Two different reactions
President Obama reacts to the news of the day in a way that sounds bizarre to us, given the level of violence and oppression currently underway in Iran. WaPo:
“I do believe that something has happened in Iran where there is a questioning of the kinds of antagonistic postures towards the international community that have taken place in the past…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’s of concern to the American people…That is not how governments should interact with their people.”
What’s the deal with this? Why is the first sentence so contorted and unclear? Why is it so false — the Iranian people are demanding some freedom, not “questioning Iran’s antagonistic postures towards the international community”? Why are the next sentences so at pains not to single out Iran and its government? Why is the murdering of protesters reduced to the banality of “that is not how governments should interact with their people”? This is bizarre. Taking a “wait-and-see” approach, as Andrew Sullivan counsels, to Iran might seem practical, but exactly what sort of enduring, enforceable agreements are possible with governments that do not hesitate to kill large numbers of their own people when they decide it is in their interests to do so? Obama’s strange reaction to the yearning for freedom — “the easiest way for reactionary forces inside Iran to crush reformers is to say it’s the US that is encouraging those reformers” — is a cop-out at best and a suck-up to the regime at worst.
By contrast, this reaction by a President to a somewhat similar situation seems a lot clearer: “I want emphatically to state tonight that if the outrages in Poland do not cease, we cannot and will not conduct ‘business as usual’ with the perpetrators and those who aid and abet them. Make no mistake, their crime will cost them dearly in their future dealings with America and free peoples everywhere. I do not make this statement lightly or without serious reflection.”
Maybe it’s just us, but we get the feeling from the way that Obama talks that he is desperate to do a deal, some kind of deal, any deal at all, with Khamenei — the man he calls even now “supreme leader“. Obama so appears to want not to offend him, or to say a clear, good word about some real “community organizers“. Perhaps it goes too far to say that Obama seems to identify with the authoritarians around the world, but the question is not unreasonable, given his taking over vast parts of American industry.
Given how far things have gone in Iran, it is a total cop-out to say “the easiest way for reactionary forces inside Iran to crush reformers is to say it’s the US that is encouraging those reformers.” (Even the man once the designated successor to Ayatollah Khomeini has a good word for the protesters.) Furthermore, even if the US is not causing any provocation, the Iranian regime still declares that we are behind the protests, so what’s the point?
It’s a sad day in America when we shouldn’t express our fundamental beliefs about freedom and liberty because some dictator somewhere might try to use them against his own people. If Obama believes the statement he made above, he has poor judgment. If he doesn’t believe it, but is using it as an excuse, the explanations are not pretty to contemplate.
Final thought: Roger Simon’s reflections on this matter seem pretty similar to ours, and even David Ignatius thinks Obama should be speaking out clearly and in favor of the protesters.
June 18th, 2009 at 4:50 am
Gosh, I’m sure glad we don’t have one of those simpleton Republican presidents, like Lincoln, Reagan, or W, in charge right now. Those guys would probably try to stand up and make difficult decisions that might actually help free a bunch of oppressed people somewhere. This pussy-footing and nuance is soooooo much more soothing to my post-colonial sensibilities.
June 18th, 2009 at 7:29 am
here is a third:
The President yesterday denounced the “extent of the fraud” and the “shocking” and “brutal” response of the Iranian regime to public demonstrations in Tehran these past four days.
“These elections are an atrocity,” he said. “If [Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad had made such progress since the last elections, if he won two-thirds of the vote, why such violence?” The statement named the regime as the cause of the outrage in Iran and, without meddling or picking favorites, stood up for Iranian democracy.
The President who spoke those words was France’s Nicolas Sarkozy.[...]
via the WSJ and samaBlog
June 18th, 2009 at 9:19 am
forth:
h/t Gateway Pundit
June 18th, 2009 at 9:34 am
Outside your echo chamber, one might consider thoughtfully the possible validity of what Jacob Heilbrunn wrote today about “The New Neocon Assault On Obama and Iran”:
Obama’s refusal to egg on the demonstrators is wise for several reasons. First, the American government (as opposed to American culture) carries no weight in Iran. It doesn’t have a historical record, but a rap sheet that would simply undermine any protests by allowing the Mullahs to portray the protestors as the puppets of a foreign regime. Second, Obama would be acting irresponsibly to encourage resistance that could end in massive bloodshed. But he has (slightly) deepened his sympathy for the demonstrators by expressing “deep concerns about the election.” Third, the power struggle in Iran itself remains opaque. Whom, precisely, should Obama ally himself with–Mir Hossein Mousavi, himself the former creature of the Ayatollah Khomeini?
June 18th, 2009 at 1:25 pm
Steve, This is the usual cowards excuse for not standing up for oppressed people, It ‘s below the stature of the U.S. and a disgrace for our president to use it.
We are not supporting either side. We support freedom, democracy and fair elections. He does not have to take sides to stand up for these principles. The fact that we don’t like either side just makes that even clearer. Obama thinks he is a negotiator – the most powerful man in the world needs to lead. This is an easy case. He will never do anything difficult if he can’t stand here. The old “I don’t want to make things worse.” is the cowards line from third grade when bullies needed confronted. It is the one always used by weak allies. It’s embarrassing.