For days since the results of the Iranian elections, hundreds of thousands of protestors have taken to the streets to protest what they believe was a rigged election in Iran. So far seven protestors have been killed by the government police of Ahmadinejad.As demonstrators have taken to the streets, Ahmadinejad has cut off cell phone service to prevent text messages, pictures and video from cell phones showing images of the demonstrations from getting to the outside world. He has banned international media from covering the demonstrations..And demonstrators have been beaten, arrested, and imprisoned and are risking life and limb to be on the streets protesting what seems obvious is a dishonest outcome.
And what has been President Obama's response to all this? His response came from p.15 of the Politician's Handbook of Hackneyed Responses. He said he was "deeply troubled". Not exactly awe inspiring.
He also said, as demonstrators were being shot and killed, that it just wouldn't do for the United States to "be seen meddling in the affairs of Iran." This practically redefines the expression, "mealy mouthed".
So why doesn't Obama want to make statements that might seem like he is meddling in the affairs of country that is now in turmoil over what may have been a rigged election that keeps a lunatic dictator in power? Is he afraid that if he speaks out too forcefully Ahmadinejad won't take his phone calls? Is he afraid Ahmadeinejad will get mad at him and wont meet with him if he offers an unconditional meeting? What exactly does Obama think is going to happen if he speaks out forcefully on the side of democracy and the Iranian demonstrators? That Ahmedinejad will accuse him of meddling?
Ahmadinejad himself doesn't seem too concerned about being seen as meddling in the affairs of another country when he threatens to wipe Israel off the face of the earth. Maybe Obama doesn't want to meddle in that either. But as hundreds of thousands of Iranians take to the streets defying the tyranny of Amadinejad and the forces in Iran responsible for what is certainly a rigged election, Obama says he doesn't want to be making statements that would be seen as "meddling".
Not exactly a beacon of courage and democracy. But here is what Obama could have said.
"Even by the official count, more than 14 million Iranians voted for Moussavi and hundreds of thousands, if not millions of Iranians are taking to the streets to protest what they believe was a rigged election. It is up to the responsible parties in Iran to investigate and prove to their own people, that either the election results were completely fair and accurate or, if they find that there were any irregularities or fraud as the demonstrators believe, to hold new free and fair elections".
Now does that sound like meddling?
Of course President Obama did say he believed that voices must be heard and every vote must count ( as long as you don't live in Florida and Michigan and vote against him in a primary) and one has to wonder if being the product of a rigged Democratic convention that secured his nomination, has made him a little gun shy when it comes to protesting too much over a rigged election in Iran.
But so far his response to the turmoil in Iran and the uprising of so many of its people over what looks like a stolen election and a protest against a dictator who is a threat to the rest of the world, has been less than inspiring, Chris Matthews goose bumps over Obama's speeches notwithstanding.
The White House has tried to portray this as a "balancing act" with President Obama walking a tightrope. Nonsense. If he is walking a tightrope it is one of his own choosing for reasons that have no real substance other than perhaps he doesn't want to get Ahmedenejad mad at him. It has no diplomatic value.It is just someone afraid to take a stand.
So if being"deeply troubled" is all President Obama can muster, if that's all he can give the Iranian demonstrators, if he continues to watch the demonstations in the streets as the protestors stand up to Ahmedenejad, maybe there is something they can give him. Courage.
UPDATE: On Saturday June 20th, Obama decided to issue a more forceful statement concerning Iran, perhaps feeling the pressure and the criticism for his original tepid response. And given the last statement I made about perhaps the demonstrators would give Obama the courage to speak out, part of Obama's new statement referred to the courage of the demonstrators. So maybe they did.
The Congress also chose to speak out on Friday passing overwhelming resolutions in both houses, condemning the government of Iran for it's crackdown on the demonstrators and expressing solidarity with the protestors demonstrating on behalf of democracy.
Perhaps this has made Obama feel like he is being left out of the loop. Either way he has now decided a little meddling is in order.
Posts
11 comments:
I think you're right. He can't say too much about a rigged election at least he can't say it without laughing. Last night Greta mentioned that we had the same problem here but she didn't elaborate.
If Iranians are looking to us for help with "honest" elections, they're looking in the wrong place. Obama knows he stole the primary from Hillary using every trick in the book and then used ACORN to steal the election from McCain. So much for being models of democratic process. My heart goes out to the Iranian people. They are an intelligent population and I believe want to live in peace but their leaders won't let them.
"It is up to the responsible parties in Iran....."
Responsible parties? RESPONSIBLE PARTIES?????? Iran is a freaking dictatorship. There are no responsible parties.
The West's fantasy that there exists a democratic elite in Iran that will some day ride up and throw off their dictatorship has just met with reality. Again. It has been so for more than forty years! We never learn. This was true even when the West's puppet, the Shah was in power.
The West and particularly Obama have been played and fooled (and made fools of) by the ruling elite which is not going to give up their power. This entire Iranian election cycle, by design, strengthens the mullah's and Ahmajenidad's hand with regard to becoming a nuclear player and being a power broker in the Mid East and elsewhere on the world stage.
The west never learns. They never see it coming. They have their heads in the clouds and view everything from their American democracy mindset. The Mideast out manuvered Washington.
Tehran is diferent than the rest of Iran in that it has a highly educated population and there is a university in the city. That is where most of the protest is centered. I daresay all of it is centered there. Most of Iran, however, is rural and wants to keep to the old ways.
Was their election fraud? Yes. But all elections in a dictatorship are fraudulent. And as we know, fraud even occurs in a Constitutional Republic.
And who is to say that had Mousavi actually been elected he would have been that much different than Ahmajenidad. He is the product of and an insider in the cleric's government for years.
My fear is that the protestors may be encouraged by the west (look at how many protest signs are in English, for pete's sake) and that it will end as badly as Tiananmen Square.
bert in Ohio
"Responsible parties? RESPONSIBLE PARTIES?????? Iran is a freaking dictatorship. There are no responsible parties.."
Thats exactly the point which would have put the dictatorship between a rock and a hard place, challenging their legitimacy since it would be saying put or shut up in a way they couldnt argue against and Obama could have made that very point and exposed their farce and no one could have called it meddling. But there is just no one smart enough in that White House to know how to outsmart anyone which doesnt hold out much hope for being able to negotiate with Ahmedenjad
Marc - With all due respect, on this issue you are living in a fantasy world and not seeing the reality of the situation. Obama had and has no chance of changing Iran or putting them between a rock and a hard spot. And neither can the west with all their 'hopin and prayin.'
Obama's rhetoric and fancy speech in Cairo backfired. He cannot get what he wants in Iran with talk. He is naive as hell.
And Obama has now met reality in foreign policy face to face. He really is not ready for a 3 a.m. call no matter what anyone says.
Furthermore, the U.S cannot be seen as trying to influence an election, fradulant or not, or meddle in the internal affairs of a soverign nation. Those are the relaities of foreign policy.
Wesley Pruden, editor emeritus of The Washington Times on June 16, 2009 wrote:
“Iranians, like everybody else, have a right to elect whomever they want, and even to steal elections without outside interference.
“The reality that President Obama must deal with goes beyond whether the election was free and fair. The mullahs who guide the hand of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad have made it abundantly clear that they have an agenda, and intend to enforce it with the clenched fist Mr. Obama imagines he can unclench with a teleprompter.
“Some people in the West - particularly in Washington - are tempted to dismiss the Iranian president as a clown and a fool, given to writing checks ("Israel must be wiped off the map") he could never cash. But these skeptics are the fools.
“President Obama must now rise to the occasion to deal with Iran as it is, and not as he wishes it to be. This is the job he said he wanted.”
bert in Ohio
"- With all due respect, on this issue you are living in a fantasy world and not seeing the reality of the situation. Obama had and has no chance of changing Iran"
With all due respect I think you missed the point completely. No speech from Obama and nothing Obama could say would "change" Iran. That is not the point of speaking out. And this notion of not being seen to be "meddling" in their affairs is absurd. Seen by who? Iran? As if statements in support of an honest election and giving support to the demonstrators was going to make things worse in a country where government supporters chant "Death to America", as they did the other day? That wasnt the result of "meddling".
I think the rightness of my position was shown yesterday when the House overhwhelmingly passed a resolution in support of the Iranian demonstrators by, I think 429-1. And now it's the Senate's turn.
If the Democratically controlled Congress didnt think a statement of support was that important I dont think they would have wasted the time to say what Obama decided he couldnt.
"If the Democratically controlled Congress didnt think a statement of support was that important I dont think they would have wasted the time....."
What Congress does or says is meaningless. It also continues the mis-understandings we had of the 1979 overthrow of the Shah and the rise of the clerics and their army. We have the conceit that a majority opposed that '79 overthrow and secretly want democracy and democratic elections. That is so far from the truth.
My main point is - are these demonstrations a true reflection of a majority of Iranians, or are they a reflection of a very small minority concentrated in the urban-university area of Tehran? I think it is the latter. Iran is bigger than Tehran and the few urban areas which Mousavi won. I think the majority of Iraniani citizens in the rural areas very much like the religious rulers and their puppet Ahmajenidad. And I think Ahmajenidad appeals to them becasue he appeals to their religious beliefs.
I also think that Americans think there is a real grass roots movement in Iran that wants democracy style government and that a candidate like that was elected. I don't think either of those statements are true either. We have been mis-reading Iran for at least 30-40 years because we mostly talk to the English speaking opponents of the regime in the cities and not the majority of Iran's peasant and clerical population who speak Farsai. This is much nearer the truth.
There are a lot of countries that have rigged elections. (Florida anybody? Democratic primary last year anyone?)But how many do we take up as a cause? This campaign to get Obama to say something more is just a conceit of our own liberal and democratic belief systems. Like one commentor here said, "My heart goes out to the Iranian people." Give me a break. The majority of the Iranian people like the results of this elction just as it is. What is really occuring is that her heart goes out to the few protestors in the urban areas since she probably does not know what the iranian people really want. You know, there are some countries out there who do not want American style democracy. To base policy or public statements by America's President on what a minority in Iran wants is worse than useless. It is self-defeating to our real goals. It is also a misreading of the real situation. I don't believe in basing policy on what I wish and hope. I believe in basing it on realities on the ground.
Plus any strong statement from Obama will not change anything. And it could hurt. Instead, I think we should concentrate on dealing with reality, that Ahmajenidad 'won' and getting him to the negotiation table to prevent another country that has nukes and what that portends for the balance of power and Israel.
bert in Ohio
P.S. Let me also add that the United States has dealth with several countries with less than stellar election procedures without making strong comments on their results or the process. Most notable are Russia during the Cold War. More recently, we deal with China even though we know that their elctions are less than stellar too.
bert in Ohio
"What Congress does or says is meaningless."
As a general rule the Constitution disagrees since Congress makes the laws, ratify treaties, spends money etc. In this particular case it obviously was not meaningless because it made Obama change his tune and today he finally issued a much stronger statement than he had before and even went so far as to tell his usual lie that the resolution passed by Congress was consistant with his own previous statements which of course it wasnt which is why he issued a new statement that was more consistant with the statement passed by Congress so he could pretend this is what he meant all along.
"Let me also add that the United States has dealth with several countries with less than stellar election procedures.."
Thats true but none that chant "Death to America" and is trying to aquire a nuclear weapon so they can wipe an ally off the face of the earth.
“As a general rule the Constitution disagrees since Congress makes the laws, ratify treaties, spends money etc.”
Yes, the founders created a government where Congress ruled. But that has been usurped by a unitary President of late and a weak Congress that can’t even stand up and exercise the powers the Constitution gave them. The system is broke. The Congress these days is a farce.
“In this particular case it obviously was not meaningless because it made Obama change his tune and today he finally issued a much stronger statement than he had before……….”
I think his statement was more a response to events on the ground in Iran. But maybe it was as you say.
“That’s true but none that chant "Death to America" and is trying to acquire a nuclear weapon so they can wipe an ally off the face of the earth.”
I was looking more long term than that…………..Russia during the Cold War and more recently China. During the height of the Cold War Khrushchev said he would “bury us,” a veiled death to America position, which he backed up several years later by trying to place nuclear weapons in Cuba. China has been nuclear for years.
My main point in all this is strong statements or weak statements, the ruling elite in Iran are going to do whatever it takes to retain power. They, like most recently Tiananmen Square in China, will eventually crackdown with brute force. The best way to stop nuclear ambitions is not with public words but with behind the scenes words and work and outright negotiations. In the meantime we shouldn’t do anything that will make negotiations tenser and less likely to succeed.
The most recent news I got at BBC this morning (7:20 a.m. EDT) is that Iran is blaming Great Britain for fomenting unrest, claiming that they sent agents into Iran weeks before the election to stir things up. I wonder if the U.S. is behind any of this. Some signs point that way.
You and I will just have to agree too disagree on this topic, Marc. Events will play out for weeks and we shall see what the outcome is. Because you and I disagree on this does not mean I disagree with you on most issues. I don’t. Normally you and I are in agreement about ninety percent of the time. That is one of the reasons I come here. That and you have great insights and you are one of the best writers out there in the blog-o-sphere.
bert in Ohio
Post a Comment