All hangs in the balance. The Khamenei regime is deciding whether to do a Tiananmen. And what side is the Obama administration taking? None. Except for the desire that this "vigorous debate" (press secretary Robert Gibbs's disgraceful euphemism) over election "irregularities" not stand in the way of U.S.-Iranian engagement on nuclear weapons.If those marching in the street didn't want international support, why would they be Twittering away, often in English, or waving signs that are often in English?
Even from the narrow perspective of the nuclear issue, the administration's geopolitical calculus is absurd. There is zero chance that any such talks will denuclearize Iran. On Monday, President Ahmadinejad declared yet again that the nuclear "file is shut, forever." The only hope for a resolution of the nuclear question is regime change, which (if the successor regime were as moderate as pre-Khomeini Iran) might either stop the program, or make it manageable and nonthreatening.
That's our fundamental interest. And our fundamental values demand that America stand with demonstrators opposing a regime that is the antithesis of all we believe.
And where is our president? Afraid of "meddling." Afraid to take sides between the head-breaking, women-shackling exporters of terror -- and the people in the street yearning to breathe free. This from a president who fancies himself the restorer of America's moral standing in the world.
And if Obama is afraid that any words of support that he gives the demonstrators will be interpreted as meddling in internal Iranian affairs, well news flash - they will accuse the United States of that whatever we will do. They already have. And that accusation hasn't done anything to diminish the fervor of the protests.
Allahpundit has a roundup of signs that the regime is planning to "do a Tiananmen" this weekend as well as several indications that there are those in the Iranian Revolutionary Guard who are not prepared to fire on the young people in the streets.
If President Obama is still convinced that there isn't any difference between Mousavi and Ahmadinejad, he should read the interview in Foreign Policy with Mousavi's spokesman, Mohsen Makhmalbaf.
FP: Does Mousavi have a message that he'd like to deliver to the international community?But Obama has already given a passive okay to the present regime to "do a Tiananmen" by indicating that he is ready to negotiate with whatever government emerges from the present-day situation. Run a phony election; rig the vote; rig the supposed recount; crack down on students; arrest opponents, throw out foreign journalists; and kill protesters in the streets. None of that will stop Obama's determination to have discussions without preconditions. He took that position in the 2007 Youtube debate and nothing has changed his mind since. And they thought Bush was stubborn!
MM: [He asks] that the governments [of the world] pay attention to the people in the streets and do not recognize the government of Ahmadinejad as the representative of Iran -- [that they] do not recognize the government of Ahmadinejad as a legitimate government. Iran is a very important country in the region, and the changes in Iran could have an influence everywhere. So as a result, it's not only an internal matter -- it's an international problem. If Iran could be a democratic Islamic country, that would be a pattern, a role model, for other Islamic countries. And even if Iran has a terrorist image [today], it would be a model for other countries [in the future].
7 comments:
Obama has his own agenda.
Yes. it would be nice if the striped pants crowd could actually succeed, Dennis Ross notwithstanding, but it also wouldn't hurt to roil the internal affairs of Iran. For 30 years US policy has essentially kept and aggresive fascist state off balance and from it perceived destiny in the ME.
Even some boilerplate along the lines of the US always being in favor of self-determination throughout the world and the rights of the citizens over the rule by theorcracy can accomplish two things for Pres Obama; make him appear to not be the go along and get along of some prior adminstrations and will appeal to the Iranian people.
It's also not worth even considering that Pres Obama will do anything if the tanks are called out because he has already ok'd, by inference, that the government has carte blanch to eliminate the opposition.
That's right, Pat. If Bush's failures taught the American public anything, it is the limitations of military action to interfere in the internal affairs of other nations.
Tin ear? I said American foreign policy has kept Iran off balance for thirty years. Ending Saddam's dictatorship has brought an American presence right up the Shatt al-Arab as well as turning Pakistan into a sometimes ally.
Now if you were pointing out that Iran has basically failed in regards to Turkey, Kurdistan and Iraq through its military intervention then obviously I would agree. Iran is now, via US military strength in the ME, on the defensive and also must deal with whatever its current internal problems are with merely the threat of US action.
m.o.d.,
Were al Qaeda training camps in Afghanistan an "internal affair"?
Was the repeated violation of UN sanctioned Gulf War treaty provisions an "internal affair"? Was Hussein's failure to repatriate Kuwaitis taken from their country by Iraq an "internal affair"? Was Hussein's funding of suicide bombers targeting Israeli civilians an "internal affair"? The list is long and your memory is short.
Is the presence of Taliban and al Qaeda personnel in Pakistan an "internal affair" only for Pakistan?
You can make excuses for terrorists and their supporters to your heart's content but you fail to convince and simply leave us to wonder why you've allowed your petty partisan politics to strip you of the capacity for rational thought.
We've long held the hope that internal change will come to Iran and preclude the need for yet another military confrontation in the region and it seems that the time has arrived but unfortunately our President seems to be falling back on his old habit of standing on the sidelines waiting for the moment that will best serve HIS personal political goals.
We saw this during the campaign when Senator Obama was content to remain silent after McCain suspended his own campaign to return to DC for the purpose of taking a leadership role during the economic crisis. The entire affair was a testament to the ineffectiveness of both men, not to mention the rest of our national "leadership", but it was also a telling example of Obama's penchant for taking shelter (euphemistically regarded as "Present" when votes were held) during contentious political decision points. While McCain appeared ineffective, Obama chose to minimize risk to his campaign and deliberately did NOTHING. That may be fine strategy in a political campaign when you've relegated your Senate leadership responsibilities far behind your goal of winning higher office but it fails miserably when you've been elected to that very office.
Obama is right to be cautious but he must support those Iranians determined to reform their nation during what may only be a fleeting opportunity. Doing NOTHING and waiting to see what will happen without acting to provide any support whatsoever for Iranians currently risking EVERYTHING to bring a peaceful change to their country is a huge mistake.
This is a moment in world history that could be our best chance at averting a new phase in the ongoing war with violent Islamic extremists. A change in Iranian government could even bring about a decline in the country's support for Hezbollah. The net result could be among the greatest gains made in the war against violent Islamic extremism. Iran's headlong rush to acquire nuclear weapons could be forestalled or even abandoned if the right changes come from this election. The potential to curb nuclear proliferation in the region is an enormous prize for humanity.
There is so much to gain but it will require action not passive sideline spectatorship.
Just heard an Obama sound bite where he said (paraphrasing) that Iran is "using the United States" as an excuse to do bad things.
Holy hoodwink, Batman! You mean the mullahs didn't buy that speech Magic Mouth gave in Egypt just a few days ago? Apparently not, because "using the United States" has been going on through several presidencies now, and all that "change" Obama was hoping for was so transparent the mullahs paid no attention to it.
Progressive pointyhead comedians are starting to find they can't keep all the plates spinning. Caution! Broken china ahead.
Post a Comment