« Iran: The Power of Citizen Journalism
Neda Agha-Soltan, Young Woman Murdered in Iran: She is Voice of Freedom »
A Few Critical Questions on Iran (Now with Bob Barr Response)
Up until now I’ve remained largely silent on the recent goings on in Iran, partly because I, sitting in my living room watching the news on CNN and Fox, am hardly any sort of expert on that nation. (Unlike so many other self-styled pundits across the sphere, sitting in their living rooms watching this on CNN and Fox, who apparently are experts on Iran.) Iran is one of those places where we have pitifully small intelligence resources and it’s sometimes hard to know exactly what’s going on behind the scenes. But some of the rhetoric making the rounds right now is flying well past the point of being disturbing. Some of the real damage, of course, is coming from elected officials such as Lindsey Graham and John McCain when they call the President’s response tepid, timid or passive. (This week provides me with another moment of relief to thank all the Powers That Be that Senator McCain is not occupying the Oval Office right now. We could be opening up our third or even fourth front in hot wars rather than just having two with one of them winding down.)
The bloggers are out in full force as well. You can see a wide spectrum of them chiming in at Memeorandum, and it will be informative. Of course, one that really caught my attention was our friend Ed Morrissey, who referred to the Obama administration as stupid for the response we’ve seen thus far. Today I would like to put forward a few questions and comments on this unfolding situation for the bomb bomb Iran crowd.
1. Who won the election? No… not our election. The one in Iran on June 12. Tens of millions of ballots were cast on paper. Even if there was some sort of honest effort going on to count them all accurately, I highly doubt they would be done by now. According to many reports, Mousavi certainly had some strong support, particularly among younger voters and in the urban centers. But at the same time, as much as many Americans might not wish to think it, the incumbent president had more than his fair share of support also. This was particularly strong among the older, more conservative voters and those in the rural areas. It seems that many of these people were raised their entire lives on a diet of state run media feeding them the “America as Satan” pabulum and some of them feel great pride in their nation and their fight against the “evil west.” Do any of you know what the exact, correct vote count is? And if the answer to that question is “no,” then let me ask you this.. what if Ahmadinejad actually got more votes? Then are we not in the position of supporting a potential bloody coup against the legitimate winner of a popular vote? As usual, we Americans love it when other countries have elections instead of dictatorships… until they elect somebody we don’t like. I don’t want to mention the names of any people or organizations here, but one that begins with “HAM” and ends with “AS” comes to mind.
2. Who are we supporting, anyway? I may not know much about Mousavi, but it’s my understanding that he was one of a handful of “allowed” candidates who were hand picked by the Supreme Leader. He has also made repeated statements that Iran is absolutely entitled to their nuclear program. I’m sorry, but I get the feeling that he wasn’t exactly the Iranian Barack Obama, running on a platform of throwing down the minarets and inviting the Southern Baptist Church in to redecorate the country. True, we’re now seeing statements where Mousavi seems to be remaking himself into a popular leader of the revolution. He said something about the events leading him, rather than him leading the revolt. But how sincere would he be in the long run? Does America really want to be in the business of taking sides and backing this guy as a new leader? Didn’t we do that that last time Iran had a revolution? And haven’t we done that with with a bunch of other dodgey leaders around the world over the years? Some guy next door to there comes to mind. What was his name again? Saddam something or other? How did all that work out for us?
3. Who will we have to deal with in the future? Ed Morrissey went to great lengths to ridicule the idea that President Obama wanted to “preserve the possibility” of having direct talks with the current leaders of Iran. Guess what? Bloody revolts don’t always succeed. Great, bold moments don’t always lead to the outcome some might prefer. How much has really changed in China since Tienanmen’s Square? As happy as some of us might be to see the current Iranian government thrown down, there is a very real possibility that they will quell the current uprisings by hook or by crook, and then where will we be? We’ll still be across the table from the same group of maniacs, only now we’ll be there with them knowing we were backing an attempt to get their heads chopped off. Who’s taking the more reasonable course here?
4. Let’s all have a revolution! Is that what we’re cheering for? Would you prefer change in Iran which takes place at the ballot box, even if that takes a lot longer, or for the mobs in the streets to roll out the tumbrils and bring Ahmadinejad and the Mullahs to the steel lady? Revolutions are bloody affairs with uncertain outcomes. And if you think a lot of people have died there now, wait till you see the death toll of a full blown civil war, with faction upon faction, army attacking civilians, brother against brother. The country will be thrown entirely into chaos. But of course I would never be so cynical as to suspect that some of our more hawkish voices here in America would actually want to see Iran thrown into chaos.
I see the response from the Obama administration thus far as being measured, careful and intelligent. Pushing for our President to recklessly throw in with a possible revolt, to make us part of the story rather than oberservers of history in a country which we do not control, and the rest of the hard boiled hyperbole I’m seeing is reckless and dangerous in my opinion. If I have to choose between the responses to the situation in Iran from Obama or the Graham / McCain crowd, I believe I’ll stick with the President, thank you.
UPDATE: In response to a new question from Ed, yes. E.J. Dionne is equally off base if he thinks that it will be impossible to resume diplomacy “any time soon as if nothing had happened.” Diplomacy has been lacking for so long with Iran that it was never going to turn magically productive overnight, no matter who is in charge. But that doesn’t mean you throw in the towel. That’s how we got into several messes around the world today.
UPDATE 2: As I so often do, I’ll direct those interested to a bit more sane response to the situation from Bob Barr in today’s Atlanta Journal Constitution. A brief taste for you:
Loud calls for extreme action may please constituents back home, and make for popular sound bites on the Sunday talk shows. However, Obama apparently understands that behind-the-scenes actions (likely being conducted by certain agencies of the U.S. government), coupled with more measured public criticism, may reduce the chances that the Teheran regime will decide to crack down massively on the protestors, as did China 20 years ago, and snuff out a promising move toward reform.
opinions powered by SendLove.to
39 Responses to “A Few Critical Questions on Iran (Now with Bob Barr Response)”
Jazz,
Compared to those strawmen you’re fighting, you’re one brave, wise moderate.
But, if you want to visit reality for a moment, you’ll find no one is advocating sending in the troops nor are they advocating endorsing any candidate in Iran. What people are saying is that the Leader of the Free World should take a stand on free, fair and honest elections, while it matters, without waiting for polls or focus groups, showing some courage of his convictions, not voting “present”, putting himself on the line, getting some skin in the game, getting off the bleachers and on the field and finally, being a man.
You say you want the change in Iran to take place at the ballot box. How does that happen if the results are dishonest and the fraud is only tepidly denounced by the world’s leading democracy?
Stop arguing your silly fantasies about what you think neocons want to do. You can make a good case for not nuking Iran right now. It would be an even better case if anyone was actually pushing the position. You can sound reasonable by arguing the U.S. shouldn’t openly endorse any particular candidate for office in Iran. Good thinking. No one is saying that either.
The only thing the right is saying is that the President of the United States of America, the Beacon of Democracy, should have made a statement of support for honest elections at least as strong as the German Chancellor or the President of France when it mattered.
Liberals – weak, timid and scared is no way to lead.
Jazz,
Compared to those strawmen you’re fighting, you’re one brave, wise moderate.
But, if you want to visit reality for a moment, you’ll find no one is advocating sending in the troops nor are they advocating endorsing any candidate in Iran. What people are saying is that the Leader of the Free World should take a stand on free, fair and honest elections, while it matters, without waiting for polls or focus groups, showing some courage of his convictions, not voting “present”, putting himself on the line, getting some skin in the game, getting off the bleachers and on the field and finally, being a man.
You say you want the change in Iran to take place at the ballot box. How does that happen if the results are dishonest and the fraud is only tepidly denounced by the world’s leading democracy?
Stop arguing your silly fantasies about what you think neocons want to do. You can make a good case for not nuking Iran right now. It would be an even better case if anyone was actually pushing the position. You can sound reasonable by arguing the U.S. shouldn’t openly endorse any particular candidate for office in Iran. Good thinking. No one is saying that either.
The only thing the right is saying is that the President of the United States of America, the Beacon of Democracy, should have made a statement of support for honest elections at least as strong as the German Chancellor or the President of France when it mattered.
Liberals – weak, timid and scared is no way to lead.
jwest said: “Liberals – weak, timid and scared is no way to lead.”
C'mon! I just don't get the whole “President Obama is weak on Iran” meme. Iran is heading toward a full blown revolution with an UNKNOWN outcome. Revolutions are frequently bloody and in the end, if the status quo regime wins, we give them propaganda for decades by being hard asses.
And stop all the European pseudo love. Germany and France have been much more cozy with Iran these past years (something the United States has criticized over the years). So they can talk hard and bluster since they aren't on the same enemy radar as we, the so-called “Great Satan” (blah) are. I'm getting a big kick how some on the Right, the non flip-floppers and stalwart defenders of democracy, have elevated the past “surrender monkeys” of Europe (and I don't endorse that name) into “folks with cajones” in dealing with Iran. What a “flip-flop”! Get outta here with that.
The power of the United States of America is how our ways and wiles have permeated the Iranian society WITHOUT nary lifting a finger. Osmosis my good man is all-consuming. And our President is smart by showing restraint in rhetoric.
When Martin Luther King marched to Selma, there were those who showed courage by marching with him, and then there were those who “showed restraint”.
If you don’t show support when it most matters, you might as well just stay home.
This is certainly not a “Profiles in Courage” moment for Obama.
You know, jwest, for someone who shows so many remarkable flashes of brilliance here, your reading skills really do suffer from the occasional total breakdown. Your long winded comment may not be the first, but is very possibly the best instance of a “straw man vs. straw man” argument I've ever seen. Had I actually been accusing anyone of calling for an invasion of Iran to support a revolution, I would be simply cowed into silence by your stinging, witty rebuttal. Of course, since I never once said anything close to that, I suppose I'll have to mark the judge's fight card in favor of your real strawman over the one you imagine I have constructed.
And if you're referring to the one link to John McCain from over a year ago and the “bomb bomb Iran crowd” are you really going to stake your credibility here on a claim that we don't have an abundance of Right wing hawks in the blogosphere who talk about the pressing need to attack Iran and knock out their nuclear capabilities? Would you really care for a war of links on that one? But it's an old reference and has little or nothing to do with the specifics of positions being taken on the current protests.
To the second part of your pitifully lame accusation, you say that nobody is “advocating endorsing any candidate in Iran.” Oh really? I'll invite you to back up a moment, follow the link I provided to Memeorandum, and go count up the number of instances where Right leaning authors are calling the election “fraudulent” or “rigged”. Or just go to Ed Morrissey's post, also linked, and look at the final paragraph where he says, “demonstrations that demanded accountability for a stolen election?” How else would you describe these conclusions, that the election was stolen, rigged, fraudulent? So what I did today was asked the question, “Who won the election?” and asked how you know the answer. Can you provide it for us? No. You can not.
I also pointed out that asking for the President to immediately jump in behind “unstealing” the election would be precipitous and dangerous absent all the facts. I certainly believe that Obama should call for a peaceful resolution to the situation and a condemnation of govt. violence against demonstrations. Oh, gee… that's exactly what he did after allowing a very short amount of time for the situation to ripen and for us to find out what was happening.
Any other fake strawman vs. strawman battles you'd care to wage?
Jazz,
That certainly was a lot of stumbling around to not even come close to making a point.
Admit it. You’re embarrassed by Obama’s weak response as he politically tip-toed around this pivotal moment in history. He could have been a star, but it was safer (for him personally) to be a bit player on the world stage.
It was too much to hope that someone with Obama’s rhetorical abilities would also have the courage of a George Bush. To be able to stand up for what is right – even if it’s not the most popular option – is the mark of a true leader.
I assure you I meant neither harm nor malice to the (politician) in question. My sole intention was to restore in him some sense of appreciation for his duties as a man and a (President). “If one could shame a coward,” I felt, “one might help him to gain his self-respect.” – paraphrased from George Patton.
My position, including opposition to last week's Congressional resolution, has consistently been to keep the US out of what is going on in Iran and maintain a very low profile, lest the government there use US posturing as an excuse to tie the protestors to the “Great Satan”, discredit them and manufacture an excuse for even harsher and bloodier crackdowns.
Having staked out that position, those who take a more hard line view, should listen to the interview with Dan Senor from “Morning Joe” this morning. Senor admitted the following: Obama's statement of the 20th was a “much better” statement, “It's a good statement.” When asked what he would add to the statement, he initially could come up with nothing. Later he said it might be useful to refer to Iran as an “Evil Empire,” though I personally cannot see what that would add.
Senor also praised the Obama administration, saying that the Cairo speech was an “important part” of what is currently going on in Iran and praised the administration's involvement in helping shape the election results in Lebanon.
He also suggested that SOS Clinton contact Mousavi and Rafsenjani (sp) to see what their status was and offer support, to work with tech companies to get information flowing (the administration already did that with Twitter) and to coordinate with European allies. While he does not believe these things are happening, he admitted they could be going on behind the scenes without his knowledge.
The question is how far the President can go without it backfiring on the protestors. But even conservative thinkers like Senor are beginning to find agreement with the adminstration on some issues, while wanting to push further and faster on others. Someone last week said (don't recall who) that by exercising caution, Obama leaves open the possibility of speaking/moving more forcefully later, without giving “Great Satan” cover to the government of Iran short term by speaking or acting precipitously. Sage counsel IMHO.
Senor's interview is linked to TMV's homepage.
jwest said: “When Martin Luther King marched to Selma, there were those who showed courage by marching with him, and then there were those who “showed restraint”.
My goodness man! The Iranian citizens in the streets ARE SHOWING THE DAMN COURAGE! Just like MLK and the other Selma marchers did. The Iranian citizens in the streets are taking the beating and killings by the brutal Iranian regime. Just like MLK and the Selma marchers took the abuse from the Alabama government and police. That's where the courage is, jwest. Not from American political leaders, pundits, and prognosticators spouting off the hard ass line towards Iran.
Your attack is purely partisan and you can't admit that President Obama is showing restraint and intelligence in this matter. Right??
jwest, admit it. You got caught building stunning double straw man and seeking an argument I wasn't having, and you're embarrassed. And after you were thoroughly called out on it, you changed course completely and brought up a new question. (And a fair one worthy of examination, I admit.) Why would I be personally embarrassed over any shortcoming of Obama's? I didn't vote for him and I criticize him here regularly. But that doesn't mean I engage in a kneejerk attack on him for everything he does. When I think he's right about something, I'll say so, as I did here.
You choose to call the president a “coward” for not stepping up immediately and forcefully to take the side of the people protesting the election results. Note: you are not saying he should just support their right to protest and call for a fair election, but that he should support their right to take control. Yet you can't tell us who actually won the election, which was my primary question to begin with.
“Don't just do something… Stand there!”
Sometimes “doing the right thing” actually means doing nothing at all. Iran will still be there next week, next month, next year, and probably well into the future. Who will be running the place? I'd say that's up to the Iranians, not the President of the United States.
Jazz: “As happy as some of us might be to see the current Iranian government thrown down, there is a very real possibility that they will quell the current uprisings by hook or by crook, and then where will we be? We’ll still be across the table from the same group of maniacs, only now we’ll be there with them knowing we were backing an attempt to get their heads chopped off.”
Good. If we are dealing purely in the realm of Scowcroftian (dare I say Machiavellian) realism, That is EXACTLY what the Mullahs need to see. Otherwise, forget any hope of negotiations that might actually accomplish anything positive. We have turned the other cheek to repeated acts of war by the Khomeinist government for 30 years, only to have further acts perpetrated against ourselves and our armed forces. It's time a tactic was tried that actually works.
And it does work. The one and only time that the Iranian Clergy have reached out to us in any attempt to bargain their way towards better relations was in early 2004 – shortly after the fall of Saddam Hussein. At that time, the combined armed forces of the world's most powerful nation was sitting on their doorstep. Those same armed forces dispatched in 3 weeks an Iraqi army that the Iranians could not defeat in 8 years of trying (a fact probably not lost on the Mullahs) – and they were commanded by a President who had just finished demonstrating a willingness to use them on members of his self-identified “Axis of Evil”. While it was Bush's mistake in not taking advantage of this change-of-heart (a subject for another thread entirely), Iran's regime would not have made those overtures without a perceived threat to its continued existence.
Regrettably, that window closed. And Iran's government has gone back to doing what it typically does; namely enabling and fomenting terrorism, assisting in the murder of our troops., attempting to acquire nuclear weapons, etc. It is time that we go back to what the Mullahs understand.
Meanwhile, tell me again how supporting the protesters could possibly make our current situation worse. If the regime is overthrown, I fail to see how whatever replaces it could pose any greater threat to us or the rest of the world than the current regime. If the Mullahs hold on to power, we are no worse off than before – precisely because they have never had any intention of negotiating with us in good faith. And that won't change until they perceive a direct threat – supporting the demonstrators provides a handy reminder of just what could happen.
BTW, I take your point on moderate rhetoric. But Obama has already demonstrated an amazingly supine response to North Korea and their missile launches. He has established a pattern of weakness that makes it hard not to assume that his Iran position is anything other than more of the same.
HobbesDFW said: “But Obama has already demonstrated an amazingly supine response to North Korea and their missile launches. He has established a pattern of weakness that makes it hard not to assume that his Iran position is anything other than more of the same.”
So President Obama comes out with the so-called “strong words” approach and support the protesters… how? With hard words towards the regime? And how does that help them? Whereas the Cairo speech meant nothing according to some, an Obama hard-line words approach will? No dice.
Unless we are going to support the protesters with direct military assistance (which we CANNOT afford in dollars and lives), then the restrained approach is the way to go.
Jazz & T-Steel,
I guess I’ll just wait a couple of days while Obama’s position comes around to what we on the right are calling for. Then both of you will be there too.
Obama’s June 20th statement is sneaking up on principled position. Let’s give him some more time so he doesn’t get tripped up in his skirt. I’m certain Martin Luther King appreciated the support he received from those who sat back and watch how things developed in Selma, but he probably had a greater appreciation for those who stood with him at the moment heads were being cracked.
When Barack finally does pull his “big girl panties” up and takes an unequivocal stand, I’m sure you two and the MSM will be praising him for his “courage”.
Well, better late than never.
T_Steel,
The “Hard Words” approach may or may not provide any assistance to the protesters. But my point was that taking the side of the regime's opponents is a no-lose position. It was Jazz's statement to the contrary that I was specifically addressing.
As to Obama's Cairo speech, in order to believe that bit of presidential PR outreach campaigning somehow improves our standing in that part of the world, one would have to believe that the people who make policy in that part of the world actually care about what their subjects think (assuming that those subjects were influenced). Last week's events in Tehran not only disprove that statement, but also provide an opportunity to speak directly to those people who are oppressed. I hope Obama takes that opportunity. But I am betting against it – and we will be worse off in the long run for it.
If President Obama takes the so-called “principled position”, then I will call him a coward. Plain and simple.
There is no need for us to take the so-called “principled position” that some on the Right are clamoring for (unless our troops are right behind that so-called “principled position”. Even if the Iran regime starts murdering their people in the streets en masse, there will still be no need for the so-called “principled position”. I'm old school with this. Keep you words tight unless your prepared to fight, physically.
This is Iran's internal war. Our job is to deal with the winner (whoever that may be). No more, no less.
Good post, Jazz. You and I agree maybe half the time, but I completely agree with you here. We tried the “tough words” approach for 8 years, to no positive effect. And I agree with T-Steel that wading into this, especially with “evil empire” language, stands a very good chance of hurting the opposition in Iran. There is absolutely no advantage to be gained by boosting Iranian nationalism against an outside threat, no advantage to our being seen as an enemy of the country. And if, as is likely, Ahmadinejad remains in power by whatever means, it hurts our future negotiating position for no actual gain.
Over the period of the last thirty years every American administration, Republican or Democratic, has made diplomatic overtures to the Tehran government. Reagan. George H. W. Bush. Clinton. George W. Bush. And now Obama.
There have been two constants. No American administration has offered security assurances to the Iranian regime and every overture has been rebuffed.
Whether we should offer security assurances to the mullahs is an interesting and, I think, unobvious question. It's a genuinely repellent, oppressive, and harmful regime, destabilizing to its region and antithetical to the best things that Americans believe in. It is, unfortunately, in control of the country. If we're going to negotiate with the mullahs we've got to offer them something they want that they can't get without negotiating something away that we want. It's not clear to me what we can or will offer that they'll find appealing enough to give up anything.
“Sarkozy says burqas are 'not welcome' in France”
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D98VP85…
Wow.
Wouldn’t it be great if we had a President like this?
Jwest and others are acting like this is Poland in the 80's when this is nothing of the kind. They are rioting in the streets for a BETTER THEOCRACY, not western style democracy and freedom. You want the US to unequivocally support the candidate who founded Hezbollah, a terrorist organization. That is the “principled position of the Right”?
Dave S.,
“If we're going to negotiate with the mullahs we've got to offer them something they want that they can't get without negotiating something away that we want. It's not clear to me what we can or will offer that they'll find appealing enough to give up anything.”
A good point – but then what is our incentive to continue negotiations? And if we have none, then why are we concerned with that the Mullahs think? What do we have to lose by taking the “principled position”, is it has been derisively referred to in this thread?
Under the clerical regime, our “future negotiating position” will look exactly like our past negotiating position, regardless of our stance on the current protests. The idea that we will somehow cause the mullahs to become more hostile to American interests and world peace in general (as if that were possible) flies in the face of 30 years of evidence to the contrary.
“Wouldn’t it be great if we had a President like this?”
So you want a president who will tell people what they can or can not wear in defiance of their constitutionally guarenteed freedom of religion? Is this another “principled position of the Right”, anti-relgious freedom? The contradictions must be making you dizzy.
Z,
It’s hard to get through to liberals, but I’ll try one more time.
None of us on the right – me, the right wing pundits, the neocons, Dick Cheney or anyone else – is advocating any candidate.
We are standing with the people in the street protesting the rigging of an election. Whoever wins, wins. Just don’t insult the Iranian people and the world by claiming such a flawed election was free and fair.
If non-violent change is ever to come, elections need to be credible. Non-credible elections need to be protested, mocked and denounced by the other world leaders. Half-assed, careful, limp-wristed, almost-denunciations are a declaration of how the U.S. favors conflict avoidance over democracy.
When your neighbor is finished beating his wife, you can either ignore her black eye or you can come out and say this ends now. One shows restraint, the other takes balls.
Obama is the model of restraint.
In France, it has long been noted that the Hijab (never mind the Burqua) is seldom worn by young women of their own choice, but typically forced upon them by an oppressive religious minority. So you support this mandatory imposition of religious mores, but oppose Sarkozy's right to speak on the subject? Are YOU getting dizzy yet?
Z,
Let’s see what the French President said, just to gain a flavor of where he’s coming from.
“In our country, we cannot accept that women be prisoners behind a screen, cut off from all social life, deprived of all identity,” Sarkozy said to extended applause in a speech at the Chateau of Versailles southwest of Paris.
“The burqa is not a religious sign, it's a sign of subservience, a sign of debasement—I want to say it solemnly,” he said. “It will not be welcome on the territory of the French Republic.”
Not only is for women’s rights and dignity, he is against the strictures of an organized religion.
Sounds like someone liberals would love, if he didn’t make Obama seem like such a wimp.
To heck with Sarkozy. As I mentioned earlier, France has cozy with Iran for a time. And we here in the USA have called them on it MANY times. Sarkozy is trying to shake off opinion of France as “weak”. And since Iran view France as small fry, they could care less what they say. I can just here the Mullahs now:
The Great Satan-Like thingy called France is causing the dissent!!
Doesn't quite fit, huh? The Iranian regime would like nothing more than to paint the dissenters with our words and crack down hard on them. But they can't now. They just have to deal with THEIR PEOPLE. And it's making them crack.
Obama is playing it exactly right thus far. Rushing into simple-minded, feel-good responses would be foolish and irresponsible. If and when there is something productive we can do to provide useful and genuine support to those who are protesting the bogus elections, then I'll be all for it. Until then, this is an internal struggle that needs to be monitored without rushing into ill-considered words and actions that could have the opposite effect desired by American interests. You would think some of our more reactionary commenters here would have learned something from the last administration, but then again…
Jazz,
Thanks for the great post.
The people who want Obama to use force against Iran are right… that's one way to stop the Iranians from fighting each other. They will then unite and fight against us, as an enemy occupier.
Does anyone on here remember the 2000 prez elections and the fact that due to irregularities that the Supreme Court essentially decided it, even though the person who received the popular vote was not made president?
Does anyone remember the massive 1992 Rodney King riots, complete with rampaging looting and burning cities…. over police brutality? I remember that LA was practically on lockdown, and the riots weren't just confined to South Central LA, but the looters made it to other parts of teh city, including Bevery Hills….
We handled both of these problems and did not want other countries to interfere. Would we have been happy if Russia choose to send in their troops to help our rioting in 1992? Thereby taking advantage of our situation and perhaps using that as an excuse to maintain Russian troops on our soil?
What right do we have to tell Iran who to handle their internal affairs?
I don't like the beatings and squelching of the media in Iran (or anywhere for that matter). When the Iranian government's actions rise to the level of humanitarian abuse, then we should address those concerns. And Obama has made it clear to the Iranians that the US is against such abuses. Obama has called for the Iranian government to stop killing their own people. I think that's all we should do now. Why should we meddle any more than this?
Why do Americans treat other countries as US states? I mean… if there was rioting after elections in some US state, then we would expect our national government to step in. But Iran is a different country.
“Iran is one of those places where we have pitifully small intelligence resources and it’s sometimes hard to know exactly what’s going on behind the scenes.”
[applause]
This was mentioned, I believe, on CNN this weekend. And it leads to the following thought, if you think:
Didn't we, not only the USA but the rest of the West and Mossad, get embarrassed about the quality of intelligence about Iraq and the state circa 2002-3 of its weapons of mass destruction and other related programs? Prior to the war, Hussein had them and used them. But once we invaded, well — we're still waiting to find those missing WMDs, aren't we? (They were not under Bush's chair, don't forget.)
Have many people forgotten that lesson? And they neglect it with a larger, more active rogue regime, who has been assisted by the likes of Russia and China for ages at least with military capability? Do you really think that counter-intelligence in the country (where the regime is still a target of activist groups that have Western assistance at least to some extent) has been neglected?
Food for thought, for those who think…
* * *
“[Sarkozy s]ounds like someone liberals would love, if he didn’t make Obama seem like such a wimp.”
1. Most of the lefties here in the USA egging Obama on are simply childish and want to Feel Better.
2. Probably all of the righties here in the USA bashing Obama are opportunistic cheap-shot shooters.
3. If anyone Did Something, it would be the USA, followed when it was safe and politically sound by France et al.
jwest,
This is exactly what Obama said:
The Iranian government must understand that the world is watching. We mourn each and every innocent life that is lost. We call on the Iranian government to stop all violent and unjust actions against its own people. The universal rights to assembly and free speech must be respected, and the United States stands with all who seek to exercise those rights.
As I said in Cairo, suppressing ideas never succeeds in making them go away. The Iranian people will ultimately judge the actions of their own government. If the Iranian government seeks the respect of the international community, it must respect the dignity of its own people and govern through consent, not coercion.
So how is that not making a clear and strong statement about the government respecting free and fair elections? How is this 'he politically tip-toed around this pivotal moment' or “What people are saying is that the Leader of the Free World should take a stand on free, fair and honest elections, while it matters, without waiting for polls or focus groups, showing some courage of his convictions, not voting “present”, putting himself on the line, getting some skin in the game, getting off the bleachers and on the field and finally, being a man”? The only actual skin he could get in the game is if he came out unequivocally for the candidate the people of Iran support or if he committed troops. That is skin. What exactly are you asking him to do then? Do you know for a FACT that Mousavi won? You've danced around that question pretty solidly and several commentors have asked you to answer it.
“[No burqas and their baggage:] Wouldn’t it be great if we had a President like this?”
In our case, it would be more like English Only, prop 187, and other anti-PC stuff hated by the haters.
“You would think some of our more reactionary commenters here would have learned something from the mistakes of the last administration by now, but then again…”
Mirror talk, as well as classic liberal misuse of “think” [sic]. I've already noted numerous times that those pushing Obama to make more harsh statements and support the revolt (most emotionally his critics on the Left, which all true thinkers would have predicted, anyway) want to repeat the elder Bush's blunder with the Kurds and Shiites after the first Gulf War and subsequent revolts.
(Of course, the Left does diverge not only in focing primarily on Feelings but in unwillingness to go in with military force to back up a revolt that seems to be succeeding, or that faces harsh repression as a result.)
Some of us choose not to force Obama to crow loudly, no more than we are going to seek “regime change” in Sudan not because of terrorism or other serious threats but because we Feel Bad about what they are doing to their blacks in the south of the country (something actually several decades in effect).
DLS said:
“1. Most of the lefties here in the USA egging Obama on are simply childish and want to Feel Better.
2. Probably all of the righties here in the USA bashing Obama are opportunistic cheap-shot shooters.
3. If anyone Did Something, it would be the USA, followed when it was safe and politically sound by France et al.”
You get my personal hero award for those word, DLS. LOL!
Stockboy, I always love hearing your input, even when we are 180 degrees apart from each other and completely disagreeing. Your comments are always thoughtful and well defended, even if I sometimes disagree with your conclusions.
Z,
Who cares who wins the election in Iran.
If the Iranian religious ruling elites find out, along with the citizens, that the world will not stand for a rigged election then the stage is set for peaceful transition through voting.
It’s not a matter of who wins this time. It’s the process that counts and the world’s reaction to that process.
One last thing, since it was addressed to me: Not only is for women’s rights and dignity, he is against the strictures of an organized religion. Sounds like someone liberals would love, if he didn’t make Obama seem like such a wimp.
Yes and no. I'm all for women's rights. I'm all for women not being forced to wear a burka. However, if a woman wants to wear a burka or a head scarf or a cross or a sari, she should be able to wear it and Sarkozy has no business telling her what she can and cannot put on her body. As for organized religion, I don't have a problem with people freely worshipping or not worshipping as they see fit.
As for whether this makes Obama look like a wimp? It makes Obama look rational and Sarkozy look like he's trying to prove or compensate for something. I expect you only liked his statement because he was bashing Muslims. He certainly wasn't supporting freedom. Freedom means Sarkozy doesn't dictate what women can or cannot wear.
If the Iranian religious ruling elites find out, along with the citizens, that the world will not stand for a rigged election then the stage is set for peaceful transition through voting.
And what does that mean exactly? A speech condemning their repressive actions? Sanctions? No diplomatic relations with Iran? Except all of those things are already in place. You've already said you don't want military involvement. So what exactly do you have your knickers in a bunch about? Ignoring North Korea until it got a nuclear weapon? Oh wait.. that was Bush.
Jazz, thanks! I always look forward to your posts, even if I don't comment on them all. Your posts are always thougthful and intelligent. I feel that you generally understand my point and reasoning, even if you disagree with it. Thanks again.
Lets say President Obama and Prime Minister Brown decided to fully condemn the election result or even the entire political structure of the Islamic Republic, it would play right into the hands of the Mullahs and Ahmadinejad.
They seem to be itching for us to get involved so they can blast out the old rhetoric with a little something to back it up. Damn meddlesome west trying to bring down our perfect republic!
If you condemn the violence and simply state it's up to the Iranian people, then they can't twist that to their ends and they have nobody to pass the buck onto. It looks like a very pathetic attempt to shift the protesters anger onto the old enemy, we shouldn't give them any level of credibility.
Now what will the lefty chatterers have to say in praise for Obama if the same regime stays in power (suppresses the demonstrations, keeps Ahmedinnerjacket in power) and we warm relations with Iran, and get Iranian oil and gas, and our motor vehicle fuel prices drop as a result?
That's with or without anyone in Team Obama realizing this means extra room for fuel tax increases.
“Ignoring North Korea until it got a nuclear weapon? Oh wait.. that was Bush.”
Actually, North Korea played the earlier Clinton administration for suckers. (The Guaranteed Framework even had a fancy name as well as fine feelings about reaching an agreement that we knew that nation would break.)