.
Michael Crowley has written a piece exploring their position. He begins and ends his well-reported story with the suggestion that the Leveretts harbor some admiration for Ahmadinejad. Certainly, the Iranian president is despicable, but the restless urge to demonize people like Ahmadinejad has never paid dividends for the United States' foreign policy; contests of who can hate more do not international achievement make. The Leveretts' recognition of the Iranian president's political abilities -- and his rationality -- is not an indictment of their arguments. Frankly, I'm more curious why Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei doesn't make an appearance in the article, since he is generally recognized as Iran's true leader.
To me, it seems the reason that the Leveretts are so keen to engage the Ahmadinejad regime is that they are realists. They have made the calculation that the Green movement is not likely to overthrow the government soon and that America's near-term interests are more important than supporting human rights abroad. That's not a liberal foreign policy, but it also doesn't require some malign affection for a dangerous theocrat.
-- Tim Fernholz
