The controversial outcome of Iran's Presidential elections has set off a policy debate in Washington over the Obama administration plans to directly engage Tehran. Critics of the strategy are cautioning that it might legitimize the Iranian leadership, while its proponents still see it as the only tool to change the behavior of the regime. Washington's response to the disputed results of the elections last Friday and the continuing public protests in Tehran since then, has been “very cautious” and employing a “wait and see” approach to the situation according to Jack Goldstone, a Professor and Director of the Center for Global Policy at George Mason University. The expert, who is also a consultant to the U.S. State Department, interprets the statement of President Barack Obama on Monday, reaffirming sovereignty of Iran and at the same time urging the government to hear and respect Iranian voices, as “the right response to a difficult and uncertain situation”. Obama stressed in his remarks the importance of avoiding “bloodshed” as the government investigates the elections results. A “Tiananmen Square style” outcome where Iranian Revolutionary Guards and the Basij Militia exercise “severe repression” to keep control is something that Washington wants to prevent according to Goldstone. The expert frames Tehran's relations with Washington in the context of “U.S. global and regional policy” and not Iran's domestic policies. He argues that the biggest concern for the Obama administration now is an end result which “calls into question the legitimacy of the existing government and the Guardian Council and the supreme leader”, as it would “make it much more difficult for the US and the rest of the world to have a constructive dialogue with a weak and indecisive partner in Tehran.” Goldstone adds that “the most important goal is for the dispute to be resolved in a relatively quick and non conflicting way.” White House spokesperson Robert Gibbs emphasized that “the concerns we have about their nuclear weapons program, and their support for terror aren't any different today than they were on Friday (elections day).” What is different, however, is the growing criticism facing the Obama strategy for engaging Tehran directly on the nuclear issue and its destabilizing role in the region. Michael Rubin, a visiting scholar at the conservative leaning think tank the American Enterprise Institute, asserts that the administration “should take a second thought on engaging Iran.” He views the persistence from the Obama to engage Iran even with the current dilemma, “as a mistake” that would “legitimize the outcome of this election” adding that “ Obama's approach on Iran has some naivete to it and raises lot of concerns among our regional allies.” Goldstone disagrees with this assessment, by making the case that the US should engage with Tehran regardless of the outcome of the elections, and as it has engaged with “North Korea and China” even if their system of governance is undemocratic, and such a strategy is key to changing their behavior. Obama reiterated his commitment to engagement on Monday, asserting “that the use of tough, hard-headed diplomacy, with no illusions is critical when it comes to pursuing a core set of our national security interests.” He specified those interests as “ making sure that we are not seeing a nuclear arms race in the Middle East triggered by Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon; making sure that Iran is not exporting terrorist activity.” Rubin, a former defense official in the Bush administration, however, argues that the current stalemate has proven that the Supreme leader Ayatollah Khamenei, which the White House seeks to engage, is not moderate and is choosing the line of defiance by favoring President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. The expert calls for tougher sanctions against Tehran and measures to empower the Iranian people. Another complicating factor for the Obama administration strategy towards Tehran is the Israeli reaction to the situation in Iran. While Goldstone argues that Tel Aviv is in no position to pressure the U.S. on Iran, and is “on the defensive about fulfilling its obligations in the Peace Process”, Rubin maintains that “the specter of an Israeli strike might increase” after the recent events. He adds that while the “US sees Iran as strategic threat, Israel sees it an existential threat” and that “the more defiant Iran will become, the more likely Israel would want to strike.”
