« Ex-Beatle McCartney For Meatless Mondays
Mounting Criticism of the ‘Disturbing’ Justice Dept DOMA Brief »
Admirable Nuance: Obama’s Measured Response to the Iranian Election and Its Aftermath
Jun 16th, 2009 | 6 responses
The right has been all over Obama’s measured response to the Iranian election — seriously, what was he to do? push America’s weight around with the situation still unclear, and with allegations of corruption and vote-rigging unproven, however credible, thereby likely driving the wedge between Washington and Tehran deeper at a time when the U.S. is seeking to open up diplomatic relations with Iran over its nuclear program? no, open meddling in internal Iranian affairs would hardly have gone over well in proud, nationalistic Iran — but yesterday he came out firmly against the violent government crackdown on the opposition protesters and for an open investigation.
It wasn’t all that much, but it was enough, and it was far more meaningful than the careful wording suggests. The president showed his, and America’s, support for the protesters without being overly judgmental — and thereby without threatening the fragile link that may yet allow him to promote America’s interests diplomatically, if not to achieve positive results with respect to Iran’s nuclear program and strategic position in the region.
Not that it’s nearly enough for the right — what would be enough for the right, short of neocon war? — but, then, it’s not like the right ever appreciates such nuance, such sensible maturity.
(Cross-posted from The Reaction.)
6 Responses to “Admirable Nuance: Obama’s Measured Response to the Iranian Election and Its Aftermath”
it’s not like the right ever appreciates such nuance, such sensible maturity.
You've got us tagged! Just a bunch of simple minded children, lashing out without consideration…..Next time, don't bite so hard when I cum…. (Lee Ving).
Well Michael you beat me to the punch (although I'm not nearly as “judgmental” of the Right). LOL!
What I'm more entertained about is how some on the Right called President Obama's Cairo speech “just words with little to no effect”, but want “more words” from President Obama to do… what? Change things on the ground? You can't have it both ways.
I think President Obama is playing this smart. Yes we as America want a certain outcome. But Iran is not a state of the US. It is a sovereign nation with people that have to ultimately solve their own problems. Tough talk on this situation will just be used as more propaganda (as some on the Right said Obama's Cairo speech is being used as). And for those select few who want military intervention, then you go and take care of the situation. Now isn't the time nor situation for military adventurism.
but yesterday he came out firmly against the violent government crackdown on the opposition protesters and for an open investigation.
Tying into another TMV post I think Obama is hampered by a lack of intelligence on this. It's difficult for him to take a stand when he doesn't have adequate information.
PWT — nice identification of Mikey's own behavior, routinely.
I waited and no thread has stated what really matters, so I will: Don't you believe Obama's careful words were based on the experience an earlier President had in Iraq, when George Bush the Elder spoke out about the plight of the Kurds and Sunnis with the implication that we would assist these people if they rose against Hussein? They rose and revolted, we did nothing, and Hussein slaughtered these people. This “betrayal” harmed the President's and our nation's reputation.
Obviously we're not going to go into Iran to attack the current government and the Ahmedinejad camp in the current election contest, and obviously Obama is not going to encourage the Iranian people to riot or throw a new revolution, much less imply or indicate clearly that we'll invade the country to back this up.
Understanding of history, especially the most recent, relevent history here (elder Bush, encouragement of uprising, hint at willingness to assist, likely hope or expectation of that in the other nation fueled thereby, rejection of invasion and use of force) is what is obviously in order, not pathetic “defenses” of Obama or smarmy stuff about “democracy” and tech-idiocy obscession with today's techno-toys as magic new tools of democracy, etc. Nor is it sensible to expect Obama to speak like Bush the Elder — but I covered this already. [sigh]
“I think President Obama is playing this smart.”
He's doing the right thing. Expectations are too high, to say the least. And for the few conservative critics as well as the impatient liberal critics, they need to recall what happened when the elder Bush encouraged the Kurds and Shiites (not Sunnis as I just wrote earlier — Shiites are in the south) to revolt without backing this up with our forces. Plus he wants to have a chance to improve relations with Iran after this is settled.
Obama can't give any support to the 'Green Revolution'. An expert on Charlie Rose said that Whackjob and the Iranian Guard are labeling the opposition as American stooges.