Obama's realism on Iran

Larison is wrong. One does not need to be a 'demagogue' to express hope and solidarity with the people in the streets demanding that their votes be counted. Why can't he at least do that? This entire situation is about the legiotimacy of the government which we don't have to question - the Iranians are doing it. Robert Kagan in the Washington Post: "The worst thing is that this [Obama's] approach will probably not prevent the Iranians from getting a nuclear weapon. But this is what "realism" is all about. It is what sent Brent Scowcroft to raise a champagne toast to China's leaders in the wake of Tiananmen Square. It is what convinced Gerald Ford not to meet with Alexander Solzhenitsyn at the height of detente. Republicans have traditionally been better at it than Democrats — though they have rarely been rewarded by the American people at the ballot box, as Ford and George H.W. Bush can attest. We'll see whether President Obama can be just as cold-blooded in pursuit of better relations with an ugly regime, without suffering the same political fate."

I don't want any part of that, thanks.

Starrs,

I think the US can say some things, but needs to remain low key. While it is true that we are being blamed for fomenting revolution in Iran, no one there takes it seriously. If we become publicly active in supporting the protestors, we may undermine their efforts. Our reputation in Iran is bad enough that the best thing we can do is stay out of it.

Remember that Reagan did far more to destroy our reputation with the Iranians, by sponsoring Saddam's war against Iran, than anything that Eisenhower or Carter did. We have done nothing since then to redeem ourselves in their eyes. As far as Iran is concerned, we are not trustworthy.

Obama's reaction is certainly better than what we would have seen with McCain. That said, I tend to agree that Obama could make more of a positive statement than he has. It's a tough call, and it's better to err on the side of caution, but you can be rhetorically tough on a regime and still do business with them. Reagan did it all the time. At the same time he was calling the Soviet Union an "evil empire" we saw visits from Gromyko.

Another point is that, besides Obama's silence - he is simply more difficult to leverage as an enemy of the regime. I know identity politics is a touchy subject but there is something about a black man named Barack Hussein Obama that makes claims of the great satan sound silly.

The claim can be made that he is formenting revolution in Iran, but it would fall on deaf ears. There is an emotional component to fear that is directly proportional to how different we percieve our opponents to be. That Americans voted for a man named Hussein was as powerful a myth buster for them as the images of men and women in jeans demanding their voice be heard is for us.

I do hope that whatever the outcome, the memory of these young men and women remain vivid as a reminder of the human complexity we'd like to fit into nice little boxes of marked friend or foe.

I agree, this is a fine example of measured statesmanship.

Further, the President left some of the more positive statements to come from his Secretary of State, who said that the Iranian people should be allowed to have their voices heard peacefully and that this should be the result of any election.

I'm sure there are many other machinations going on behind the scenes. The link about asking Twitter to delay its maintenance is a great example and one I hadn't heard of till today.

The last thing we need to be doing as a country right now is trying to manipulate the outcome in Iran to try to install a regime we think would be more friendly to us. That is always an enormous temptation for any administration in any country, and it has never once worked in the long term. Iran is the corrupt, reactionary Islamo-fascist regime it is today precisely because of our heavy-handed manipulation decades ago. Saddam was our best buddy for decades. The Taliban are the "moderates" that we courted and supplied with anti-aircraft missles 20 years ago. In much of Latin America, centuries of our interference has created such a visceral hatred for America that they will tolerate any dictator who promises to fight our agendas. Making Mousavi appear to be "Washington's boy" will do in his revolution faster than Iran's secret police ever could. The Iranians are young, highly educated and tired of business as usual. They will get it sorted out in their own way and time. The last thing we need to be doing as a country right now is trying to manipulate the outcome in Iran to try to install a regime we think would be more friendly to us. That is always an enormous temptation for any administration in any country, and it has never once worked in the long term.

Iran is the corrupt, reactionary Islamo-fascist regime it is today precisely because of our heavy-handed manipulation decades ago. Saddam was our best buddy for decades. The Taliban are the "moderates" that we courted and supplied with anti-aircraft missles 20 years ago. In much of Latin America, centuries of our interference has created such a visceral hatred for America that they will tolerate any dictator who promises to fight our agendas.

Making Mousavi appear to be "Washington's boy" will do in his revolution faster than Iran's secret police ever could. The Iranians are young, highly educated and tired of business as usual. They will get it sorted out in their own way and time.

Excellent points, Rod. I too have been annoyed by the "amen corner's" criticisms of Obama and the State Dept.'s response. Sometimes prudent silence is the right approach.

Obama really cannot do anything. And in fairness though, so what? What can anyone do or say that will susbtantively change these crazy fruitcakes? And I'm at a loss why any American cares. I don't care who deals the cards in the asylum as long as we aren't playing.Either way Iran will be governed by an American-hating crazy.

You guys are missing the point-I don't care about these people any more. Suspect more and more Americans are also coming to the conclusion that talking with these people is pointless. Imadinthehead and his opponent are both certified whack job America-hating loons. The women aren't throwing off the burkas or hijabs. There seems to be a lot of wishful thinking that this will be some great Westrernizing revolution on the conservative side that has no basis at all.

What would be different would be ANY president who looked at this, called these nuts crazy and decided to adopt an actual energy policy, something we haven't had in forever.

We aren't going to bear any burden. Stop pretending we will. It's pretty much where Bush went off the rails.

Rod, you are exactly right in your comment at 11:52 a.m. Bravo.

I can't remember when I've been as inspired as I am at the courage of the Iranian people in their resistance to the corrupt regime, and I think Obama is taking exactly the right position about it.

Starrs:

One does not need to be a 'demagogue' to express hope and solidarity with the people in the streets demanding that their votes be counted.

Obama has done this:

When I see violence directed at peaceful protesters, when I see peaceful dissent being suppressed, wherever that takes place, it is of concern to me and it is of concern to the American people. That is not how governments should interact with their people...

Something has happened in Iran... a questioning of the kinds of antagonistic postures towards the international community that have taken place in the past. That there are people who want to see greater openness and greater debate and want to see greater democracy. How that plays out over the next several days and several weeks is something for the Iranian people to decide.

Starrs also wrote in a separate post:

P.S. Do you really think we, the Graet Satan, aren't being blamed for this already?! Or that we won't be sooner or later?! Come on. Even Jimmy Carter knows that.

Of course the government is trying to do that. The question is whether it's credible or not. So far, it would appear that by mostly staying out of the fray, Obama is undercutting the effectiveness of that strategy.

I'd also point out that this strategy cuts both ways: Ahmedinejad is currently being portrayed as the lapdog of the Russians (and remember that Russia has its own imperialist history in Persia). And where is Ahmedinejad right now? Hanging out with Medvedev in Ekaterinburg for the SCO summit.

Avarachan:

The protests really aren't about the person of Moussavi. Many Iranians are disgusted at the entire clerical system, and want it all to go. A few days ago, NPR was interviewing Iranians at the protests, and many of them said exactly said this. One young woman said that it's as though Iran has been raped for the past 30 years--since the Islamic Revolution in 1979.

Some protesters think this way. But the interesting thing is just how broad these protests have become. And the opposition is skillfully invoking the 1979 revolution itself and portraying itself as a return to those values.

From here in the West, it's very easy to overlook how motivated the protesters are by religion. The original chants of "Death to the dictator" have been replaced with "God is great", and Mousavi is skillfully exploiting Muslim Shiite martyrology and trying to paint Khamenei into the Ummayyad corner (i.e. the caliph who executed Husayn ibn Ali, the prophet's grandson and a critical figure in Shiite Islam).

Mousavi and his supporters have actually done a very good job of creating a far more broad-based movement than simply Westernizers or Iranian "young urban professionals". Mousavi himself was a critical figure in the early years of the Islamic republic. He's a reformer, not a revolutionary. Look at the symbolism of the colors: green for Islam and black for mourning for the movement's martyrs.

Now, we have seen some popular movements for reform break open into full fledged revolutions in the past (France in 1789 and Russia in 1917 are the classic examples) and there is the chance that this might happen here, but it's not happening yet. Many of the people on the streets truly believe in the Islamic republic and view the apparent theft of the election as the real perversion of the 1979 revolution.

Obama is in a "Damned if we do, damned if we don't" situation and is more than intelligent enough to know this. Carter thought(and thinks)that the world was (and is) his Sunday School. Hence his tragedies/disasters (and ours from 1977-1981).

Remember that Reagan did far more to destroy our reputation with the Iranians, by sponsoring Saddam's war against Iran, than anything that Eisenhower or Carter did.

After holding our diplomats hostage for over a year, they're lucky that's all that was done.

And, again, don't lose perspective on Mousavi. He formed Hezbollah and is supposedly responsible for the nuclear program, too. I think Mousavi is better than Ahmadinejad because he will be forced to be more accountable to the supporters he has unleashed and his policies are reform and accountability oriented. However, both are bad.

Americans need to recognize that many things in the world are not all about us.

We need not comment on everything, we need not make our position known on everything. We need to be clear when being clear will be of assistance, and otherwise keep our own counsel.

No-one likes a busybody, least of all Americans, so why do we think the rest of the world is just waiting for us to weigh in on any and all of their problems? There's nothing "conservative" about telling people half-way around the world what we think they should do about their own political problems.

It's not as if this change will tremendously alter Iranian policies, any more than the election of Obama has tremendously altered American policies, so what possible gain is there in taking sides?

Of course, Iran is already accusing the protesters of being American-led agitators. But no need to add fuel to the fire. Anything we say can and will be used against us, so best to choose words wisely and use them sparingly.

I think Obama has taken the right course. I wonder if some neocons really want the scary guy to stay in office because that fuels the notion of "bomb Iran" A less agressive Iranian govt makes it harder to justify that sort of position.

I think too that if Mousavvi gets in power because of the support of these protestors it becomes harder for him to deny their aspirations. A government that has had a clear lesson in what happens when you violate the will of the people is more likely to support reform. Certainly not radical reform - but a less belligerant posture towards the world.

Personally - it is inspiring to see these people taking such risks in defense of their own desire for more honest more transparent government.

Shaun said "It is obvious that in Starr's universe, everything revolves around the U.S". Well, yeah: I'm an American and we're talking about our foreign policy vis a vis one of our greatest threats.

I'd just like Obama to step up and say some encouraging things to the people on the street who want their dam votes counted. I don't expect him - or want him - to start sending over guns and tanks. Sheesh.

What you are taking as Obama's realism I am viewing as another instance of him refusing to make tough choices (or judgments) ad instead just saying "present".