Global News : Passport : Ricks : Drezner : Walt : Rothkopf : Lynch
The Cable : The AfPak Blog : Net Effect : Shadow Govt. : Madam Secretary : The Call
Obama is getting worse, not better, on Iran
I share President Obama's desire not to say or do anything that would turn America into a "political football" inside Iran, and I've tried to offer what I hope are some constructive ideas in keeping with that end (though that may come as a surprise to some of my own loyal opponents in the comments section). Still, Obama's remarks yesterday were embarrassing. Not only that, they were harmful -- not for their toughness but for their timidity. Peaceful Iranian protestors are having their heads smashed by government goons, and Obama is explaining to CNBC, with his characteristic professorial emotional detachment, how the guy those Iranians voted for and are bleeding to support is actually no different than Ahmadinejad. I know what Obama meant. The office of Iran's presidency doesn't call the main shots, and Mousavi is no liberal peacenik. I get it. But save it for another time, please.
One other thing: Can our president just stop talking about the nuclear issue altogether while Iran is convulsed by the most consequential popular uprising since the 1979 revolution? That doesn't mean we aren't serious about Iran's nuclear aspirations; just that we have the decency not to dwell selfishly on our own policies while thousands of Iranians are risking life and limb for justice.
Again, I share Obama's goal not to play into the hands of Iran's hard-liners with meddlesome statements and actions, but he still has a healthy amount of room to move forward until he runs up on that line. Iran's people deserve to hear from the most inspiring and internationally beloved American president in a generation that the violence they are enduring at the hands of their government is not just of "deep concern" to him, but "unacceptable." They deserve to hear him "condemn" it (memo to the State Department). And they deserve to hear Obama say that if he does finally talk with Iran's rulers about changing the behavior of the Islamic Republic of Iran, that goal will also include pushing them to grant all Iranians the same basic human rights that people everywhere should be free to enjoy and exercise without fear of violence and repression.
Is that really too much to ask?
Advertisement
FOREIGN POLICY is published by the Slate Group,
a division of Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive, LLC.
All contents ©2009 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive, LLC. All rights reserved.
Shadow Government is a blog about U.S. foreign policy under the Obama administration, written by experienced policy makers from the loyal opposition.
You just don't get it.
Unless you have better information than I do, this is a Tweedledum/Tweedledee situation. We have absolutely nothing to say that the challengers are better for us than the incumbents.
For that matter it isn't obvious how much effect the President of iran has.
Why do you care who wins? Did you have a srong position on the Cultural Revolution versus the Gang of Four? Do you hope that this conflict will somehow result in the sort of democracy you think doesn't exist in iran?
Do you just want to have something to say, so you can get another blog post up?
sometimes, you're smart man -
sometimes, you're smart man - but this time - I think you've been exposed.
I, for one, am glad the days
I, for one, am glad the days of Team America World Police are over. It's frankly none of our business who wins, this is an internal issue for the Iranian people and aside from wishing them the best of luck we don't really have any business picking a side and cheerleading them to victory.
To what end, Mr. Brose?
What difference do you presume such actions would make, other than (presumably) making you feel better?
By the way, Obama did not say that Mousavi was no different from the other guy. I know, rhetorical license and all that, but if the rhetorical sweep of your post cannot be sustained without such mischaracterizations, maybe you should reconsider posting in the first place.
Let's feel the pain and support people
Human beings are members of a whole,
In creation of one essence and soul.
If one member is afflicted with pain,
Other members uneasy will remain.
If you have no sympathy for human pain,
The name of human you cannot retain.
Saadi, Iranian poet
Events taking place in Iran seems to be beyond conflict between two political parties. Show down of democracy in Iran by the government of Iran was meant to feed internal and international market that Iranian regime believes in democratic election and massive number of people elect their president while they magically bring Ahmadinejad out of election boxes as the people elected president.
Majority of population that have been depressed by this Islamic regime and have been feeling pain of dictatorship, lack of freedom, tortures of their youngsters, economic crisis created by government for 30 years, find it beyond tolerance that this progressively worsening situation continues to squeeze their life blood out of them for additional four years under Ahmadinejad and Khamenei. Iranian people are fed up and want change in their ruling body. In past few days Iranian people have been sending their strong messages to their leaders and people of the world that they want to get out of their miserable life created by Islamic regime peacefully. Massive number of people on streets who not only do not create violence but also help and rescue secret police who beat them clearly show their peaceful intention.
President Bush who has much less popular nationally and internationally sided with Iranian people when he was president. I hope our highly rated president endorses Iranians for what they want and condemns régime’s violent response to people’s peaceful needs. I wish for at least a general statement about human rights and condemnation of violence from our president. This low-risk response may open door for later more constructive relationship between Iranians and Americans. President Obama has already opened doors to Irnaian government to come forward clean. Few words of fact about human rights in Iran may be a Moral support to people who have put their lives in line of justice.
(though that may come as a
I'm always glad to have an impact.
Keep in mind, too, that I'm referring to the US government when I'm talking about keeping our damn mouth shut. As individuals, we can and ought to condemn election fraud - but for the US to do anything like that at this point would only be helping Ahmadinejad.
Do they care? Do Iranians think Obama is the "most inspiring and internationally beloved American president in a generation"?
I agree that bringing up the nuclear issue when talking about Moussavi right now is stupidity - he really should just remain quiet on the issue until this shit gets sorted out.
You think the Iranians want to hear Obama lecture them on how to run their own government? Not even liberal Iranians who oppose the clerical regime generally want this - listen to what Shirin Ebadi has said, for example.
Again, the US government ought to keep its mouth shut on this for now, wait until the Iranian government gets its shit together, then start talking again on what we want them to do, on this basis of interests.
feel free to delete me
I will be vulgar here - so the moderator may feel free to delete me. I accept the burden.
That said - anyone who thinks we are in a Tweedledum/Tweedledee is detritus.
All of you snails who don't understand the first thing about international relations, should for once look in the mirror, and ask yourself with all due modesty - "why do I act like I know so much, when in reality, I know so little". Please, for once, ask yourself this question. Just once.
Get out and smell the air. GO out and live in the third world, and try not to idealize it, because you'll soon run back to the grade A, first class, size AA eggs.
Pathetic.
And I can't thank FP folks, for having contributed. There aren't enough articles on the ills of the third world. People here just don't get poverty, corrupting, and street violence. It looks so damn exotic, and attractive.
Poor bastards!
***
Anyone who reads FP knows my tendency to agree, and disagree, vehemently. Christian, I agree with you 80 percent, but I would add more. Our inability to respond to the will of the Iranian people, is outright collaboration with Ahmenidedjad.
All you who freaked out (like me), over torture - thank you thank you thank you - for making sure it goes on in the vilest form, in Iran.
You bunch of crawling collaborators. Bums. Detritus.
Alors, delete me!
I am lost for words.
AllanGreen, tell us what you
AllanGreen, tell us what you know about Mousavi and "the opposition". Tell us how you know they're so very very much better than the current iranian govermment.
You object to torture? So do I. Does Mousavi object to torture? Would he run a government without it? Do you believe he would?
You don't like living in the filth of the third world? Well, you know, iran's economy would probably improve if we didn't have such severe sanctions on them. And we take credit for the effect of those sanctions in hurting the economy to the point that iranians are mad at Ahmenijad for it. But you think it's completely justified because its intention is to keep iran from ever getting its nuclear fuel cycle going. So where do you come off arguing third-world-bad?
You think you understand foreign relations? But your policies have been utterly falsified by experience. Neocons are a failed experiment, thrown out like last week's fish, and you haven't noticed. Somehow you imagine you still have some sort of credibility left.
"we" don't lack anything. I
"we" don't lack anything. I commented some basic facts on Drezner's post today - if you want, check them out.
I've been following the Moussavi camp since the elections began, and to state that he is no different form Ahmedi-Nejad (Uk form easier to memorise), is simply ignorance.
It is also a deliberate campaign of disinformation. Those who state there is no difference, often are the ones who know the facts - hence they are lying.
Strategically, claiming there is no difference, is a way of cutting off demand for calls on Obama, to take a tougher stand.
So it is impossible at this point to distinguish, why and who is behind the disinformation.
But the facts on Moussavi being fundamentally different from Ahmedi-Nejad, are out there.
Whether or not they do
Whether or not they do holocaust denial is not particularly important. Their nuclear stands are essentially the same.
Mousavi made a campaign promise that "maybe" they could get rid of the religious police. That's different but not something that matters directly to us -- when the religious police annoy secular iranians that weakens iran. Reduce that and iran is stronger, and their public supports the popular policies better.
Similarly with Mousavi's idea to reduce corruption to improve the economy. How many US presidential challengers have failed to make that claim?
Mousavi doesn't present enough of a change to justify US intervention. US intervention isn't intended to get Mousavi elected -- US intervention is intended to cause massive disruption.
AllanGreen, I think I may
AllanGreen, I think I may have misunderstood you.
Maybe you're saying I'm saying that USA/iran are like Tweedledum/Tweedledee, and you're responding to that.
That would be silly.
I'm saying that we lack convincing evidence that Ahmenijad/Mousavi are not Tweedledum/Tweedledee.
They're having a good knockdown argument, but so what? That's glory for you.