Iraq is proving to be amazingly resilient, not only functioning as a democracy, but by withstanding the best efforts of Iran to kill it off, proving destabilizing to Iran itself.
By removing Saddam, and trying to isolate Ahmadinejad and appeal to the Iranian people, Bush at least tried to prep the landscape for democratic change.
In contrast, Obama’s past siren calls to quit Iraq, the “optional” war, his snubbing of Maliki, his ahistorical efforts to charm the Islamic Street, and apologies to theocratic Iran while lavishing attention on Ahmadinejad put him on the wrong side of history.
If Obama were wise, he would get out pronto a statement condemning the anti-democratic violence of the Iranian government, and suggesting it follow the Iraq example of free and internationally inspected elections.
At some point, one should see that moral equivalence and multicultural non-judgementalism, however catchy for the moment, are as stupid as they are amoral, and will put the U.S in a foolish, “make it up as we go along” position.
“One” should see that, but they never do. And Obama clearly isn’t wise, and his non-stop criticism of establishing a democracy in Iraq, which got him the nomination last year, puts him in an awkward moral position to now point to it as a beacon of true hope and change in the Middle East. But that’s what the nation voted for.
[Update a few minutes later]
Obama, then and now:
In 2008 he sounded serious and committed to stopping the Iranian nuclear threat and was candid about the nature of the regime. In Cairo, all that was gone. Nary a direct word of criticism of the Iranian regime (Holocaust denial was never tied to the Iranians and was covered in a separate section of his address). In 2008 he was telling Iran it would have no nuclear capability; in 2009 he was declaring no country could tell Iran it couldn’t have a nuclear capability. A complete reversal in tone and substance.
It’s almost like he’ll say anything to get into power, after which his true agenda becomes clear.
And in this case, of course, the Jews who voted for him were the rubes (as are the astounding number of Jews who continue to vote for Democrats in general).
[Update a couple minutse later]
“Hope and change” for me, but not for thee. At least if thee is Iranian. Yes, this administration will probably cheerfully sell out the Iranian people for a “deal” with the mullahs. Which will be useless for both us and the Iranian people, but it will make the diplomats happy.
[Update a few minutes later]
Who did you vote for, Marty? I’d like to know, too.
Although, if Obama comes down too hard on the side of the demonstrators, Iranian TV will be quick to brand the demonstrators as “American dupes.”
We’ve painted ourselves into a corner here – not much for it but to wait for the paint to dry.
Iranian TV will be quick to brand the demonstrators as “American dupes.”
And…?
Do you think that the Iranian people believe what’s on Iranian TV? They’re not stupid.
Do you think that the Iranian people believe what’s on Iranian TV?
Some of them.
There are three groups of people in Iran – people who strongly support the current regime, people who strongly don’t, and people who have weak opinions one way or the other. The dissidents’ goal is to get all the “weak” on their side, and create as large a majority as possible. Providing ammunition to the supporters of the regime would be not helpful.
It’s the same general tactic followed by Petreaus in Iraq, and Coalition Building 101.
I am starting to smell kabuki
What if the Ayatollahs put Ahmadinejad out to pasture (or worse) and embrace Mousavi as the true winner of the election? The face of the “new” Iran will be Mousavi, Khatami and perhaps even a different head Ayatollah.
How different will it truly be? And how eager should various Western factions be with regard to claiming “credit” ??
If the Ayatollahs put Ahmadinejad out to pasture (or worse) the need for the West to engage Iran shall be amplified, and praising George W. Bush for making this possible only increases that pressure.
Therefore, perhaps people like Victor Hansen Davis need to return to the theme that Mousavi is merely Ahmadinejad with friendlier face and that supporters who wave green flags and wear Calvin Klein briefs are merely for show.
As I believe that engagement with Iran is the appropriate road forward – to best secure both the US and Israel – today’s breaking events are welcome news even if we are well advised to be wary of the crafty Persians, who routinely do “psy ops” far better than we can.
= = =
Why engage Iran? Because we need to keep our friends close and our enemies closer.
PS — a question . . .
If the election results are reversed and Mousavi is named President, should the US President meet with him?
Would it matter whether it were POTUS Obama or POTUS McCain?
If the election results are reversed and Mousavi is named President, should the US President meet with him?
It depends on his behavior.
Or, According to an actual Iranian in Iran, the administration’s silence helps the cause.
Per the post, “protesters are actually worried that Obama will make an explicit show of support, as that would restore some credibility to what the government has said about the election and, more importantly, could undermine a reform coalition in which some factions are none-too-fond of America.” (emphasis mine.)
Think of it this way, Rand. You don’t like a US politician, but his opponent is explicitly endorsed by say, Hamas. Would Hamas’ endorsement make you more or less likely to suck it up and live with the politician you dislike?
You don’t like a US politician, but his opponent is explicitly endorsed by say, Hamas.
Are you being deliberately obtuse?
No one is asking the president to endorse anyone. We are asking the president to denounce the election fraud and brutal crackdown against the protesters, to point out the brutality of the mullahs, and to offer support for the Iranian people against their brutal government. We are asking him to do more than “vote present.”
Oh, and I’m sure that that particular “actual Iranian in Iran” speaks for everyone in the streets. Right.
What do you want to bet that I could find an “actual Iranian in Iran” who disagrees?
offer support for the the Iranian people against their brutal government. Which can only be interpreted to mean endorsing the opposition.
What do you want to bet that I could find an “actual Iranian in Iran” who disagrees? $20, paid to the charity of the winner’s choice.
$20, paid to the charity of the winner’s choice.
Are you serious? Not that I’d bother for twenty bucks to charity, but do you really believe that the single Iranian you quoted represents every single other Iranian, and that no other opinion could be found?
Right. Because everyone knows that all persons who claim the same ethnic heritage in the same geographic bounds will have all the exact same mental features, opinions, emotions, and all the other minutiae of existence. There is no dissent, particularly in autocracies – it would be unpatriotic, or something.
How is it possible that the biens-pensant fail to recognize stereotyping bigotry when they encounter it coming from themselves?
[edit: should’ve known Rand’d have something pithier, faster]
Which can only be interpreted to mean endorsing the opposition.
Which is not “endorsing a candidate,” so your example is nonsensical.
Rand – yes I am serious. Although I am sure that some Iranians somewhere want a stronger US stand, I suspect that you’ll have a very difficult time finding somebody “public” (like “posting on the Internet” public) looking for US “assistance.” The leadership and the majority of Iranians don’t want our help, at least not yet.
Also – do you really want to quibble on the difference between endorsing the opposition party and endorsing that party’s candidate for President?
…do you really want to quibble on the difference between endorsing the opposition party and endorsing that party’s candidate for President?
This is not a “quibble.” It is discussing a completely different concept. There were multiple alternate parties.
Pointing out that the election process was fraudulent, and that killing people in the streets who are protesting it is an atrocity and in opposition to the lying claims of a free election in Iran, is not endorsing any particular party or candidate.
Why do you have such a problem with this notion? As I asked previously, are you being completely obtuse?
And since Obama has (finally) actually come out with a tepid response along the lines I suggest, you seem to be out of synch with the party line.
You might want to ask yourself why it’s so important to be consonant with the party line.
When someone tells me supporting those who oppose tyranny is a bad idea, the term “pragmatist” assumes a derogatory meaning.
Rand – I am not following a party line. I am pointing out that the more we interject ourselves in the Iranian election, the more likely we are to help the very people we don’t want to help.
I suppose it’s possible to parse “opposition parties” and “opposition leaders” but this election, like ours, seems to be primarily a two-party race. It’s hard to argue against one party in such a race without seeming to endorse the other party. Especially if you factor any signal loss due to translation errors or other factors.
Amazingly, I too come down on the side of “Obama’s silence helps rather than hurts,” but only because what we’ve seen of Obama in the last five months persuades me that if he tried to do anything he’d only screw it up.
…if he tried to do anything he’d only screw it up.
Based on his milquetoast comments yesterday, you might be right. I was complaining about what a strong president who cares about freedom and democracy would do, not what Barack Obama should do.
> Rand – I am not following a party line.
Hmm.
Remind me – when was the last time that Gerrib said that Obama’s opponents were more correct on some issue.
Perhaps Gerrib will explain how much his position varies from the party line. Sure, he hasn’t gushed about the first lady’s briliance and beauty, but ….