February 18, 2004
Bye Bye Dean!
Howard Dean decides to give up the dream, for now. Over the next couple of days many of the sites and weblogs will be busy joining those in the more main-stream media in dissecting what went wrong with such a promising movement, so I wanted to contribute ONE more reason, based on my own experience.
Early in December, a group of Iranian bloggers and activists got together to perhaps join the Dean campaign. Some felt his more liberal stance on certain social and political issues will also mean a more progressive position on Iran, immigrant Iranians and issues relating to Middle-East in general. Many contacted me after May Moallemian's Guest Column here and the following month got more excited with Ramin Ahmadi's article in The Iranian.
What they didn't know was everything that had transpired between the two pieces. Here's a brief overview; As usual, I was "volunteered" to be the contact person with the Dean campaign. The very first experience was a bit unsettling as the volunteers manning his campaign phone-banks acted as if they have never heard about Iran or Iranians. I was transferred to a voice-mail but a couple of days later of not hearing back and my original suspicion that I had not been directed to the right person made me try again.
This time I asked who manages their outreach efforts for immigrant communities and was given a long list of people, from which I chose the person identified with "Muslim Communities" outreach. Another voice-mail followed and then several days of not hearing back. The process repeated several more times and it became obvious I was not going to get a return call from this person. Next time, I told them that I will hold until he's available. 20 minutes later, I'm talking to him finally. I explained who we were and what we had thought of doing. I basically then inquired if the campaign has ever issued a policy statement regarding Iran, as some of Dean's public statements on the issue were confusing at best. Here's a sampling:
Iran is a more complex problem because the problem support as clearly verifiable as it is in North Korea. Also, we have less-fewer levers much the key, I believe, to Iran is pressure through the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union is supplying much of the equipment that Iran, I believe, most likely is using to set itself along the path of developing nuclear weapons. We need to use that leverage with the Soviet Union and it may require us to buying the equipment the Soviet Union was ultimately going to sell to Iran to prevent Iran from them developing nuclear weapons. That is also a country that must not be allowed to develop nuclear weapons much the key to all this is foresight. Let’s act now so we don’t have to have a confrontation which may result in force, which would be very disastrous in the case of North Korea and might be disastrous in the case of Iran."- Howard Dean on Hardball, December 1st, 2003
And earlier (3-2-'03) on CBS' Face The Nation:PRIEST: Would you say the same for Iran, whose nuclear capability is very sophisticated, much more sophisticated than Iraq?
DEAN: Yes, we have to be very, very careful of Iran. One of my criticisms with this president is that because we have no oil policy of any kind here, other than drilling the national parks, he is beholden to the Saudis and the Iranians.
The Saudis and the Iranians and the Syrians are funding most of the terror in the Middle East, and this president has not been willing to confront that, partly because we have no oil policy.
Absolutely, Iran is a very serious danger.
PRIEST: So, again, you could consider preemptive strikes against the Iranian nuclear program?
DEAN: Look, you never rule in or out anything. But when America is threatened imminently with a -- by a foreign power, then we have a right to defend ourselves.
I do not believe that is the case in Iraq. And I do believe that al Qaeda and North Korea are imminent threats and we have to deal with that.
My point was that this is the anti-war candidate. Various NeoCons have already called on making Iran their next target. What is Howard Dean's position on Iran? I expressed that almost word-by-word asking for a response. What I got was this "you mean our position on Iranian-Americans" (almost word-by-word again). "No, that's not what I'm asking, the community is concerned with all candidate's position about their homeland as well as where you stand on the community here" was my reply. Several exchanges later, I get this "I'll dig up something about the Iranian-American community".
I see the attempt is futile, but press on and get the promise of a solid statement "within the next few days". By now Iowa is getting close and we all think something needs to be done soon. But I'll make the long story short and stop at telling you that several more messages and one long conversation later, I never hear back from the campaign again.
The purpose of this post was to demonstrate one of the Dean campaigns shortcomings. Howard Dean built a campaign based on the mounting voices of dissent out there on various topics from the war to economic issues, health care, etc. Yet at the end, it was unable to be everything to everyone who had hoped to support an alternative candidate. At the end of the day, he wasn't alternative enough for the progressives and didn't have enough backbone to stand for what is right but not unpopular and champion the issues that is still considered taboo topics.
Howard Dean proved many points and succeeded on a variety of topics, but at the end he also demonstrated one significant hypothesis again that at the end of the day, some doors are only open to people within a very narrow line of thinking and a candidate of even remotely progressive or freethinking position, is never allowed to stand so prominently on podiums of power.
I'm still not fully convinced Dean was/is that person and the system showed once again we'd not be allowed to find out.
Posted by Pedram at February 18, 2004 12:13 PMWhat was that "Soviet Union" thing about? I think it is years "Soviet Union" has changed its name to Russia.
Posted by: The Other at February 18, 2004 08:35 PMThe faux pas (using Soviet Union when he clearly means Russia) showed Dean's limited command of foreign issues. What you experienced as to his campaign's reluctance in dealing with Iran issues may have been caused by the same problem.
Posted by: Robin at February 18, 2004 11:05 PMWhat you really had was a campaign completely devoid of any idealogy (like all of the democrat contenders). Dean's campaign was based on defeating Bush and never offered any specifics on what they would actually do to improve any of the situations faced by the United States. As an American (not Iranian/American although my wife was born and raised in Tehran), I will have to admit, most Americans have no idea about the situation in the Middle East much less Iran. You really should see the blank looks I get when I tell people Iranians are not Middle Easterners and Persian/Farsi is an Indo-European language. So, it is completely no surprise the Dean campaign had no idea how to answer the questions.
Posted by: Steve at February 19, 2004 05:44 AM!!!!
"Iranians are not Middle Easterners"? So what are we? European?
Dean always struck me as one that knew little about foreign policy. But I've always wondered, how much study of foreign policy can make a difference? It seems to me that since each situation between countries is different, then no amount of studying can prepair you. So it would seem that it's a matter of inteligence, talent and skill. Perhaps instead of elections based on apearances we should have a politcal game show "Who wants to be President of the United States?"
"Soviet Union" struck me as odd as well. Good thing I voted for Wes Clark.
Posted by: jacob at February 19, 2004 10:03 PMThe Other:
Iranians are "Indo-Europeans." Whatever that means. I guess it means they aren't Arabs. I have met many people from The Region, and weirdly enough, all of them deny being Arabs. They are Semites, Jews, Armenians, Persians AND Iranians, Pashtun, Hazari, Indians, and Assyrians. Wait! Also Chaldeans. Evidently, all the ancient peoples of the world have moved to California.
BTW, the Other what?
Pedram recently settled this question I thought:
http://www.eyeranian.net/2004/02/10,751.shtml
Posted by: visitor at February 19, 2004 10:29 PMThe Democratic Party as a whole in the United States has a problem. The Democrats have not had a foreign policy of any type in 40 years.
There is no 'other view' to President Bush, to the Republicans, or their neo-conservative war hawks. In their run to be Democratic candidate, Kerry or Edwards need to step forward with an international policy platform. The Democrats need to stand as liberals and support 'liberalism' in rebuilding an international community.
Question: What is the sound of one hand clapping...?
Posted by: Singapore at February 19, 2004 11:58 PMDespite income from its oil reserves, the rapid growth and implementation of technology, and a highly educated populace, Iran's participation in global terrorism will keep that nation in the dark ages. Once again, Iran and most of the Middle Eastern countries are on the wrong side of a movement (to destroy terrorism) that has been embraced by intelligent, free world nations. Nobody can force Iran to make the decision to join the global community, especially when there is so much at stake. Living in America, my observation of Iran has been filtered through western media who have their own agenda of what the world should look like. I do not like their view(s) so I looked deeper, and here is what I have determined: Iran has, by sitting on the wrong side of the issues (religous freedom for all, equality for women) become dangerously close to falling behind as the future takes shape. What a shame! I wonder how many wonderful people with their fresh ideas are being stifled by a small minority of religous fanatics.
I'll pray for you Iran, but nothing will change unless your people stand for themselves. God will help you, but must learn to help yourselves. Remember, nothing is free, God will do the hard part. But you have to show some initiative of your own. Do you remember when Jesus raised Lazarous from the dead? He performed the miracle of returning life to a dead body. But notice that he did not roll back the stone of Lazarous' grave. Jesus made his followers roll back the stone. My point? You will still have work to do even as God, who shall be forever praised, does the impossible.
Iran, you are in my prayers.
Posted by: John at February 20, 2004 04:19 AMThe Other;
Here are a couple of reasons why Iranians are not Middle Easterners;
Linguistically Persian is not based in a Middle Eastern Language like Arabic and Hebrew. The base comes from the eastern part of Europe.
Historically speaking; Around 3000 to 3500 (or so) BC Persians were horse riding nomads from the eastern part of Europe who ended up settling in what is present day Iran. This is why Iranians are not Middle Easterners like Arabs and Israelis.
John is right, pray to God or the Gods that Bush is not reelected. Although I do see obvious problems with the Democrats foreign policy, no one could be as adverse to Congress and the UN as George Bush.
I am an American and a Texan who loves my homeland, but have no answers to why my government has alienated the world. Arrogance, Ignorance??? contributors but certainly no excuse.
Some of the best people I know are Persian and I spent a summer teaching in Russia. I don't know how many of you recall that American's spent the cold war calling the USSR Russia, now it switched and we still can't get it right. And I know that the name didn't "change" as the last post claims. Just a piece of the former pie.
Peace to all people in all nations,
Posted by: Jon at February 20, 2004 06:22 AMAtmikha:
"Indo-European" is not a name for race or ethnicity. The term is being used in linguistics to describe certain languages that are related based on the philology and grammar structure. It's a common mistake by many Iranians to use the term to describe an ethnicity which its existance is not historically proven.
Denying to be Arab doesn't mean that we are not Middle Easterners. Iranians are not Arab but they are Middle Easterners, for the clear fact of living in the middle of a region called "Middle East", confirmed by any historian you name. The Middle East is home to many ethnicities, and Nationalities, many languages are spoken there, including Persian, Arabic, and all the others that you named.
Steve:
What is Middle Eastern language? I don't understand what you mean. Persians, Kurds, Armenians, and many other non-Arab nations live in the Middle East for thousand of years and their language and culture is a part of Middle East heritage. You say:"The base comes from the eastern part of Europe." Who said that? I think you need to read a few books more on this subject. You need to find sources other than your wife.
And about those nomads in thousand of years ago: Arabs and Jews were nomads as well. Does it make any difference? What about you Americans? Since your ancestors moved to this continent about 500 years ago does it make you less "American" than what you are?
There is a big misunderstanding about American Presidents. They are at the same time the most powerful person on the planet and powerless. A President can only persuade, he doesn't command. That is why our system of government has stood the test of time so well. If a president cannot lead then he is useless. None of the Democratic wann-be's will change the Current foriegn policies of the USA. America cannot just invade another nation. Iraq was invaded after 12 years of ignoring UN Chapter 7 resolutions. It would take at least that long to get a US Invasion of Iran going. With one exception. If the Mullahs send their foriegn thugs out to machine gun Iranians, then there is a very slight chance that the Security council might do something. In about 6 years. The UN is not allowed by charter to intevene with the internal affairs of a sovereign state. It would take at least that long to change the charter and I don't think the US would join a UN built along those lines. There might be a president in office that would sign it, but the Senate would kill it. Just like they killed Kyoto and the ICC.
Kerry akbar
"Iraq was invaded after 12 years of ignoring UN Chapter 7 resolutions". Bologne! One country in middle-east has gone over 50 yeras of ignoring over 500 UN resolutions and yet is never in danger of invasion. Guess which one? Israel.
Double standards? I think so.
Posted by: Jerry in Jersey at February 20, 2004 11:31 AMOne of the main insghts into Howard Dean should be how infrequently Americans think of Iran. Every morning Americans get up & go to work concerned about their company, their family, their GOD & almost never think of Germany, France, England or Iran. America has been & will always be a nation that concerns itself with America. If you read Washington's last speach as president you will see that this is a foundation of our culture. Imam Khomeini spends alot more time decrying America than Americans thin of Iran.
Posted by: Richenburg, Robert at February 22, 2004 05:37 AM