I notice that a lot of conservative commentators are urging President Obama to speak out on the events in Iran. These are the same people, of course, who identified Iran as the source of all of the evil in the Middle East, and who condemned anyone who wanted to open a dialogue with the country's leadership. Now they want President Obama to speak out on one side of an internal Iranian fight.
There are two good reasons for the President of the United States not to jump into the Iranian melee. There are lots of other reasons, some formal, some shaky, but there are two good ones.
First, most Iranians are not big fans of the United States. Even those who are not enamored of the present regime have been raised to believe that the United States, along with Britain, has played the villain more than once in Iranian affairs. It is one thing to note that some Iranians share some of our values. It is another to cause the broad mass of Iranians to identify the students and other protestors with the United States. There is no way that most Iranians would see that as us merely supporting a movement we like. They would have to see us as Khamanei wants to portray us - as puppetmasters of these brave young people.
Second, working out an arrangement which keeps Iran's nuclear program from becoming a nuclear weapons program is more important that who the political leader of Iran might be. If Mousavi wins, we'll have to deal with him (and he ain't no George Washington). If Ahmadinejad wins, we'll have to deal with him. In no case should we make it easy for these guys to refuse to talk with us.
Let's also remember that, as in most of the Middle East, public opinion is more anti-American and anti-Israeli than elite opinion. Iran might be an exception, but I'd be somewhat cautious about accepting the idea that a more "democratic" government would necessarily better for us.
In 1956 we spoke out in favor of the Hungarian revolution, and then we stood by and did nothing while the Red Army stormed Budapest. In 1991 we urged the Shi'ites to rise up against Saddam Hussein, and then we stood by and did nothing while Saddam's army and the mukhabarat massacred thousands of people. Let us remember the first half of Teddy Roosevelt's famous injunction, "Speak softly, and carry a big stick."
Glenn A Knight
In my study
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
> I notice that a lot of
> conservative commentators are
> urging President Obama to speak
> out on the events in Iran.
Ah, yes, once again the chicken hawks are in full cry. It's the 3 AM phone call, and, sure enough, Obama doesn't know what to do! This is what we get for failing to elect an experienced military man (like President Dubya, maybe?) to protect us!
Well, what exactly could any US President do in practical terms? As you note, any expression of support for the demonstrators would be taken as evidence of imperialist meddling by Iran's leaders-- and almost certainly by most Iranians. In any event, Mousavi is certainly no liberal and not even much of a reformer, and there's really not much evidence that the election was actually rigged. It could well be that whether we like it or not, Ahmadinejad just plain won. Mousavi's supporters don't like it and don't even believe it, but reality bites sometimes, as it did in the 2000 US presidential election.
Further, as you note, the opposition seems to be restricted to Tehran; there appears to be no nation-wide uprising in the works. Even if there were, what could the US do to support it beyond words? Send in the B-2s and cruise missiles?
It's clear that Obama is doing as much as any President can do, i.e., nearly nothing at all. It's even more clear that the chicken hawks who are tub-thumping for action don't have a particular course of action to suggest.
Yes, indeed. There is far too much evidence of meddling already. This seems an attempt to destabilize Iran not to achieve any particular desired outcome. The problem is that, after, we will have wasted our efforts and toughened a counterparty with whom we must eventually compromise. Not wise. We should be sitting on our own side's destabilization advocates, as their careers are not really that important to our long term goals.
Ken, I'm not sure what you mean by "evidence of meddling." If you mean historically, as in the overthrow of Mossadegh in 1954 (at the behest of Brits, who didn't want to see BP's Iranian interests nationalized), sure Kermit Roosevelt and the boys did some big-time meddling. And in 1978-79, we played our hand badly regarding the removal of the Shah. (I'm told that it was Henry Kissinger who talked Jimmy Carter into allowing the Shah to come to New York for medical treatments.)
But since a bunch of so-called students, including both Ahmadinejad and Mousavi seized our embassy in Tehran, we haven't had enough of a presence in Iran. Ronald Reagan tried to deal under the table with the mullahs and got his fingers burned.
Oh, I'm sure we've got some Farsi broadcasting going on, and there are certainly some exile groups in Paris who'd like to see some changes. But even the Bush administration largely contented itself with pushing sanctions through the UN and letting the Europeans talk to the Iranians.
Have you seen Persepolis? Great movie.
Here, for your edification, is an example of the kind of rhetoric being offered by the right wing. You know, even though Jack Kennedy did say that we would pay and price or bear any burden for freedom, I seem to recall that he was somewhat careful in how he applied that kind of language after the Bay of Pigs experience. http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/speak-out-for-freedom-mr-president/
Hi Glenn... Not historical, I meant current meddling and current evidence. "Evidence" in the forensic sense, enough to prompt investigation not necessarily the basis for charges or conviction - one must prove one's case, and not all battles are worth picking. However, there is certainly enough at the office grapevine level of info, to warrant caution in making a decision or endorsement of any of the actors.
At the macro level of evidence, it has been stated that some $400m has been allocated to hostile non-war activities intended to destabilize Iran. True? Worth gathering info for someone more keen to take on that project.
At the micro level of evidence, consider Twittergate analysis by David Seaton. I think it would turn up via google of "David Seaton" and "Twitter" and "Iran".
Iran turmoil - in terms of personal action or stance - is not a big deal for me. I'm just observing two things...
(1) We're likely being played, and should not allow ourselves to be lathered into having allegiances which are not based upon reality or, even more importantly, our well considered longer term objectives.
(2) What are objectives of those who are playing us? What is their script, what is act 3 of the play? Hence my guess re destabilization rather than any particular outcome of electoral / extended political process in Iran. Ie, confusion is the desired non-outcome. Just a guess of course.
One final remark - lest some fault me for engaging in "conspiracy theory". I do that routinely, call it hypothesis or model formulation. It is not important to me whether a theory is "true" rather desire that it should be "useful" in terms of taking action or interpreting other info. For instance, operate daily with the model that "sun comes up in east" despite that troublemaker who proposed heliocentric model of solar system.
Aha! The democracy promotion effort with regard to Iran, which could well be seen as meddling. I might first note that the U.S. government has had an office for promoting democracy for years, and its activities have been overt. Thus, an article from the Asia Times from 2006, about the Bush administration's request for an additional $75 million to promote democracy in Iran. http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HB18Ak01.html
Hi Glenn... As you say, the activities re "democracy promotion" have been overt. I don't claim to use secret sauce in my info flow... everything is simply observational.
From Obama's July 11th speech in Ghana:
"America will not seek to impose any system of government on any other nation -- the essential truth of democracy is that each nation determines its own destiny."
"What we will do is increase assistance for responsible individuals and institutions, with a focus on supporting good governments -- on parliaments, which check abuses of power and ensure that opposition voices are heard; on the rule of law, which ensures the equal administration of justice; on civic participation, so that young people get involved; and on concrete solutions to corruption like forensic accounting, automating services, strengthening hot lines and protecting whistle-blowers to advance transparency and accountability."
That's a fine goal and elaborated by specific programme ideas. How does it fit with Gingriches' recent proposal to sabotage Iranian facilities? Who can trust, even on a day to day tangible working exchange basis, a people who fail to control and disavow such extremists?
No one else will rein in the Newt's of the world, and the others who think with their lizard hindbrain. It is our job, right here. In Canada, in Ontario, we have our own particular problems - eg Ontario's conservatives recently chose a leader with fascist inclinations. Think globally, and act locally.
But clarity in thinking globally is desirable.
Hello !.
You re, I guess , perhaps curious to know how one can collect a huge starting capital .
There is no initial capital needed You may start to receive yields with as small sum of money as 20-100 dollars.
AimTrust is what you need
AimTrust incorporates an offshore structure with advanced asset management technologies in production and delivery of pipes for oil and gas.
Its head office is in Panama with structures around the world.
Do you want to become really rich in short time?
That`s your chance That`s what you wish in the long run!
I feel good, I began to take up real money with the help of this company,
and I invite you to do the same. It`s all about how to choose a proper partner who uses your savings in a right way - that`s the AimTrust!.
I earn US$2,000 per day, and what I started with was a funny sum of 500 bucks!
It`s easy to get involved , just click this link http://ahosetiz.builtfree.org/lokypy.html
and go! Let`s take our chance together to get rid of nastiness of the life
Good day, sun shines!
There have were times of hardship when I felt unhappy missing knowledge about opportunities of getting high yields on investments. I was a dump and downright pessimistic person.
I have never thought that there weren't any need in large initial investment.
Nowadays, I feel good, I started to get real money.
It gets down to select a proper companion who uses your money in a right way - that is incorporate it in real business, and shares the profit with me.
You can ask, if there are such firms? I'm obliged to answer the truth, YES, there are. Please get to know about one of them:
http://theinvestblog.com [url=http://theinvestblog.com]Online Investment Blog[/url]
Post a Comment