At the very least, Iran's election results are under a cloud. But evidence certainly seems to be mounting that there was considerable intimidation, systematic efforts to quash the ability of the opposition campaign to spread its message in the days prior to the election, and likely voter fraud. Further, President Ahmadinejad certainly didn't do anything to help his already shredded credibility with his nonsensical Sunday news conference in which among other things he asserted Iranians weren't divided by the election while violent clashes took place in the streets.

These circumstances raise an important question. Given the apparent disregard for the rights of its own citizens exhibited by the Iranian regime, will the Obama administration rethink its stance vis á vis the Iranians?

The prevailing U.S. view, articulated by Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chair John Kerry last week, is that the Iranians have a "right" to uranium enrichment. Will we continue to honor such a supposed right now? The hopes of many reasonable Americans has long been that it would be possible to establish a dialogue with Iran given the country's diversity of opinions and its cosmopolitan traditions. But when democracy is seemingly crushed or at the very least undermined, the government defines itself by the degree to which it does not reflect the views of its citizens. Since governments rather than general populations control nuclear programs, shouldn't the recent events give us reason to reconsider our recent drift toward acceptance of Iran's nuclear aspirations?

That's a rhetorical question. Of course it should. We should not acknowledge international "rights" of countries that deny fundamental rights to their people. I would think that would be at the core of any Obama foreign policy (in fact, it seems to be with regard to Cuba, for example). Nor, as a practical matter, should the U.S. base critical proliferation decisions on the promises of countries that so callously break their fundamental promises to their citizens and then lie about it to the world. In fact, how about amending the Non-Proliferation Treaty to limit the right to the pursuit of peaceful nuclear programs only to democracies?

This election should lead us to meet with our allies and reconsider our approach to the Iranian nuclear question -- especially because through a major multilateral rebuff of the regime we might further weaken them in their own country, a place where the opposition seems so vital and poised to make such a promising change.

Photo: BEHROUZ MEHRI/AFP/Getty Images

EXPLORE:IRAN ELECTION, NUKES
 
Facebook|Twitter|Reddit

KIMYONGIL

11:37 PM ET

June 14, 2009

President Ahmadinejad is no Kim Jong-IL

President Ahmadinejad, in spite of Iran’s support of Hisballah is no Kim Jong-IL. Many people have referred to Mr. Obama as a very educated, intelligent president. I must reserve judgment. The real test of his intelligence, in my opinion, will be if he can circumvent the Senate, Congress, and his security advisors and outwit Kim Jong-IL. Nuclear proliferation is not just a political matter. It could alter the course of world history. America has many enemies both foreign and domestic.

Therefore, it would be an act of supreme obedience for many of those member enemies to assist in the acquisition of any percent of a nuclear weapon. Also, Kim Jong-IL, in my opinion, has plans to proliferate nuclear weapons- not just the technology- it takes too long to build one and the process is very hard to keep secret.

Dealing with Mr. Kim is not going to be like the Bay of Pigs. Here is why: The enemies of America knows the US is the only country arrogant and bold enough to have actually used “the bomb” and they feel the US should not be the only one. This is not logic. This is not reason. This is pure enmity. This is my opinion based on years of observing world politics and current affairs. These enemies have also observed the offensive US military groped around the world under the banner of regime change, democracy, and preserving our way of life and pounced upon weaker, smaller nations: Iraq, Panama, Haiti, Granada, Vietnam, and Cambodia… Neither of these countries, in the minds of these enemies, were a threat to US security nor national interest.

His mission, should he choose to accept it, is to outwit Kim Jong-IL. Unfortunately its too late to stop him. If Mr.Osama is as intelligent as some thinks he is. This will be his most challenging mission. As always Osama, should you or any member of your security force be caught or captured, everyone involved will disavow any knowledge of their actions until years later- like with the invasion of Cambodia. This tape will not destruct in five seconds, good luck!

 

MDREW

3:03 AM ET

June 15, 2009

 

David Rothkopf is the CEO and Editor-at-Large of Foreign Policy. His new book, "Power, Inc.: The Epic Rivalry Between Big Business and Government and the Reckoning that Lies Ahead" is due out from Farrar, Straus & Giroux on March 1.

Read More