I’m going to do something here that I don’t expect to do very often: defend President Obama’s policies on something.
Mostly from the right (Patterico notes that President Obama took his daughters for ice cream while Iranian protesters were being shot), the President is being criticized for not doing enough. Donald Douglas has been all over the issue on his site. Our friends on the left want him to do more, too, though due to their loyalty to President Not-Bush, they are more circumspect.
But President Obama’s staying mostly quiet about the situation in Iran is the right thing to do. He’s trying to walk the tightrope between expressing sympathy for protesters who have been stomped in the streets and not expressing a preference for the either defeated or robbed presidential candidate, Mir-Hossein Mousavi.
Mr Mousavi is an attractive candidate for one reason, and one reason only: he’s not Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Like Mr Obama, who ran on “hope” and “change,” Mr Mousavi ran as a reformer. But it should be remembered that Mr Mousavi was Iran’s prime minister for almost eight years, until the position was abolished, the longest tenure anyone had as prime minister since the Islamic revolution. For the vast majority of that time, the “supreme leader” of Iran was the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khoumeini. He was on the Islamic Revolutionary Council throughout the hostage crisis, and was an opponent of then President Abolhassan Banisadr, who was (indirectly) negotiating with President Jimmy Carter for release of our captive people. He seems preferable to President Ahmadinejad in that he hasn’t made the same kind of anti-Semitic, fanatic statements as the current Iranian president, but being President Not-Ahmadinejad doesn’t mean that things would be significantly better either in Iran or for the rest of the world in dealing with Iran.
In one sense, he could be worse than Mr Ahmadinejad. The current president of Iran is the Devil We Know, the Devil the World Knows, and a man about whom even the most liberal of Westerners have a sense of caution. Being a Holocaust denier and saying aloud that Israel should not exist pushes people beyond the Pale among Westerners, even those who don’t particularly support Israeli foreign policy. If he is replaced by Mr Mousavi, much of that wariness may fade, as he becomes President Not-Ahmadinejad, regardless of whether Iranian foreign policy actually changes. If Mr Mousavi soothes Western worries without actually changing Iranian policies, that would be a negative, not a net gain. Foir example, we like to blame Mr Ahmadinejad for Iran’s nuclear program — almost certainly a nuclear weapons program — but he could not pursue that program without the approval of “supreme leader,” the Grand Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.
Would Mr Mousavi change things much were he to seize power? If he simply replaces President Ahmadinejad, but the cleric-run theocratic powers retain the ultimate authority, it’s difficult to hope for much in the way of change — words deliberately chosen — regardless of Mr Mousavi running as a “reformer.” And if these riots depose the mullahs at the top, giving Mr Mousavi dictatorial power, it’s still difficult to see a lot of improvement: he was as much of a hard-liner as anyone else in the past.
As much as I hate to say it, President Obama’s response has been just about right. I don’t know if he would like to see Mr Mousavi win power in all of this or not, but expressing support for him only strengthens President Ahmadinejad, who already claims that the United States is interfering with the internal affairs of Iran and that Mr Mousavi is Washington’s favored candidate. Not only would overt support from President Obama harm Mr Mousavi’s chances, but if he had such support and won anyway, his more probable reaction, once in power, would be to employ policies which would be more harmful to our interests than would be the case in the event of our neutrality, because he’d need to prove he wasn’t our puppet.
You know, we’d really, really like to see a change in the government in Iran. Then again, most Americans really, really wanted to see a change in the government in Iran in 1978, when the Shah ruled as an autocrat and his political will was brutally enforced by SAVAK. We got our wish in that, with no little help from our 39th President greasing the skids for Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. And we can see just how well that worked out for us.
It has been said that when your enemy is busy destroying himself, you should get out of the way and let him proceed. Regardless of who wins in Iran, Iran will be weakened. If Mr Mousavi wins, especially in a way which brings down the mullahs, he’ll have to spend a great deal of effort consolidating his power. If Mr Ahmadinejad wins, he’ll have a more restive, more resentful population with which to deal, and the clerics who have the top power will be weakened as well. More, the Islamists outside of Iran will be weakened; they have a stake in this, and in the victory of Iranian theocracy. I don’t have a problem with private citizens expressing their opinions, and, in one way, we might even be helping to prolong the strife. But as for our government, I’d say that our not getting in the way of the Iranian self-immolation is, if not a good thing, still the wisest thing we can do.
Should President Obama spend his life in a bunker whenever there is something approaching a crisis in the world? Acting calmly is not the same as being blase.
As for the late Shah, SAVAK went after some real enemies and his restoration to power was a boon to Iran and the West. M. Mossadegh and his Ayatollah buddy wanted to turn the clock back over a dozen centuries.
Under the Shah, rape victims were not being hanged.
Lead, Follow, or get out of the way. What is he leading by silence? We need the mad mullahs silenced. No leading, therefore no silence on the mullahs. What is he doing following a path that is following no leader? Nothing! Has he gotten out of the way? Yes he did and is lost for a response.
But would President Obama “leading” anything silence the mullahs, or strengthen their hand?
This will be resolved, one way or the other, internally in Iran. There is a ground-up revolution starting, which will or will not succeed. It seems to me that officially siding with Mr Mousavi actually strengthens President Ahmadinejad and the mullahs, rather than helping the revolutionaries.
We have a long history of interfering in the internal affairs of Iran, and that’s been drummed into the heads of the Iranian people for a long time. If we are seen as interfering again, it will simply strengthen the hands of those against whom we are seen as interfering.
Now, if we actually had the power to change things, to make them run our way, my position would be different. But we really have no power there.
Iranian state media has already been blaming the United States, and the Western world for instigating the protests and being behind anti-government attacks. Dana is right, we have no power to actually do anything in Iran. Direct rhetoric in support of Mousavi will only hurt Mousavi, and in fact probably will further endanger his life, and will also endanger the lives of those protesting Ahmadinejad, and will overall hurt the protest movement.
Our response has been correct. We need to call for the safety of those protesting and condemn violence.
Dana Pico:
But would President Obama “leading” anything silence the mullahs, or strengthen their hand?
I think if the people of Iran were not seeking something of support from the USA, why would they have bothered to put their protest signs in English? How can anyone read BO’s mind? Silence is support of the status quo. And it’s been reported out for a few years now the the everyday person in Iran is not happy with the repression of the secret police and the religious police.
Also this is a great object lesson of the value of the second amendment when the people have rocks for weapons, but so did David.
And some of the video today shows a mob chasing the police down the street by throwing rocks at them. Standing by is not an answer, it is acquiesence. WWRD.
Mousavi got nuke technology from AQ Khan in Pakistan. He is not a good guy, just a different one.
Maybe this is bigger than the vote itself?? Are the people tired of a puppet regime of a theocracy? Would the mad mullahs have the same control on Mousavi than on A-dad?
Yorkie – the signs are in English because everyone in Iran speaks English. Students are required to take it. And in a country where not everyone speaks the main language (Persian), English is often the best bet to get your message across. If you look at the Tehran pics, a lot of the street signs and shop signs are in English too…
But Dana’s right – we have no cards to play here. We don’t have diplomatic ties with Iran, we don’t have any real leverage over the Iranian leaders, so there’s nothing to be gained by “supporting” the protestors, whatever that means. On the other hand, there’s plenty to be lost – the protest movement loses legitimacy if we give the mullahs anything that can be used as “proof” that Washington’s behind this whole thing.
There’s the response that feels good, and there’s the smart thing to do. Obama’s doing the smart thing. I understand the impulse to do what feels good, but in this case it must be resisted.
I believe that there is a simpler reason as to why some of their signs are in English. They may be Iranians whose first language is English, and not Farsi. Also, and more likely, they want people in the West to be able to read the signs when pictures or videos are shown of the protest.
And Obama has not been silent. He has called on Iran to respect the safety of the Opposition and of the rights of the people’s voices to be heard. Obama, and the United also have not legitimized Ahmadinejad’s so-called, re-election. They have not recognized it.
And Mousavi is open to talks and dialogues with the West, something Ahmadinejad is not open to doing.
If there is to be a revolution, the people of Iran must enact it themselves. Direct involvement of the United States would give the Iranian government an excuse to become more violent in dealing with the protesters. I’d say that stronger rhetoric,which would be viewed as encouraging violence against the Iranian government by Ahmadinejad, would also give excuse for a much harsher crackdown.
We have a long history of interfering in the internal affairs of Iran
Yes, but having our president one week ago make a stand in support of anyone fighting for freedom and to have their vote count is not the same as interfering in the internal affairs of Iran, is it? Where do you draw the line? France and Germany spoke in support from the get-go while our own president, leader of the free world, checked which way the wind blew. It was inevitable we would be blamed for all of it, we would be the instigators, the enablers and be labeled the greatest enemy of Iran next to Israel, so what difference would it have made to have our president make a brief, thoughtful, and very measured yet unwavering statement of support? Before the breakout of violence, not after.
I would suggest that one who waits to gauge his response by the actions and agendas of other nations and leaders is not leading; and perhaps even, is not a real leader in the true sense of the word.
The President has made it clear that he supports the rights of the Iranian people to protest their government and not be crackdown upon. The United Sates openly supporting Mousavi, will not help at all. That would probably kill Mousavi’s political career, and assuming he managed to oust Ahmadinejad and become President, I suspect that would kill any legitimacy his presidency would have with the Supreme Leader and the Clerics.
If the United States gets directly involved, then the situation becomes Ahmadinehjad/Iranian government versus The United States, when the situation should be Ahmadinejad/Iranian government, against the Iranian people who are seeking democracy. Direct involvement will undermine their cause. Mousavi and the other opposition leaders need to call the shots themselves and move forward with their plans, not with the rhetoric of the USA.
For those calling on Obama and the USA to get more involved, what exactly do you want him to say/do?
Lead, Follow, or get out of the way. What is he leading by silence? We need the mad mullahs silenced. No leading, therefore no silence on the mullahs. What is he doing following a path that is following no leader? Nothing! Has he gotten out of the way? Yes he did and is lost for a response.
Uh-huh:
I must congratulate the many commenters on this blog for so well articulating support for President Obama’s response to the crisis in Iran, and characterizing those opposed, the still free-wheeling and clueless neocons.
It will remain for historians to analyze and decide later, but my feeling is that his Cairo speech, followed up by his carefully worded public comments up to now, have energized Muslims into a ‘change’ frame of mind, as we have also seen in the results of the recent election in Lebanon.
One more point though, which is to recognize the bravery of the Iranians in their streets, to be willing to stand up for the principles in which they believe. Even if Ahmadinejad remains in power, there has been a seismic change in Iran that will be playing out in the future, and which just might also strengthen our strategic interests and those of Israel as well. I find it quite noteworthy that Benjamin Netanyahu has endorsed the Obama approach too!
I’d hardly call Krauthammer “discredited” …
I suspect the Iranian government learned a thing or two from the way China handled the Tianamnen Square massacre, namely, crush the opposition, then clamp down on all media coverage until the world eventually “forgets” about it.
Then, in a decade or so, Tehran can bid for the next Olympic Games!
I think the point York and others are making is that Obama can choose to follow the lead of one of several of his predecessors. He can be a wimp like Carter (or Bush I vis a vis the aforementioned Tianamnen Square massacre) or a man like Reagan. Reagan didn’t effect change overnight, indeed, the Soviets succeeded in squashing Solidarity in Poland under his watch. But, allied with other world leaders, most notably Thatcher in England and the new pope, JP II, he consistently set a pro-freedom tone that eventually paid off.
Obama needs to do the same.
I’d hardly call Lugar “Prominent”. Last time he ran for president, he got about as much support as Bob Dornan and probably less than Alan Keyes.
As for Kissinger, he’s the guy who signed a “deal” that ended in selling South Vietnam down the river. I’d trust his judgment on these matters about as far as I’d trust a cobra …
Whew! Thank God I agree with Dana Pico, The Dear Leader and the noteworthy Netanyahu on this one lest I be labeled free-wheeling and clueless or motley and discredited. Can’t have an honest disagreement after all. If you disagree with the left you have to have an evil motive or be just plain stupid.
Eric, one point from the many that you do not understand, is: Were Obama to come out strongly in favor of the Ahmadinejad opposition, what would we do if this pushes them to bold insurrection, in which case there would be widespread slaughter and bloodshed? So yes, what are we prepared to do? Invade Iran in support of these people? Right, like we did in Hungary when they revolted at our instigation!
Obama is the smart one; you neocons remain clueless, and dangerous!
Part of the problem is that it just feels wrong to sit on the sidelines and do nothing while there is bloodshed in Iran. And if there was some action we could take which would make things better, I’d like to see us take it.
But I just can’t see any action we could take or are prepared to take — we could nuke Qom and end the clerics in power, but are we prepared to do that? — that would do anything positive.
Having President Obama come out strongly on this issue would make us feel good, make us feel better about ourselves. But I can’t see where that would acomplish anything positive, regardless of which side wins in Iran.
The elder President Bush encouraged the Kurds to revolt against Saddam Hussein in 1991, but wasn’t prepared to actually help them. He thought, and his advisers told him, that after Iraq’s quick defeat in the first Gulf War, the Ba’ath Party regime couldn’t survive a revolution. That was a bad guess, but we weren’t willing to do a damned thing about it when Chemical Ali gassed the Kurds, and the Republican Guards managed to slaughter about 100,000 of them.
And Americans expressed support for the Hungarians in 1956 and the Czechs in 1968, but were unwilling or unable to actually do anything about it. The younger President Bush was actually willing to put American troops and American treasure on the line to end tyranny and install democracy in Iraq, and was vilified for doing it.
We expect our presidents to lead, and some are vilifying President Obama for not doing so, but there is really no place to which he can lead us that would be productive here.
Perry:
Eric, one point from the many that you do not understand, is:
See, Eric? Perry will educate you since you’re stupid and just don’t understand.
Plus:
“Obama is the smart one; you neocons remain clueless, and dangerous!”
Congratulations, now you have graduated to “dangerous.” Now since you don’t agree you are a threat to the State. I see Gitmo in your future.
Of course! The Left is, after all, all-knowing and all-caring (eye roll )
Sen. Dick Lugar is the Chairman and ranking member of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations. So yes, he is quite prominent in terms of foreign policy.
JohnC and Eric, instead of answering the questions I raised, you divert into a defensive crouch.
On the other hand, Dana stepped up. Dana said he is not pleased to defend Obama’s position on this Iran issue, but can see no other way, and explains why.
I respect him for that, while continuing to disrespect the neocon aggressors here, especially the ones that don’t even bother to explain themselves!
Newsweak has put a good view of things in Iran:
http://www.newsweek.com/id/202979
Jeff:
Yorkie – the signs are in English because everyone in Iran speaks English. Students are required to take it. And in a country where not everyone speaks the main language (Persian), English is often the best bet to get your message across. If you look at the Tehran pics, a lot of the street signs and shop signs are in English too…
I know they speak English as does most of the educated world does. But they are not putting up English signs for domestic consumption, it is for world wide messaging. The mad mullahs pulled a fast one here and the people are calling them on it. You just do not cast that many paper ballots and have a final count in hours. The people knew it, and called them on it.
BO at least can say something about fair elections. I’m not advocating attacks or anything of the sort, but I think the president can at least tell the people of Iran, that like the USA, they expect elections to be open and above board.
On a site called Photopoints many Iranians post photos. One person in particular’s pictures always seem to cast a dark side of life in Iran. Very interesting.
No, we just point out that, when faced with any opposition, you typically respond with sneers and name calling.
Personally, I don’t need or want your “respect”. Your general snideness and pomposity make even Pho look like Miss Manners!
Perry, I agree with Obamas position here. I just do not think that someone who dosen’t is an apostate. We need to have open, respectful discussion on all issues. By the way, I for one am no neocon.
I have utter contempt for idiots who use the word ‘neocon’ without knowing its meaning.
Such people tend to be ‘pseudo-activists’ who like to play ‘mouse potato’ but seldom even get close to even the periphery of activism.
How many of these ‘angry poseurs’ can define the term that they hurl about so gratuitously?
Thanks to their lack of verbal skills, the word has lost its impact in a style reminiscent of a phrase that is a common-place accusation of oedipal misconduct.
I have utter contempt for idiots who use the word ‘neocon’ without knowing its meaning.
I’m sure we’ll be able to survive the emotional scarring.
Art Downs, Semantics Cop! ROFL.
Has it ever occurred to you, Art, that you can be quite active in politics yet still be a complete stranger to reason?