In the eyes of the Biden administration, Ebrahim Raisi was a brutal tyrant, a mortal enemy, and a threat to world peace.
But within hours of it being confirmed that Raisi, who was Iran’s president for three years, had died in a helicopter crash over the weekend, the US State Department issued “official condolences” for his sudden death.
The brief statement, released Monday under the name of State Department spokesman Matthew Miller, showed no sadness for the Iranian leader, who frequently rails against the United States and is believed to have at least condoned Iranian-backed attacks on U.S. forces. There wasn’t. proxy forces in Iraq and Syria;
The statement sparked outrage from the Iranian government’s most vocal critics, who variously argued that the U.S. should either say nothing or harshly criticize Raisi, but Miller later told reporters at his daily briefing. He did this in response to questions from the group.
The incident challenges the United States to balance its empathy with a grieving nation with the need to tell the truth and articulate American ideals after the death of a condemned foreign leader. It highlights the tightrope the government must walk. This is a conundrum that U.S. authorities have faced repeatedly over the years, following the deaths of hostile dictators such as the Soviet Union, North Korea, and Venezuela, and have responded in various, sometimes perverse ways.
In Mr. Raisi’s case, Mr. Miller’s conspicuously wooden statement meant that Iran’s Foreign Minister Hossein Amir Abdullahian and others boarded a helicopter before hammering out a political message that Iran’s political establishment would find something. simply acknowledged the president’s death along with the deaths of others who had died. But it’s comforting.
“As Iran elects a new president, we reaffirm our support for the Iranian people and their fight for human rights and fundamental freedoms,” Miller said in a statement.
It wasn’t the kind of distinctive card you’d send to a grieving friend or colleague. But there remained anger among Iranian hardliners who were quick to view Biden as being too accommodating toward Iran.
“It’s a shame to mourn the death of this monster,” Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Arkansas, wrote on the social media site X.
It is noteworthy that in response to a question at the press conference, Mr. Miller harshly stated, “It is clear that Ebrahim Raisi participated in the brutal oppression of the Iranian people for nearly 40 years.” “Some of the worst human rights violations occurred during his presidency, especially against women and girls in Iran.”
Whatever its merits, this statement had clear precedent. After Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez died of cancer in March 2013, President Barack Obama issued a statement to the country’s people that was not an actual expression of remorse for the anti-American strongman.
“During this difficult time with the passing of President Hugo Chavez, the United States reaffirms our support for the people of Venezuela and our interest in developing a constructive relationship with the Venezuelan government,” Obama said. “As Venezuela begins a new chapter in its history, the United States remains committed to policies that promote democratic principles, the rule of law, and respect for human rights.”
But when former Cuban dictator Fidel Castro died of natural causes in November 2016, Obama offered more explanatory remarks. Having only recently restored diplomatic ties between Washington and Havana for the first time in decades, Obama began his statement by saying he “extended the hand of friendship to the Cuban people.”
But when it comes to the substantive record of Mr. Castro, a repressive strongman and longtime Soviet ally who helped bring the world to the brink of nuclear war, Mr. Obama is perhaps more concerned about his own fragile new diplomacy. With openness in mind, I carefully avoided judgment.
“History will record and judge the profound impact this unique individual had on those around him and the world,” he said in a statement. (Florida Republican Sen. Marco Rubio, a fierce critic of the Castro regime, declared the statement “pathetic.”)
Unlike Raisi’s passing, which was left to the State Department and its spokesperson, Miller, these leaders at least deserved a statement from the president.
Some leaders are so criticized and relations with their countries are soured that no statement will help. After the death of North Korean dictator Kim Jong-un in December 2011, the White House did not issue a direct statement, but instead said that Mr. Obama had a “midnight phone call with his South Korean counterpart to discuss the situation between Japan and China.” He simply announced that he had held talks. Korean Peninsula after the death of Kim Jong-il. ”
Even in the case of notorious tyrants, there are often complex nuances. When Soviet leader Joseph Stalin died of a stroke in March 1953, the response fell to President Dwight D. Eisenhower.
As an Army general, Eisenhower led the Allied forces in Europe in common with Stalin’s Soviet forces against Nazi Germany. But by 1953, Stalin had become America’s bitter enemy. In a statement after Stalin’s stroke, Eisenhower expressed no opinion of Stalin himself, saying, “America’s thoughts are with all the people of the Soviet Union, men and women, boys and girls, in villages, cities, and farms.” “It’s directed at us,” he said. And also the factories of his homeland. ”
“They are children of the same God, the father of all peoples around the world. And like all peoples, millions of people in Russia share a yearning for a friendly and peaceful world. ” Eisenhower said.
This is true “regardless of the identity of the government official,” he added.
