Obama stands on the wrong side of history
ByAmericans agree that President Obama should be tough on Iran. Democrats and Republicans alike. So why does Obama draw a hard line with Israel, while playing soft ball with Iran and North Korea and turning his back on the Iranian people? In the Wall Street Journal Bret Stephens contends that Obama’s foreign policy has been thoroughly repudiated by events.
Here’s a recent comment from one Iranian demonstrator posted on the Web site of the National Iranian American Council. “WE NEED HELP, WE NEED SUPPORT,” this demonstrator wrote. “Time is not on our side. . . . The most essential need of young Iranians is to be recognized by US government. They need them not to accept the results and do not talk to government as an official, approved one.”
Someday a future president may have to apologize to Iranians for Mr. Obama’s nonfeasance, just as Mr. Obama apologized for the Eisenhower administration’s meddling. But the better Eisenhower parallel is with Hungary in 1956. Then as now a popular uprising coalesced around a figure (Imre Nagy in Hungary; Mir Hossein Mousavi in Iran), who had once been a creature of the system. Then as now it was buoyed by inspiring American rhetoric about freedom and democracy coming over Voice of America airwaves.
And then as now the administration effectively turned its back on the uprising when U.S. support could have made a difference. Hungary would spend the next 33 years in the Soviet embrace. One senses a similar fate for Iran, where Mr. Ahmadinejad’s “victory” signals the ultimate ascendancy of the ultra-militants in the Revolutionary Guards Corps and the paramilitary Basij, intent on getting what they want and doing as they please even in defiance of their old clerical masters. Which means: Get ready for a second installment of the Iranian cultural revolution. Mr. Ahmadinejad signaled as much when he promised to go after the corrupt elements of the old regime, particularly the circle around former president Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, who openly opposed the incumbent prior to Friday’s poll.
For more on the situation in Iran go here. A grisly and disturbing video of the murder of an Iranian college student can be found here. Mike Pence submitted a resolution expressing support for “all Iranian citizens who struggle for freedom, human rights, civil liberties and the protection of the rule of law.” The text of the resolution can be read here.
Popularity: 5% [?]
He is wrong about a lot of things.
Could I get an answer on this? I’m not just making a liberal point.
If just throwing some harsh words at Iran will only undermine the impression of independent protest from Mousavi supporters,
why do it?
The conservative government will just say “look, the US supports the protests, they’re trying to undermine our sovereignty. Mousavi is just a US puppet, the protest isn’t about justice, it’s about helping the US subvert our security”.
Mousavi supporters are a minority anyway. If the US won’t back it up with iron muscle, words will just endanger that minority further.
Why throw pebbles if it will only hurt the ones you want to help?
Or is it that there is no downside. No risk. Words of support are just that and only help?
Please answer.
And yes, I am very aware of how brutal the conservative regime has already been and that they’ve already tried to pretend it’s all an illegitimate protest backed by US influence.
But to then just really DO what the the iranian regime is already accusing the US of having done, wouldn’t that make it much much worse? Give the final clear “proof” the regime wanted to unleash more massive repression?
Whatever happens now, the liberalization movement in Iran comes out on top, for how the regime has disgraced itself to its own voters. Not today, but the hatred of the regime has been instilled like never before.
It is their country and I think giving the regime any crumb to use to falsely justify what they’ve done helps Ahmadinejad and hurts opponents.
Let me just say that I reject your premise that it is a ‘conservative’ government. Therefore I cannot debate you.
Okay, let’s call it “repressive”. Or “islamist”.
I certainly don’t mean “conservative” as in “american conservative”.
So you have misinterpreted a word I used and misidentified a premise.
Now would you please just answer my question?
You’re almost confirming that indeed, you think there is a huge risk to just throwing words of support without putting iron muscle behind them.
I can respect that you would at least think the risk is worth the potential benefit.
But are you admitting there’s a risk you’re embarrassed to acknowledge? Or are you saying there is no risk period?
I seriously have no intention of being some snippy liberal trying to “tweak” conservatives. I respect and sympathize with all concerns for democracy.
And I’m not trying to defend Obama, of whom I’m no fan. I just see what I see from all sources about Iran today and I hear liberals saying, “what’s happening is bad but Obama’s response is perfect” (by the way they thought his saying nothing was perfect. Then when he made an official announcement a few hours ago, they thought that was perfect too. silly).
And then I hear conservatives saying that something provocative should be done.
I suspect liberals are just irresponsibly defending Obama like clones but I also suspect conservatives are attacking Obama without fully presenting their analysis. Which could also be irresponsible.
I’m just curious.
But thank you for answering anyway, earlier. I’ll check back later nevertheless.
And I mean it could be irresponsible toward iranian opposition, not irresponsible to criticize Obama. Who could sure use some serious criticism given the vacuous celeb love fest he has with most media.
I know I sound like I’m trying to seem like a “non democrat, non obama fanatic” but that’s just how it comes out. What else can I say?
When are we ever going to learn?
Just go back to Carter 1.979 to see what his meddling has brought down upon us. This guy has meddled continuously in every Administration since he got the boot. With very few, if any at all, positive results towards his credit. And he still does so even today as you sip on your lattes while reading the blogs. Now 30 years later, we have Carter 2.009 and the masses want another chance at repeating the same blundering errors. Like yourself there Gene, I am not a “change they can believe in” supporter. Especially when the “change” they are talking about is becoming schooled or being funded by the Saul Alinsky & George Soros types. At this point, what more can the Administration do than just being vocal with condemnations? When are we ever going to learn?
I don’t agree with the president conferring legitimacy on the Iranian regime. To him, these protests are nothing more than an inconvenience….getting in the way of his agenda. He seems to believe that he can sit down with the Iranian regime and bring about change, just because he is who he is. And with all of the money the man is spending….$100 Billion to the IMF, money for overseas abortions….why did he end the aid to the Iranians seeking freedom?
And as far as meddling goes, they accused the US of meddling when he remained silent.
I’d love to get into a lengthy debate but I just don’t have the time.
Thanks for taking the time to leave your comment and have a great day, Gene.