n June 2009, Iran erupted in protests following the announcement that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad had won the presidency in what were probably the most contested elections in the country's history. These demonstrations—later called the Green Movement—were heavily covered by international media, mainly due to the regime's repression and social media's new role in manifesting dissent. However, one important voice was silent—newly elected President Barack Obama. As the protests began, President Obama hesitated to comment or take action. Then, given the increasing intensity of the demonstrations, he issued a lackluster statement: "The world is watching and inspired by the [protesters'] participation, regardless of what the ultimate outcome of the election was." He did not mention potential consequences for the Islamic Republic—provoking dissent among Republicans who supported a more robust response. However, President Obama's actions were likely motivated by the attempt to maintain cordial—or, at least, impartial—relations with the Iranian leadership in preparation for negotiating a nuclear deal that would be signed in 2015.
Thirteen years later, the global landscape is markedly different—the Russian invasion of Ukraine dramatically impacted the energy market, the Trump administration withdrew from the Iran nuclear deal (JCPOA), and the United States has reduced its presence in the Middle East. Amidst this new context, a new wave of protests recently began after the Iranian "morality police" killed Mahsa Amini, a 22 years-old girl, for not wearing her veil correctly. Already 92 people have lost their lives in clashes with Iranian security forces and the figure is likely to rise if protests continue. This time, however, the U.S. response is quite different. President Biden has stood firmly in defense of the demonstrators—stating at the UN General Assembly his support for "the brave citizens and the brave women of Iran, who right now are demonstrating to secure their basic rights." Biden also announced new sanctions on September 27, stating that the United States would impose financial penalties on a "regular basis" to "severely restrict" Teheran's oil production.
This round of protests and the U.S. response have increased tensions between Iran and the United States. President Ebrahim Raisi's response came quickly. A few days after the protests began, on September 20, he traveled to the United States to speak at the United Nations. Raisi exploited this stage to criticize both the United States and the international order, arguing that "the United States hegemonic system has no credibility, whether inside or outside the country." In addition, he defined his country as a model of human rights and justice under condemnation only because of Western double standards. However, his speech made no mention of the anti-government protests nor of the brutality of Iranian security forces.
These events could lead to a further deterioration of U.S.-Iranian bilateral relations in a period already marked by growing misunderstandings and tensions surrounding new nuclear negotiations. If reached, such a deal could redefine the Middle Eastern regional order—even if many countries, such as Israel, fiercely oppose it. The nuclear deal—frequently reported as "almost reached" in recent months—remains elusive. However, the current Iranian political turmoil could increase mistrust between the country's leadership and the West—an element that will be essential to reaching an agreement.
Beside the geopolitical consequences, the protests brought attention to the long-lasting relationship between anti-government rallies in Iran and the Western world—particularly the United States. Over the past decade, many social movements have risen across the Middle East, demanding better living conditions, less religious influence, and higher government accountability. Participants have often asked for international support for their efforts. Due to its role as a defender of human rights and democracy, the United States has always been called on to take a stand. Despite these calls, all of the last three U.S. Presidents have responded differently and according to their administrations’ broader foreign policy goals in the region. In addition to the muted response during the Obama administration, in 2019 there was a wave of anti-regime demonstrations in Iran due to rising fuel prices. Given the precarious diplomatic relations between Tehran and Washington, President Trump could have easily stood with the protesters. However, he stated that the U.S. was not supporting the Iranian people and only after domestic and international criticism did he post a tweet supporting protesters.
With this new round of protests, President Biden will have to find the proper balance between supporting protestors’ demands for human rights and his desire to revive the nuclear deal. So far, Biden has sought to maintain a degree of cooperation with the Islamic Republic's leadership. Given this approach, many observers and analysts were surprised by the administration’s firm position in support of the protests. It is unclear, however, to what extent Biden will prioritize human rights over the need to reach the diplomatic achievement of limiting Iran's nuclear ambitions. Without a clear strategy, the Biden administration could fail in reaching either objective—leaving the Iranian population within the regime's grip, exacerbating instability in the Middle East, and risking the rise of a new nuclear power.
a global affairs media network
Balancing Human Rights and a New Iran Nuclear Deal
Photo by Artin Bakhan via Unsplash.
October 10, 2022
With new protests throughout Iran, U.S. President Biden will have to find the proper balance between supporting protestors’ demands for human rights and his desire to revive the nuclear deal. Without a clear strategy, the U.S. could fail in reaching either objective, writes Elia Preto Martini.
I
n June 2009, Iran erupted in protests following the announcement that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad had won the presidency in what were probably the most contested elections in the country's history. These demonstrations—later called the Green Movement—were heavily covered by international media, mainly due to the regime's repression and social media's new role in manifesting dissent. However, one important voice was silent—newly elected President Barack Obama. As the protests began, President Obama hesitated to comment or take action. Then, given the increasing intensity of the demonstrations, he issued a lackluster statement: "The world is watching and inspired by the [protesters'] participation, regardless of what the ultimate outcome of the election was." He did not mention potential consequences for the Islamic Republic—provoking dissent among Republicans who supported a more robust response. However, President Obama's actions were likely motivated by the attempt to maintain cordial—or, at least, impartial—relations with the Iranian leadership in preparation for negotiating a nuclear deal that would be signed in 2015.
Thirteen years later, the global landscape is markedly different—the Russian invasion of Ukraine dramatically impacted the energy market, the Trump administration withdrew from the Iran nuclear deal (JCPOA), and the United States has reduced its presence in the Middle East. Amidst this new context, a new wave of protests recently began after the Iranian "morality police" killed Mahsa Amini, a 22 years-old girl, for not wearing her veil correctly. Already 92 people have lost their lives in clashes with Iranian security forces and the figure is likely to rise if protests continue. This time, however, the U.S. response is quite different. President Biden has stood firmly in defense of the demonstrators—stating at the UN General Assembly his support for "the brave citizens and the brave women of Iran, who right now are demonstrating to secure their basic rights." Biden also announced new sanctions on September 27, stating that the United States would impose financial penalties on a "regular basis" to "severely restrict" Teheran's oil production.
This round of protests and the U.S. response have increased tensions between Iran and the United States. President Ebrahim Raisi's response came quickly. A few days after the protests began, on September 20, he traveled to the United States to speak at the United Nations. Raisi exploited this stage to criticize both the United States and the international order, arguing that "the United States hegemonic system has no credibility, whether inside or outside the country." In addition, he defined his country as a model of human rights and justice under condemnation only because of Western double standards. However, his speech made no mention of the anti-government protests nor of the brutality of Iranian security forces.
These events could lead to a further deterioration of U.S.-Iranian bilateral relations in a period already marked by growing misunderstandings and tensions surrounding new nuclear negotiations. If reached, such a deal could redefine the Middle Eastern regional order—even if many countries, such as Israel, fiercely oppose it. The nuclear deal—frequently reported as "almost reached" in recent months—remains elusive. However, the current Iranian political turmoil could increase mistrust between the country's leadership and the West—an element that will be essential to reaching an agreement.
Beside the geopolitical consequences, the protests brought attention to the long-lasting relationship between anti-government rallies in Iran and the Western world—particularly the United States. Over the past decade, many social movements have risen across the Middle East, demanding better living conditions, less religious influence, and higher government accountability. Participants have often asked for international support for their efforts. Due to its role as a defender of human rights and democracy, the United States has always been called on to take a stand. Despite these calls, all of the last three U.S. Presidents have responded differently and according to their administrations’ broader foreign policy goals in the region. In addition to the muted response during the Obama administration, in 2019 there was a wave of anti-regime demonstrations in Iran due to rising fuel prices. Given the precarious diplomatic relations between Tehran and Washington, President Trump could have easily stood with the protesters. However, he stated that the U.S. was not supporting the Iranian people and only after domestic and international criticism did he post a tweet supporting protesters.
With this new round of protests, President Biden will have to find the proper balance between supporting protestors’ demands for human rights and his desire to revive the nuclear deal. So far, Biden has sought to maintain a degree of cooperation with the Islamic Republic's leadership. Given this approach, many observers and analysts were surprised by the administration’s firm position in support of the protests. It is unclear, however, to what extent Biden will prioritize human rights over the need to reach the diplomatic achievement of limiting Iran's nuclear ambitions. Without a clear strategy, the Biden administration could fail in reaching either objective—leaving the Iranian population within the regime's grip, exacerbating instability in the Middle East, and risking the rise of a new nuclear power.
