Swift Boats on the East River: Ambassador Aboutalebi and the Future of U.S. Diplomacy

Carter Page offers another perspective on the recent debate over Dr. Aboutalebi’s application for a U.S. visa to take up Iran's ambassadorship to the United Nations.

Swift boating has been defined as “a harsh attack by a political opponent that is dishonest, personal, and unfair”.  Although the term originated in a domestic context during John Kerry’s 2004 U.S. Presidential campaign, the organization that he now runs finds itself on the other side of such an attack as it has considered the fate of Hamid Aboutalebi’s appointment as Iranian Ambassador to the United Nations.  While Congress and the White House have taken a disproportionate interest in Dr. Aboutalebi’s application for a U.S. visa, the Department of State’s Bureau of Consular Affairs under the leadership of Secretary Kerry is the lead agency responsible for the issuance of such visas.

Distant history in comparative perspective

Following his service as the officer in charge of swift boat PCF-60, John Kerry testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on April 22, 1971 on behalf of Vietnam Veterans against the War.  Then 27-years old and a Lieutenant Junior Grade in the U.S. Naval Reserve, he said that:

“We had an investigation at which over 150 honorably discharged and many very highly decorated veterans testified to war crimes committed in Southeast Asia, not isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command…

“They told the stories at times they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam in addition to the normal ravage of war, and the normal and very particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this country.”

These words were unfairly used against him thirty-three years later, as the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth sparked controversy during Kerry's 2004 presidential campaign.  Although some of the specific charges in his 1971 testimony may be debated, the reality is that at least four-hundred thousand lives were lost in the Vietnam War even according to low-end estimates.  By comparison, not one American life was taken by an Iranian during the hostage crisis of November 1979 to January 1981.  The tragic Operation Eagle Claw marked the only loss of American lives but was due to hydraulic problems, sand storms, and equipment failure rather than hostile action directly taken by Iranians.

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry was recently allowed to enter Vietnam in December 2013 where he received a Vietnamese visa despite once having been viewed as a threat to the country’s national security interests.  As he told the U.S. Consulate staff in Ho Chi Minh City during that trip, “Now we have a chance to bring Vietnam into the broad community of nations in trade, in governance, and in human rights, in the rights that people have, in the way they’re respected and what their choices are in the course of their lives.”

Denying Ambassador Aboutalebi a U.S. visa is the equivalent of Vietnam preventing Secretary Kerry from entering their country for past aggressions which significantly exceeded those apparent on the personal track record of this Iranian diplomat.   More importantly, such a denial works counter to the process of bringing Iran into the broad community of nations in trade, in governance, and in human rights of which the Secretary spoke during his own trip to Vietnam.

April Fools’ Day prank gone awry

Appropriately introduced on April Fools’ Day 2014, H.R. 4357 seeks, “To deny admission to the United States to any representative to the United Nations who has engaged in espionage activities against the United States, poses a threat to United States national security interests, or has engaged in a terrorist activity against the United States.”

In the case of Ambassador Aboutalebi for whom this legislation was targeted, it is worthwhile considering each of these three constituent elements in turn.

First, engagement in espionage activities.  At different points in his career, President George H.W. Bush previously served as both U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations as well as Director of Central Intelligence.  Even if Aboutalebi had indeed engaged in intelligence activities, there is thus some precedent for such a job swap.  The Iranian hostage crisis which eventually led to this current disagreement began in part as a response to a 1953 CIA-led coup d'état which overthrew Iranian Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh.  In terms of “espionage activities”, all of Ambassador Aboutalebi’s known activities over 30 years ago seem pale by comparison.

Second, posing a threat to United States national security interests.  Under such a broad definition, there is a risk that few countries could universally meet these criteria particularly in light of perceived sources of future threats.  Even close allies occasionally take different positions on issues, especially when viewed over the long scope of history.                                     

Finally, a record of past engagement in terrorist activity.  From Iran’s perspective, the United States previously supported their arch rival Saddam Hussein during the Iran-Iraq war – one of the most brutal conflicts in the history of the Middle East.  Saddam attacked the cities of Dezful and Ahvaz with missiles - terror weapons that brought the war directly to the Iranian public.  By comparison, Ambassador Aboutalebi was in his early twenties when he served as an interpreter and translator.  According to news reports, his primary employer at the time was the Vatican’s special representative.  By all indications, he did not serve in any combat or hostile position.

In the unlikely event that the facts in this case are different from the ones publicly available and as outlined here, it is in the best interest of the U.S. to make them clear so as not to appear unbalanced in the eyes of the international community.  As host of the United Nations headquarters, maintaining such credibility remains essential.

Petty battles, larger consequences

In his speech at Cairo University on June 4, 2009, President Obama noted that “Iran has played a role in acts of hostage-taking and violence against U.S. troops and civilians.  This history is well known.  Rather than remain trapped in the past, I've made it clear to Iran's leaders and people that my country is prepared to move forward.  The question now is not what Iran is against, but rather what future it wants to build.”

Nearly five years later, avoiding the punishment of a distinguished diplomat whose most heinous charge is previous service as a translator would be an excellent step toward not remaining trapped in the past.  The potential for future U.S.-Iranian energy ventures is substantial if moves forward in current diplomatic negotiations are indeed achieved.  Avoiding this proposed misstep of not issuing a visa to Mr. Abutalebi offers a good step in preventing a derailment.

Carter W. Page is Founder and Managing Partner of Global Energy Capital LLC, an Adjunct Associate Professor at New York University’s Center for Global Affairs and Energy Fellow at the Center for National Policy in Washington. For a recent Survey Article from Carter see: The Impact of Innovation in Geotechnology on Energy and the Environment.