WASHINGTON - President Barack Obama said Tuesday the disputed election in Iran revealed a change in expectations among voters and perhaps their leaders. He said he was deeply troubled by the election and its aftermath but stopped short of saying the re-election of hard-liner Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was rigged...
Thats because he is so busy meddling in our affairs he doesnt have the time to meddle in Iran's
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
Chip- many would have argued that the CIA and the Brits overthrew the democratically elected president of Iran and installed the Shah.
Of course, back then all countries were in play between the American/NATO, Soviet/Warsaw Pact. The Shah was a known quantity while the previous president was not.
Carter failed to keep the west's puppet in place and radical shia islam took over in the form of Khomeini's revolution in 1979. Ahmedinejad was one of the hostage takers...now he's \"president.\"
. "Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun"- Mao Zedong
I actually like how he approaches the Iran situation:
Obama wrote:The second thing that I think’s important to recognize is that the easiest way for reactionary forces inside Iran to crush reformers is to say it’s the US that is encouraging those reformers. So what I’ve said is, `Look, it’s up to the Iranian people to make a decision. We are not meddling.’ And, you know, ultimately the question that the leadership in Iran has to answer is their own credibility in the eyes of the Iranian people
There's plenty of implied pressure on Iran. With the US and allied military parked in Iraq and Afghanistan, if the Iranian regime sends out major military hardware, we can intervene fairly quickly.
Still, I think the Iranian regime would crumble if Obama came out in support of FREEDOM and LIBERTY for the Iranian people. I think Obama has the political capital to get some other nations to step up and help knock down the Iranian regime, he's just too busy spending political capital to take over American corporations... *sigh*
Given common feelings about the U.S. among Iranians, I wonder if the U.S. President speaking directly in support of the revolution would actually help.
Lothar wrote:...
Still, I think the Iranian regime would crumble if Obama came out in support of FREEDOM and LIBERTY for the Iranian people. I think Obama has the political capital to get some other nations to step up and help knock down the Iranian regime, he's just too busy spending political capital to take over American corporations... *sigh*
I don't think he has much capital with any country that has clout. He's good to go with Chavez or Castro or any number of third world leaders but I don't see Merkel or Putin or Sarkozy or who ever is taking over in the U.K. for example having much faith in Obama's abilities.
Our country is already stained with our wonderful previous Middle-East meddling in the Iranian government during the 1953 Britain/MI6/Eisenhower Administration/CIA sponsored coup d'etat. That insured that the U.S. had full control of their petroleum resources at a time that the Cold War was at it's peak and U.S. fears were rampant that the Soviets would take over Iranian Oil. But we also gave them a wonderfully brutal leader for 26 years, the Shah, Mohammed Pahlevi. Why remind them of that little previous U.S. gift! You can bet that Ahmadinejad would remind everybody in Iran what U.S. meddling brings to their country. It would be a propaganda coup for him in his tightly controlled media!
I think that Obama doesn't want to taint the opposition movement by making it look like we're sticking our noses in their business! If the opposition is strong enough in Iran, they can chart their own destiny. It's THEIR country, not ours, you morons! Let THEM work it out without U.S. interference! What are we going to do, go over there and count ballots ourselves! I agree with what Obama's doing by walking lightly here! He may end up stuck dealing with Ahmadinejad when the fallout ends, whether we like it or not.
Jonah Goldberg wrote:...You often invoke President Kennedy’s pledge to put a man on the moon to justify your domestic agenda. You and your supporters invite comparisons to Camelot. Well, what of John F. Kennedy’s most solemn vow? “Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.” ...
Obama is trying something more nuanced and cagey with his foreign policy instead of 'charging in and enforcing OUR FORM of liberty' that previous Presidents have done. Maybe it's about time we try another method of diplomacy than threatening a sovereign nation's election with a threat of U.S. might. We did that in 1953 with catastrophic results for the Iranian People. There just might be wee bit of residual resentment that would give ammunition to Ahmadinejad to use as propaganda to bolster his power. All he has to do is remind the populace of the U.S. and our friend, the Shah. We need to BUTT OUT for the meantime.
Lothar wrote:Still, I think the Iranian regime would crumble if Obama came out in support of FREEDOM and LIBERTY for the Iranian people.
Nope. It'd be strengthened. Obama doesn't have any credibility in Iran that isn't completely undermined by representing the US, and none of the other states in the region have any business talking to Iran about standards of democracy when Iran is one of very few that even has elections.
I think it was a smart move - he should wait until reports come in on if the election was really rigged. If he speaks out now and it actually wasn't rigged, then we'd be back into a total mess with everyone in Iran. If he speaks with fraud being confirmed, he would be a hero.
...and in my opinion, it would not surprise me if the elections were a total sham.
Now, I know that our two nations have had our differences in the past, and so it would be totally understandable if some of you were possibly upset my previous statements expressing \"troubled concern\" and \"measured consternation\" over your current situation. Please, do not interpret those statements as somehow taking one side or the other. I was not trying to be provocative or inflammatory, and far be it from me to interfere or play favorites. As we say over here in the Great Satan, \"I don't have a dog in this fight,\" and so I was merely \"calling 'em like I see 'em.\" Frankly, if America is going to regain respect as a geopolitical superpower, we need to make the tough call to sit quietly on the sidelines. That's why I have instructed my diplomatic team remain strictly neutral and to \"let 'em play.\" With time and patience, I hope you will come to think of us as a bigger, flatter version of Switzerland. With less yodeling.
