The Right Side of History: Obama Stands Up For “the Courage and Dignity of the Iranian People”
Jun 24th, 2009 | 13 responses
I have defended Obama on Iran, I continue to defend him, and I’ll defend him here. I tend to be quite hawkish (as a liberal) on democracy and freedom, and I would love to see Iran shake off the shackles of theocracy and tyranny and embrace liberty and diversity and the sovereignty of the people, but, unlike war-now neocons and the many other hawkish conservatives, I also realize that the world, and Iran especially, is complicated, and not so easily reducible to categories of good and evil. This is partly why the right-wing assault on Obama over Iran has been so thoroughly ridiculous. As I’ve argued, open meddling in internal Iranian affairs would hardly go over well in proud, nationalistic Iran:
It is easy to condemn Iran (and Obama) from the comfort of neocon certainty, easy to call for more to be done, for a harder line to be taken. The situation is much more challenging for Obama, who must deal with reality, and who must walk a fine line if he is to show his support for the opposition while not undermining it, not feeding into the regime’s oppression, not giving the regime the justification it is looking for to crack down even harder than it has already.
Nonetheless, I have also argued that the world is watching not just Iran but Obama as well — watching for what he will do, for how America will respond. Iranians, who, taking to the streets and risking their lives for freedom and democracy, need to see that America is with them.
And, yesterday, Obama took that next step. And he was at his finest.
As Slate‘s John Dickerson notes, he “not only upped his rhetoric, he reacted personally, talking about the ‘searing image of a woman bleeding to death in the streets,’ a reference to the so-called Neda video. He called the loss ‘extraordinarily painful’ and ‘heartbreaking.’” He also said that “[t]he United States and the international community have been appalled and outraged by the threats, beatings, and imprisonments of the last few days.” Which is to say, he, too, is “appalled and outraged,” and he went on to “condemn these unjust actions,” strongly.
Is Obama getting tougher? Did he get tougher yesterday? Yes, I think so. And rightly so. And he was able to do so because he didn’t come out of the gate with the sort of hard line the right-wing hawks wanted. He is, after all, dealing with reality, and openly intervening early on, openly siding with the opposition and the protesters without allowing developments to unfold, and without waiting for the Iranians to speak for themselves, would have been not just arrogant and presumptuous (as if the U.S. knows best, always, pushing its weight around) but reckless, limiting his own options going forward and endangering the brave men and women who have taken to the streets to demand change in Iran.
The situation in Iran is complicated, and there is no guarantee that this more nuanced approach — caution, now condemnation, but not, thankfully, saber-rattling) — will work. Still, it is abundantly clear that Obama, unlike his conservative critics, knows what he’s doing.
And both Iran and America are better for it.
**********
Here, via The Plank, are some of Obama’s opening remarks from yesterday’s presser:
First, I’d like to say a few words about the situation in Iran. The United States and the international community have been appalled and outraged by the threats, beatings, and imprisonments of the last few days. I strongly condemn these unjust actions, and I join with the American people in mourning each and every innocent life that is lost.
I have made it clear that the United States respects the sovereignty of the Islamic Republic of Iran, and is not at all interfering in Iran’s affairs. But we must also bear witness to the courage and dignity of the Iranian people, and to a remarkable opening within Iranian society. And we deplore violence against innocent civilians anywhere that it takes place.
The Iranian people are trying to have a debate about their future. Some in the Iranian government are trying to avoid that debate by accusing the United States and others outside of Iran of instigating protests over the elections. These accusations are patently false and absurd. They are an obvious attempt to distract people from what is truly taking place within Iran’s borders. This tired strategy of using old tensions to scapegoat other countries won’t work anymore in Iran. This is not about the United States and the West; this is about the people of Iran, and the future that they – and only they – will choose.
The Iranian people can speak for themselves. That is precisely what has happened these last few days. In 2009, no iron fist is strong enough to shut off the world from bearing witness to the peaceful pursuit of justice. Despite the Iranian government’s efforts to expel journalists and isolate itself, powerful images and poignant words have made their way to us through cell phones and computers, and so we have watched what the Iranian people are doing.
This is what we have witnessed. We have seen the timeless dignity of tens of thousands Iranians marching in silence. We have seen people of all ages risk everything to insist that their votes are counted and their voices heard. Above all, we have seen courageous women stand up to brutality and threats, and we have experienced the searing image of a woman bleeding to death on the streets. While this loss is raw and painful, we also know this: those who stand up for justice are always on the right side of history.
As I said in Cairo, suppressing ideas never succeeds in making them go away. The Iranian people have a universal right to assembly and free speech. If the Iranian government seeks the respect of the international community, it must respect those rights, and heed the will of its own people. It must govern through consent, not coercion. That is what Iran’s own people are calling for, and the Iranian people will ultimately judge the actions of their own government.
“But we must also bear witness to the courage and dignity of the Iranian people, and to a remarkable opening within Iranian society… The Iranian people can speak for themselves… This is what we have witnessed. We have seen the timeless dignity of tens of thousands Iranians marching in silence. We have seen people of all ages risk everything to insist that their votes are counted and their voices heard.”
Brilliant. Powerful. The world is watching, and listening. And this is just what was needed.
(Cross-posted from The Reaction.)
opinions powered by SendLove.to
13 Responses to “The Right Side of History: Obama Stands Up For “the Courage and Dignity of the Iranian People””
Obama said exactly what he should have said……..
Ten. Days. Ago.
If you weren’t slobbering so much over him, you’d recognize that. A moment in history is just that – a moment. Things that would be brave to say one day are nothing the next.
Yes, the world was watching. Everyone saw that they shouldn’t count on the U.S. at any critical point, unless they need us to vote “present”.
Weak. Gutless. Lame. Typical Democrat.
3 out of 4 'aint bad jwest. I say this because about 253 of them voted 'yea' on a resolution condemning Iran LAST WEEK! Many of them are typical democrats but, they were able to use the word 'condemn' last week. There were only two typical democrats that voted 'present'.
@jwest
If you'll remember, ten days ago the Iranian Government crackdown had not yet begun. Indeed, the first few days the opposition groups were allowed to peacefully gather and protest. Track the time-line of events and you'll see that Obama struck the right chord at each stage of escalation.
“There were only two typical democrats that voted 'present'.”
Would Obama have voted “present” if he were still in the Senate now?
From Wikipedia:
“Mousavi and his wife, Zahra Rahnavard, had an active role in the success of Iranian revolution.[8] He was imprisoned for organizing street protests against the monarchy of Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi.[3][5] As the Iranian revolution neared, Mousavi whose earliest political hero was Che Guevara,[9] became more actively involved in the struggle. Soon he joined ranks with Mohammad Beheshti, who was a close associate of the revolution leader, Ruholah Khomeini.[5]
The Shah left Iran for exile in January 1979 and several weeks later,Ruholah Khomeini, the leader of the revolution, returned to Tehran.
Mousavi helped Mohammad Beheshti found the Islamic Republican Party in 1979, in order to assist the establishment of the Islamic Republic in Iran and hasten the overthrow of Iran's monarchy.[3] He became the political secretary of the party,[5] and chief editor of Jomhouri-e Eslami, the party's official newspaper.[5]
In mid-1979, he was appointed by Khomeini, to the Iranian Council of Islamic revolution.[10] As the chief editor of Jomhouri-e Eslami, he was a loud critic and opponent of Abolhassan Banisadr, the first president of the Islamic Republic, until the latter's 1981 flight to France, following a successful impeachment by parliament. [11]
In August 15, 1981, as part of the restructuring of the government in Mohammad Ali Rajai's cabinet, Mousavi was appointed foreign minister.[5] He held the post for five months until December 15, 1981, when he received the higher appointment of prime minister.[3]“
In order for Mousavi to run for election, the Iranian Council of 12 had to approve him as a candidate. Furthermore, the council and the supreme leader are the judicial branch, have right to veto any legislation, and have the power to remove any president.
Although, at face value, he seems like a wonderful alternative to Ahmadinejad, I have not seen sufficient commentary questions and proving he has the ability to significantly alter the status quo. The current policies within Iran reflect the will of their supreme leader and the council of 12.
Although a moot issue at this point, would Mousavi, if he had been elected, been able to bring significant and meaningful change, or would he be a different face to the same problem?
A guy who opposes gay marriage should be careful about any “right side of history” comments.
Dr Z, most of us know who Mousavi is…his history…and possibly how little difference there might be between he and Ahmadinejad. It has been said more than once here…this is not about Mousavi. This is about Iranians feeling that their democratic voices were silenced and fighting the theocracy that is trying to oppress their rights.
PWT, no one cares about the House. That resolution was piontless. As far as the world is concerned, Obama speaks for America.
I agree, but I believe the administrations hesistancy to comment till now reflects and understanding of these details. Up until the violence spilled over, the issue was solely about Mousavi and his failed election bid. I understand why it is prudent to hold off comment when the election was the issue.
Although the current conflict began with the election malfeasance, it has evolved to reflect the social discontent of the Iranian people against the current suppressive society that has entrenched Iran since the revolution. With this change, a different tactic to addressing the issue by our leaders is necessary. Hence, being firm now reflects the change on the ground and how the issue in Iran has evolved from demonstrations about election failures to a national protest against tyranny.
My problem with the criticism of Obama's initial stance, this was rarely taken into consideration. Of course their was hesitancy to support Mousavi, but now the issue has changed. At least, that is how I see it.
Hi, Dr. E. here,
I'm not Mom, just an Assistant Editor at TMV with a reminder to commenters… Please dont shoot the messenger… and Please do read or reread the TMV comment policy if in doubt about our rules and policies for civil commenting. Our commenters are asked
–to stick to the basic topic in the article,
–with no ad hominen attacks on the writer or other commenters.
–This includes no high-jacking of the thread, no vulgarities, and no posting of long articles in respons…
–however you are welcome to leave links to those articles in comments as usual.
In the meantime, commenters who violate TMV's rules will be edited and/or warned once, and if a commenter then chooses to continue violating commenting rules and policies for civility at TMV, they will be banned.
You are welcome to debate, as we say in USAF, flying with pure blue lightning… which doesnt mean using 'blue language,' but rather means to fly with all the expertise in you.
Thanks,
Dr.E
Assistant Editor and Columnist at The Moderate Voice
Dr e.:
well said, and well needed
As we say in the wild blue yonder, if you want to fly with eagles, don't be a turkey
Thanks
Dorian
[...] the original post here: The Right Side of History: Obama Stands Up For “the Courage and … Connect and [...]
Of course Michael is right. Obama is doing what he should be doing. People like jwest who seem more interested in kneejerk partisan yakking aren't thinking about the people of Iran except as a rhetorical device. If irresponsible posturing on the part of the US encouraged more protestors to sacrifice themselves unnecessarily what would that say about the US? Think Hungarian revolution 1956. Be glad we have a prez in office now who can actually think.