Words matter: both the ones you say and don’t say
As the protests continue to grow in Tehran in response to an apparent stolen election, our president has been uncharacteristically quiet on the matter. For a man who just recently proclaimed his commitment to "governments that reflect the will of the people" in his much touted speech in Cairo, the Iranian protesters are still waiting to see that commitment.
It would not take much for Obama to back up his words; a simple acknowledgment and words of support for those brave Iranian citizens risking their lives on the streets of Tehran would go a long way. But offering any kind of support, even mere words, would not advance the foreign policy agenda Obama and his advisers have devised. They need a stable Iranian regime they can talk to, not a country in political chaos. The bottom line here is that the protests in Iran are inconvenient for Mr. Obama, and therefore, he is not going to do anything to help them and quite possibly, he is going to do everything he can to help the Iranian regime restore order in the country. If the Iranian people are expecting the American government to side with them, they are going to be disappointed. Obama's administration is not interested in their complaint, they are interested in advancing their agenda. And unfortunately for those tens of thousands of brave Iranians, they are really not all that important to Obama.
There are two great editorials regarding Obama's lack of support from the Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal. You should read them both.
In closing, we should take note of this administration's abandonment of Iranian protesters. If the same occurs in Cuba during the next four years, we can in all likelihood expect Obama to side with the Cuban regime. What could be more inconvenient to renewed relations with the Castro regime than a few thousand Cubans protesting in the streets of Havana?
It's just cynical "realpolitik." Obama and his people figure things will turn out the same as with the fixed elections in Venezuela (you know, the ones Jimmy Carter blessed, since it was hardly any skin off his nose). Obama doesn't want to piss off the Iranian Chavez, even though the greasy little terrorist will NEVER play ball no matter how tenderly and sweetly he's treated (actually, that will only encourage him to be an even bigger slimeball, which is saying something).
If you read the comments, an argument is going on.
If our president openly supports the people in the streets, the Iranian government has a good excuse to say all of this foment is caused by agents of the U.S. or the west. This would give Obama credit for not giving the tyrants of Iran any ammunition. This side of the argument would agree that an embargo against Cuba gives ammunition to Castro to keep the blame on America for everything. It might work internally.
Reagan's open call that the Soviet Union is an evil empire gave heart to those in the Gulag and elsewhere (read Sharansky) and was a great part of the bringing down of the Soviet Union.
However, it is pointed out in many of the responses that this didn't seem to work in our favor as much recently. The implication is with Bush naming Korea and Iran as evil regimes, we now see Korea and Iran going nuclear and we see Iran causing most of our problems in its healthy support of terrorism.
I am not convinced that any candidate in Iran is going to lead a pro west, pro democracy, anti theocracy government in Iran. So I don't trust anyone there yet. And I haven't yet made up my mind whether in this instance Obama's lame response is good or bad. I would instinctively think it is a wrong response. But I haven't made up my mind yet. My prejudice is always in favor of freedom against centralized power.
What I do know is that I want those crowds to grow and to stay in the streets for a long, long, long time. While there is unrest in Iran, perhaps the mullahs will have to keep themselves busy trying to restore order and perhaps they'll be distracted from their maniacal hatred of Israel and the West and have less personnel to carry on terrorism and other mischief elsewhere.
That said, I also hope to see thousands in the streets in Cuba. Now wouldn't that be a beautiful picture? And if Obama says he doesn't want to look like he's meddling in affairs there, it will be impossible for him to get away with it there.
Honey, although it's true that none of the presidential candidates in Iran provided much of a departure from the current holder of the office, the events of the recent days can possibly change anything. The WSJ editorial made a very good point about this:
"Like other authoritarians -- Ferdinand Marcos in 1986 or Slobodan Milosevic in 2000 -- Tehran misjudged its own people. Having put a democratic veneer around their theocracy, they attempted to steal an election in such a blatant way that it has become a new and profound challenge to their legitimacy. Especially in the cities, Iranians are fed up with the corruption and incompetence rampant in the Islamic Republic. This dissatisfaction was galvanized by the regime's contempt for their votes and found an accidental leader in Mr. Mousavi. The movement has now taken on a life of its own, with consequences no one can predict."
Things are different now, and even though Mousavi may be just a more diplomatic version of Ahmadinejad, there is always the possibility that he can take advantage of the situation and break from the Mullahs -- something Ahmadinejad would never do. I don't think he would do it because it's right, but because it would be right for him politically. He is, at the end of the day, a politician after all.
Alberto,
I just wanted to show the enemies of this website that I can argue from Obama's point of view and give it an airing.
I wanted to demonstrate that conservatives can argue both sides cogently and are willing to give ear to those we disagree with. Show me the liberal who does either.
That said, I certainly like the demonstrations and hope they go on long enough to bring about a new, freer Iran.
Arguing all sides of an issue is something we sometimes take for granted, Honey. It is not until you get a taste of the State-run media here and elsewhere when you learn to appreciate it and guard it.
Oh great
/ it seems that our favorite "friend" el Che has popped up in Iran ...
http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/06/17/photo_che_makes_a_cameo
Also according to today's TPM: "Moussavi's earliest political hero was Che Guevara"
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/06/17/different_this_time/