Republicans criticise Obama on Iran

WASHINGTON // Barack Obama has said he does not want the US response to the disputed Iranian election to become a "political football" inside the Islamic republic. It has already become one here. A growing number of Republicans have criticised the president for his cautious response, suggesting that his plans for future diplomatic engagement with Iran have caused him to mute what should be a strong condemnation of the Iranian government.

Some have compared the unrest in Iran to the Tiananmen Square protests in China and the fall of the Berlin Wall, even suggesting that Mr Obama could find himself on the wrong side of history. "The president of the United States has been silent and confused," Lincoln Diaz-Balart, a Republican congressman from Florida, said in a press conference on Friday, calling the Iranian election "farcical". Eric Cantor of Virginia, the second-ranking House Republican, said the election turmoil strengthens the position of those who oppose engagement with Iran and argued for stiffer sanctions.

"We do not support the decisions of this administration to engage with the terrorist regime," he said, using harsh language reminiscent of the Bush administration, which Mr Obama has been careful to avoid. "When you have a regime ? killing people because they are standing up for their rights, it calls into the question the ability for us as a country, as a civilised world leader, to trust anything this regime may represent."

The legislators spoke shortly after the House overwhelmingly passed a Republican-backed resolution expressing support for "all Iranian citizens who embrace the values of freedom" and condemning the government's "ongoing violence against demonstrators". The Senate followed suit, passing a similar measure co-sponsored by John McCain, Mr Obama's rival in last year's presidential election. Robert Gibbs, the White House press secretary, said in his briefing with reporters on Friday the resolutions were "welcome" and he brushed aside suggestions that the president's rhetoric has not been strong enough.

But the resolutions and sharp Republican criticism reflect a growing rift between those who believe Mr Obama is hitting the right notes and others who think he should do more. Mr Obama has sought a delicate balance between backing supporters of Mir Hossein Mousavi while not alienating Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the incumbent whom he may have to deal with when the dust settles. Some Democratic strategists say the Republican critique is little more than political posturing.

"Obama is so popular, and they are so unpopular, that they feel some need to challenge him whether he turns in one direction or the other, whether it's a rational decision or not," said Roger Lee, a veteran Democratic strategist in Washington. But the debate does not break cleanly along partisan lines. Richard Lugar of Indiana, the ranking member on the Senate foreign relations committee, is among a group of Republicans who have supported the president.

Henry Kissinger, who served as secretary of state for Richard Nixon, said in an interview on Fox News he too thinks Mr Obama has taken the "proper position". Mr Obama's chief concern is being perceived as meddling in Iranian affairs and he reiterated that message on Friday in an interview with CBS. "The last thing that I want to do is to have the United States be a foil for those forces inside Iran who would love nothing better than to make this an argument about the United States," he said.

The US president also responded to a sermon by Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who criticised interference by foreign powers, including the United States, and called for an end to the protests. "I'm very concerned, based on some of the tenor and tone of the statements that have been made." He added: "How they approach and deal with people who are - through peaceful means - trying to be heard will I think send a pretty clear signal to the international community about what Iran is and is not."

Some analysts say it may become increasingly hard for the US president to refrain from making even stronger pronouncements, particularly if Iranian authorities begin a violent clampdown or if international pressure builds for a stronger condemnation. Wayne White, a top Middle East analyst for the state department's bureau of intelligence and research until 2005, said Mr Obama faces "agonising" choices that could include dropping his plans for diplomatic talks.

"This regime in Tehran has changed profoundly. Any pretence of democracy in Iran is gone, and there has already been bloody repression," he said. "In reality, can President Obama and the Europeans now treat Iran as they would have if Ahmadinejad had been legitimately elected president and there were not mass demonstrations? "The White House may only now be coming to grips with the full extent of the problem that they will face in moving forward with meaningful negotiations with this regime," he said.

Still, other analysts, such as Richard Murphy, a career diplomat who served as assistant secretary of state for Near Eastern and South Asian affairs in the Reagan administration, said Mr Obama should continue to stay out of an internal Iranian political fight. "To throw our weight around at this point in time is not going to help who we might like to see come out on top. It's the kiss of death," Mr Murphy said.

"Anything we say is going to be useless ? it's just a feel-good gesture on the part of certain politicians." sstanek@thenational.ae