Iran So Far Away
Watching the generally tepid response of the White House to the protests and oppression in Iran has been frustrating. Apparently the House of Representatives agrees since they passed a resolution 405 to 1 to support the protestors. I'm glad to see the President is finally making tentative steps toward condemning the crackdown, but it seems like events dragged him along, and he'd rather not have committed.
Now perhaps there's something going on I don't know about--always possible in foreign affairs. Maybe in secret Obama and the State Department have been working with the Mullahs and are making progress, so they feel handcuffed. But it doesn't seem to be that way. President Obama seems to fear the U.S. will be seen as "meddling," and will be blamed by the theocracy and it will work against things. (He also seems like he'd just as soon put foreign affairs on hold and do what he really cares about which is changing domestic policy.)
Well, first, making a statement--even a general one---against oppression is meddling? When people are fighting in the streets? Apparently both parties in the House don't think so.
Second, we've been blamed anyway by the Mullahs for stirring up problems, along with Zionists and whoever else they regularly blame. As long as Iran isn't free, they'll blame us whenever it's convenient and there's not much we can do about it.
In fact, this is what troubles me most. It would seem that Obama isn't just worried that we'll be blamed, but honestly thinks we are blameworthy. He's certainly willing to apologize for America at the drop of a hat. It doesn't simply look like a strategem. He apparently figures we've got a lot to apologize for. (And he also thinks pointing out our own problems to even our most vicious enemies will help us get to them--the "you stone homosexuals to death, we don't allow them to be married, so we both could improve" sort of thing. But what happens when your target is not impressed by your own weakness, and, in fact, will only see it as an opportunity to demand you do more to prove you're sorry? Furthermore, this enemy already blames you for everything going wrong, even though you have at best limited control over them. After all, it's not always about America. In fact, it usually isn't about America.)
Finally, the whole thing is odd. It seems almost as if Obama, following his promises as a candidate, insists on being "different" (and especially "different from Bush"). Here's the guy who was gonna talk to people, no matter what. They could do anything, be as repressive as they want--he wouldn't let any preconditions get in the way of dialogue. What this means is our enemies can feel comfortable, since they know Obama will always reach out. The way it works, the only countries Obama seems to make serious demands on are our allies.
Think about it. No matter what happened in the Iranian election, no matter what the real vote was (it's a joke anyway since only pre-approved candidates can run), Obama appeared afraid to say too much, because he'd rather let things settle, and (I'm guessing) expects the mullahs will eventually take over and we'll end up with Ahmadinejad still in charge. I don't deny the side with the guns usually wins, but what will this caution get us? It ends up meaning we won't overly criticize their oppressive ways so when we meet with them again, we can criticize their oppressive ways.
You can talk to enemies and still criticize them in general. They might actually listen to you more if you do it that way.
Instead we've had all this happy talk about their rigged election beforehand, and afterward (in a series of differing responses) even what sounded like excuses about how there's not that much difference between Ahmadinejad and Mousavi. (Allegedly some of the dissidents are quite unhappy with this statement, since they're putting their lives on the line based on this difference.) Hey, we get Mousavi is far from perfect, and that the Iranian citizens agitating for freedom have lots of differences with us. That's how it goes. The point is one side clearly wants greater freedom, and the other wishes to extinguish it. If we can't take a simple stand on this, does that mean we'll stand for anything? Is stability (assuming we can get it) so important in our foreign policy now that it trumps supporting democracy and human rights?
By the way, whatever happened to all those people who said Ahmadinejad is just a figurehead? If he were, why does it seem so important for the mullahs that he remain in power?
posted by LAGuy @ 12:16 AM
3 Comments:
1. The Moussavi supporters while outraged about being lied to by the regime and clear improvements on the current power are still fervent anti-Americans- any rahs rahs from the US would probably push the fence sitters to back the government. Moussavi can only win with a mass outpouring across societal divisions.
2. The endgame here is not domestic political poll bumps but meaningful change--a nuclear-armed Iran under Moussavi is only a little better than a nuclear-aremd Iran under Ahmadinjihad. A point made by notorious softy B. Netanyahu on Sunday morning.
3. Over ambitious meddling by the Amercian govt in Iran has ultimately resulted in the current hateful regime.
Obama's position is not an emotionally easy one nor one that it is easy to clearly about in public. It may work, it may not but it is far from crazy
1 and 2 are part of my argument.
3 isn't really true, unless you mean we meddled in 1953 and in 1979 in favor of what the religious nuts wanted. In truth, what has happened in Iran is because of what the citizens did there with a minimum of meddling from the outside. The main "meddling" the world has done is pass numerous resolutions (of the kind the Obama strategy would support) against the state, all of which have been ignored.
They've meddled in our affairs quite a bit by sponsoring terrorists around the world for decades who have killed a lot of our civilians, and sending in thugs to Iraq to kill our soldiers and quite a few Iraqis as well because they're fearful of a democracy across their border. They've also sponsored numerous terrorists around the world who have attacked practicaly everyone, including fellow Muslims. So pardon me if I don't feel too concerned about meddling in their business.
As far as their nuclear program, Obama is doing exactly what they want. They know all he'll do is talk, and never under any circumstances act. He even made a point of saying they have every right to try to get nuclear power, which is odd because he doesn't support nuclear power in the U.S. Iran will continue to work apace toward a nuclear weapon and once they get it they'll be in the driver's seat. If you think it's unimaginable that religious nuts could ever use it, then you haven't been paying attention. I'd rather have "meddled" by taking it out and worrying about how the Iranians feel about it later than try to reach out to them while giving them a sub rosa green light to do whatever they want.
Post a Comment
<< Home