Home › Blogs › Lonestar Bill's blog ›

Obama's Feet of Clay

Submitted by Lonestar Bill on Mon, 06/15/2009 - 13:21
in

As we see protesters take to the streets of Tehran today, amid reports that they are being fired upon, it occurs that this might be a good time for President Obama to stand up and say "the Unitied States stands with the people of Iran". Or words to that effect. No doubt the Bush administration would have seized upon this opportunity yesterday to support the people and call on Iran to heed the wishes of her people.

But, we are getting the typical talk from Team Obama:

The White House has been careful not to take sides in the debate, but White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs today said the administration had "concern."

"I think there are a number of factors that give us some concern about what we've seen," Gibbs said.

This weekend, Vice President Biden said that the United States was waiting and watching the events in Iran, but that the election was not "as clear cut as they make it sound."

Not clear cut?One of the worlds worst behaving leaders is in trouble at home with his own people, and the United States can't officially offer those people a word of support? Is Obama afraid of offending holocaust denier Akmadinajad, possibly one of the most offensive and oppressive people on the planet? The administration can not even paper up some support in diplomatic speak?

So much for being leaders of the free world. Fear of offending our enemies is driving our foriegn policy. There was a day when America would have unabashedly supported oppressed people who rose up against their oppressors.

 

3
Your rating: None Average: 3 (2 votes)

Comments

My prayers for the disappeared.

Submitted by Knackers on Mon, 06/15/2009 - 13:49.

My friends and allies of free people everywhere.

Fires burn, as Fraggle Rock reruns roll on official TV.

 

It is readily apparent that you do not understand much about Iran, or how valuable a potential ally she is, in our quest to stabilize the Middle East.

In Iran, there is not as much oppression as you have been led to believe, I would suspect. For instance, they allow mixed-gender nightclubs filled with liquor... if you are of the middle class. Unlike Saudi Arabia (our erstwhile Ally), in Iran, the alliance is between the clerics and the middle class... and if you are middle class, you may do as you please, with only a thin veneer of 'respectability' in public places.

 

You know, it's funny, but I seem to remember America actively overthrowing democratically elected leadership, and actively standing in the way of popular leaders. Vietnam, Chile, and Iran among them.

What part of supporting Pinochet was supporting free people again?

How about Sadaam Hussein?

 

I think you might be misremembering our realpolitik as some sort of idealism. I strongly suggest you revise your conclusions, as I strongly disagree with idealistic foreign policy.

Oh I am aware

Submitted by Lonestar Bill on Mon, 06/15/2009 - 14:45.

This isn't a matter of overthrowing a democratically  elected leader. This is supporting people who want real democracy and doing it without firing a shot. This is probably one of many false starts toward revolutionary (or counter revolutionary) change in Iran. It is important to let the opposition know that the US will support them and recognize them.

As far as life in Iran, I know it is different in Tehran than out in the country. But ist sounds like there is a significant movement for change, and I think we should be supporting that. Brave people are taking to the streets and being beaten. That deserves support from Obama.

As far as life in Iran, didn't we just have an American reporter arrested and detained there?

Aren't they beating and shooting protesters in the streets?

Also, they cut off Facebook, You Tube, and the BBC today. Fortunately they forgot about Twitter.

You can say that's not oppressive, but I disagree.

no doubt about it, it is repressive.

Submitted by Knackers on Mon, 06/15/2009 - 14:57.

but the appropriate thought is "crackdown" not "continuing authoritarian regime"... in the weeks before the election, many pictures of women showing their hair have been circulating. This speaks towards a free-er Iran than the one we Americans (stuck in the 80's?) think of.

http://www.reuters.com/article/vcCandidateFeed7/idUSTRE55E6AT20090615

America, has a unique and special relationship with Iran, which makes our government speaking out rather ... problematic (we don't want reformists branded traitors, after all).

It seems like what we should do is a "united front" approach, where America joins in (johnny-come-lately) to a Europe led inquiry on the election results.

Concur, show support -- for our current allies as well as potential future ones. I think this sounds pretty sensible.

70% of Iran's population is under 30.

Understood but . . .

Submitted by Lonestar Bill on Mon, 06/15/2009 - 15:03.

Doesn't Obama resonate much more with young Iranians than Bush? Wouldn't a nod from him give their movement credibility and sustain momentum?

I noticed on Kos there were a few posts about who would get credit if Iran revolts and becomes more freindly to the US. Well, I for one, would give Obama credit where credit is due. But if he misses this opportunity, that would be sad.

undoubtedly they do -- but they don't have all the power.

Submitted by Knackers on Mon, 06/15/2009 - 15:10.

the clerics have a lot, and if they think that the reformist movement is a coup-attempt from the US, that will not go over well. The more that Iran takes a bunker mentality (other people keep sticking their noses in our business, see nuclear power), the more status the hardliners get.

Ideally, we can rig it so that the Clerics realize that their society wants to modernize, and show them how to bend it so that they can keep trappings of power, while letting their society become more of a democracy (thinking of Clerical Democracy, like Constitutional Monarchy, here).

The reformists need credibility with the military, the clerics, and the Supreme Leader.

(I wish life was simple! I think it was simpler in Georgia, come to think...)

I concur.

Submitted by thirdeblue on Mon, 06/15/2009 - 16:11.

The U.S. needs to do whatever it can to convince the Ayatollah it is in his best interest to liberalize and moderize.  If the opposition is seen as tools of the U.S., then it can be de-legitimized by Ahmajinidad.  The U.S. should highly question the legitimacy of the elections, re-affirming Iranian self-determination, and vowing to negotiate with the legal winner of their Presidential election.  Condemn any violence done by protestors and urge the government to (a) not use violence themselves and (b) not stand by and watch while Iranian citizens are beating the shit out of each other.

Unless Iran wants a civil war, I would also suggest they protect both Ahmajinidad and Mousavi.

As a side note, I would also suggest that using this time to tell the Iranian people that Iran should be allowed to develop nuclear technology for civilian and military purposes when they have adequately shown the international community that their government and the countries people are mature and stable enough to be trusted with such technology.  U.S. antagonism on the issue of nuclear technology is a strong reason (as well as the threat of bombings or invasion by the U.S.) that fascist Ahmajinidad has whatever support he has anyway.

you can see from Ayatollah

Submitted by eeeee on Mon, 06/15/2009 - 16:48.

you can see from Ayatollah Khamenei's speaches that he is still stuck in the mindste of the 1979 revolution. there will be no cooling of us relations until he is dead. chris, running linux on my asus pc

America, has a unique and

Submitted by acinphx on Mon, 06/15/2009 - 16:33.

America, has a unique and special relationship with Iran, which makes our government speaking out rather ... problematic (we don't want reformists branded traitors, after all).

Very important point.  All that I think Pres. Obama needs to do now is express hope for a peaceful and fair resolution.  The administration already questioned the validity of the election results, which is helpful to the protesters.  Saying any more would likely just lead to the regime using it as an excuse to crack down even more harshly. 

Wow, what a stat -- 70% of the population under 30.  Trying to get my head around the economic and political implications of that. 

politically? a public that is very very bored

Submitted by Knackers on Mon, 06/15/2009 - 16:43.

with being forced (as children on up) to chant "Down with the USA!"... and is looking increasingly to the west, and to the internet (where women and men are beginning to date electronically).

as to why Obama isn't encouraging these protests...

Submitted by Knackers on Mon, 06/15/2009 - 13:54.

perhaps he's learned from George W Bush?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8101841.stm

 

Ten or tenthousand ways to encourage unrest or reform, but precious few of them public.

Speaking at 5 p.m. today?

Submitted by acinphx on Mon, 06/15/2009 - 14:02.

I saw a blurb on another site that indicated he will speak about Iran at 5:00 today.  I don't have any heartburn that he hasn't spoken about it yet -- I think it could be worthwhile  to take time to observe how events develop, the Iranian government's response, etc.  His instinct seems to be to take more time before speaking/acting than Bush and I'm OK with that.  I think it serves us better than Bush's shoot (mouth) first, ask questions later, approach.  (e.g., the ill-fated "Mission Accomplished" schtick)

OT:  Can't remember where you live in Texas?  My son learned he is going to Goodfellow AFB in San Angelo for Intelligence specialization.  Had to share because of the irony, after all our back-and-forth about interrogation vis-a-vis reliable intelligence...

Hi acinphx

Submitted by Lonestar Bill on Mon, 06/15/2009 - 14:33.

I think it would be good to say something like "please don't shoot live ammo at the protesters" or something benign like that. Call me old fashioned. I hope Obama responds and takes the opportunity to take Amadinajad'scredibility down a few notches worldwide. My opinion is that in these situations the protestors get some momentum and then look to the world for support. The window of opportunity opens and closes quickly.

I'm in Houston. San Angelo is (as you probably know) more in the middle of the state. That is ironic and hope your son does well.  You must be proud.

 

truly, their bravery brings me close to the brink of tears.

Submitted by Knackers on Mon, 06/15/2009 - 14:12.

Yesterday being beaten in the streets, today chanting "thank you police" in respect and hope for the police's forbearance.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/6/15/742666/-In-Tehran,-Riot-Police-S...

They're speaking to us, to America and the free world. The signs they hold in protest, in English as well as Farsi and arabic.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/6/15/742752/-Tehran-Street-Photos(Massive-Sea-of-Green)

I see your point, but...

Submitted by mlindroo on Tue, 06/16/2009 - 01:35.

...direct, overt meddling in Iran is the LAST thing in the world that the United States should be doing right now!!!  We don't want Ahmadijenad to be able to say the opposition is just a stooge of foreign-backed zionism or something like that.

---

If Ahmadijenad manages to stay in power thanks to obvious fraud and if Moussawi and his supporters are massacred, then I would be very disappointed if Obama does not impose swift sanctions on Iran.

 

MARCU$

Riiight...advice from the party of "Bomb bomb Iran"

Submitted by NextRightNando on Mon, 06/15/2009 - 14:50.

Right - like the Obama administration should take advice from the party of "bomb, bomb, bomb bomb Iran".

One has to deal with caution.

Submitted by In between on Mon, 06/15/2009 - 14:50.

One has to deal with caution. Taking the calm approach and wait and see is the best approach.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/20/business/worldbusiness/20shrink.html?_...

 

But many Iranians say the international dispute over Iran's nuclear program has become a rallying point for a president who otherwise would be facing substantial public dissatisfaction over soaring inflation, rising unemployment and widespread censorship.

This has been a source of frustration to Iran's reformists, who dealt the president's party a blow at the polls in local elections in December but complain that the Bush administration's threatening rhetoric has pulled the rug out from under them.

"You are harmful for us. We try to tell politicians in Washington, D.C., please don't do anything in favor of reform or to promote democracy in Iran. Because in 100% of the cases, it benefits the right wing," said Saeed Leylaz, a business consultant and advocate of economic reform and greater dialogue with the West.

"Mr. Ahmadinejad tries to make the international situation worse and worse. And now with the U.N. Security Council resolution, he can say, 'Look, we are in a dangerous position, and nobody can say anything against us, because the enemy is coming into the country.' Exactly like George W. Bush in Washington, D.C. They are helping each other. They need each other, I believe."

 

Also, Bush gave Iran renewed power by getting rid of Saddam Hussein. And this was the caution that Colin Powell and others feared.

 

when it comes to dealing with Iran

Submitted by Ray in TX on Tue, 06/16/2009 - 00:15.

frankly, the GOP just needs to stfu because they have absolutely zero credibility on this particular issue. We have an adult in charge for the first time in a long time, so let's just let him do what he supposed to do.

You know, if the IRI is toppled over this and Lebanon continues on its moderate path, Obama's Cairo speech is probably going to be remembered, fairly or not, as the most significant speech given by an American president in decades.

Can anyone really imagine a plurality of Iranians saying

Submitted by NextRightNando on Tue, 06/16/2009 - 08:10.

Dittos.

Can anyone really imagine a plurality of Iranians saying "you know, we don't need this Ahmadinejad fellow anymore" if John "Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb bomb Iran" McCain was in the White House?

This is not about making the U.S. feel good about itself

Submitted by NextRightNando on Tue, 06/16/2009 - 08:10.

I copied that headline from Spencer Ackerman of The Washington Independent , as well as this:

It’s emotionally unsatisfying not to proclaim unequivocal support for the protesters. But the truer measure of support, as Trita Parsi told me, is to follow their lead. Moussavi, for instance, has not issued any statement about what he wants the international community to do. If the protesters begin calling for a more direct American response, then that really will have to compel the administration to reconsider its position. But until then, with so many lives at stake, the administration can’t afford to take a stance just because it makes Americans feel just and righteous.

 

How did you like Obama's speech?

Submitted by Knackers on Tue, 06/16/2009 - 09:04.

;-) [and as emotionally satisfying as it would be to lend unequivocal support to the protestors, if Moussavi loses, we still need to work with that holocaust-denier! this isn't some african country, where we have no need to work with the winner. America's security rests in some small part on how much power Iran is willing to expend in Iraq... the LAST thing we need is a power vacuum in Iraq].

At least he acknowleged the protesters

Submitted by Lonestar Bill on Tue, 06/16/2009 - 12:06.

And their abuse. Its a start.

Absolutely not

Submitted by cr on Tue, 06/16/2009 - 19:08.

Actually, there was a good 'forum' on this on Politico yesturday. I suggest all read. (sorry no link) The vast majority of the forum was against anything but a cool reaction.

Basically at this junction American support only hurts. In that part of the world, we don't want to seem to be 'interfering' and give an excuse for the government to get even tougher than it can. We simply have no levers to pull.

As for the Iranians, this is where a country starts deserving it's freedom. If something truely good did happen, I can only imagine we'll be there with open arms.

 

Gotta disagree

Submitted by Lonestar Bill on Tue, 06/16/2009 - 19:57.

and I  know what you are saying and I can see your POV.

But . . .we have to differentiate "people" from "government".  Ahmajenidad is a radical. The people of Iran are not. Obama has a lot of currency with the youth of Iran. He could use it to build momentum for change. 

Fear is no way to run policy. Obama thinks he will get credit for "not meddling" in Iran's affairs. He is wrong.  Why? Because Ahmajenidad is not rational. He is crazy. And it does no good to make rational gestures to crazy people. This nut will twist whatever Obama says and equate him with Bush, so Obama might as well get some milage out of it with Iran's youth.

My opinion is that Obama needs to question the results of the election publicly. If nothing else it diminishes Ahmajenidad.

Bush's Man In Iran Lauds Obama's Handling Of Iran Crisis

Submitted by NextRightNando on Tue, 06/16/2009 - 21:01.

Why don't you leave this to the professionals who, you know, actually have a bit of first hand knowledge of the country in question?

Bush's Man In Iran Lauds Obama's Handling Of Iran Crisis

John McCain and other Republicans and conservatives have been hammering away at Obama's handling of the Iran crisis, saying that it has been insufficiently aggressive. This morning, McCain demanded that Obama "condemn the sham, corrupt election," in order to "make sure that the world knows that America leads."

But guess who is praising Obama's approach and saying Obama's right to refrain from McCainian chest-thumping: George W. Bush's top negotiator with Iran, Ambassador Nicholas Burns. In an interview today with NPR, Burns praised Obama's handling of the crisis, and said that a more aggressive response would actually play into the hands of President Ahmadinejad. "President Ahmadinejad would like nothing better than to see a very aggressive series of statements by the United States that would try to put the U.S. in the center of this," Burns said. "And I think President Obama is avoiding that quite rightly."

"This is not a dispute for the U.S. to be the center of," Burns said at another point. "It's up to Iranians to decide who Iran’s future leaders will be. He said he respects Iran’s sovereignty. I think it was important to do that.”

 Burns said that Obama was right to refrain from throwing the U.S.’s weight around while giving props to reformers. He praised Obama for being “low-key” while saying he’s concerned about the plight of reformers and inspired by them, which Burns called a “balancing act.” 

It’s worth recalling that this is, in a sense, a replay of the 2008 election. McCain repeatedly suggested that Obama couldn’t be trusted to respond to bad actors or crises with aggressive enough displays of American force and will-power. Obama responded that chest-thumping could sometimes prove less productive than a lighter diplomatic touch. On this one, at least, Obama has the support of Bush’s Man in Iran.

 

Perhaps you are right

Submitted by Lonestar Bill on Tue, 06/16/2009 - 21:41.

Obama has followed the Bush lead on many foreign policy and domestic issues. Perhaps this is another example of where he should listen to Bush's experts.

please, give it a rest

Submitted by Ray in TX on Wed, 06/17/2009 - 00:32.

Bush deserves zero credit for this. He exacerbated the problem with Iran with his "Axis of Evil" speech and we'd probably have troops getting slaughtered trying to police Tehran if the Dems did not regain control of Congress in 2006 to put a stop to his foreign adventures.

Obama is playing this just right. He said PRECISELY what the Iranian people needed to hear when he was in Cairo. They know exactly where he stands, so he doesn't need to meddle any further.

By taking the softball approach with Iran, which every GOP candidate criticized, Obama has kneecapped the hardliners in the IRI and emboldened the moderates. It's one of those things that sounds great in theory, but it's really nice to see it coming to fruition. The fact that it's happening so quickly gives you a good idea of just how deep and broad the unrest was in Iran.

Come on now Ray!

Submitted by Lonestar Bill on Wed, 06/17/2009 - 06:48.

You know I couldn't pass up NRN holding up a former Bush admin official as an expert when it suits her!

 

Burns is a career diplomat

Submitted by NextRightNando on Wed, 06/17/2009 - 07:13.

Burns is a multilingual career diplomat who studied at the Sorbonne, teaches at Harvard, was Special Assistant to Bill Clinton, and was our Ambassador to NATO. Don't insult him by calling him a "former Bush admin official".

Perhaps you should check the title of your own post

Submitted by Lonestar Bill on Wed, 06/17/2009 - 07:39.

"Bush's Man in Iran . . ."

You often choke on your own words, don't you?

I'm not the one saying we should play into Ahmadinejad's hands

Submitted by NextRightNando on Wed, 06/17/2009 - 07:48.

I'm not the one saying we should play into Ahmadinejad's hands by making this all about us - that is you. I'll take my words over yours quite happily. Burns is no more a former Bush admin official than is General Petreaus.

How sad

Submitted by Lonestar Bill on Wed, 06/17/2009 - 08:29.

that you can't stand up for oppressed people without making it "all about us".

 

Give me a break

Submitted by NextRightNando on Wed, 06/17/2009 - 09:29.

The party of "Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb bomb Iran" crying crocodile tears for the Iranian man on the street is really to much to bear this early in the morning.

like it or not, that is how it would be portrayed.

Submitted by Knackers on Wed, 06/17/2009 - 12:01.

and with a great deal more legitimacy and credibility than currently displayed.

This is my generation's Krishtalnacht. I give thanks to G-d that I may help in my own small way, and I do indeed sympathize with folks like yourself, who feel so helpless and impotent.

America needs to be very very quiet. Europe does not.

Petreaus is still a bootlicker.

Submitted by Knackers on Wed, 06/17/2009 - 08:59.

(there are a lot of them in the military at that level.) Nice to see Colbert getting the real top-notch talent on his show (Jacoby). Odierno's decent, but Jacoby's formidable.

Obama has the experts.

Submitted by Knackers on Wed, 06/17/2009 - 08:57.

you know he didn't write that speech himself! (I shudder to think how many qualified and competent people got to read it).

I will be VERY disappointed if Obama is not politely asking Europe to take point on this (France would jump at the chance, I'm sure!). America and Iran have a bad history together... it's MUCH less offensive for Europe to cry foul.

I have seen no evidence that Ahmajenidad is crazy.

Submitted by Knackers on Wed, 06/17/2009 - 08:51.

his actions, including outright removal of nuclear weapons program, seem to fit in with a rational mindset. It is not paranoia when you take responsible actions to defend yourself against the world's superpower, when you've been labeled as part of the Axis of Evil.

Power may very well corrupt, but it does not cause insanity.

he is trying to get credit, not with the young urbanites

Submitted by Knackers on Wed, 06/17/2009 - 08:54.

but with the young rural voters,a nd the more conservative people who have gone through the Revolution, and still remember America meddling.

Besides, freedom is not what the US government is good at (well, it's not!). Obama's ideological allies are leading the fight to free information (happen to know one of them, he's busy keeping proxies open). Mark well every bit of news that you get from Iran -- it comes at the cost of innocent lives.

Told you so . . .

Submitted by Lonestar Bill on Wed, 06/17/2009 - 18:39.

This nut will twist whatever Obama says and equate him with Bush, so Obama might as well get some milage out of it with Iran's youth.

From ABC News:

Also today, Iranian state TV accused the United States of "intolerable" meddling in its internal affairs, The Associated Press reported.

 

The AP says a state television channel in Iran reported that the government called in the Swiss ambassador to Iran, who represents U.S. interests, to complain about American interference.

So, to summarize, Obama will get no credit from Ahmajenidad for "not meddling". In the meantime, he looks soft on human rights for not speaking up.

Its a lose/lose approach. A rational response to a madman is not rational.

It is time for Obama to question the results of the election, criticize the human rights violations we are all seeing, and question the legitamacy of Ahmajenidad as president.

Does anyone really think we can "do buisiness" with this man?

sir, have you no empathy?

Submitted by Knackers on Thu, 06/18/2009 - 10:49.

Ahmajenidad's response is quite as predictable as any other dictator's would be... divert attention to outside enemies. It's one used often by our allies in Saudi Arabia and Egypt, who have profited handsomely by demonizing Israel in order to suppress the populace's natural discontent.

Given the utter predictability, and rationality of focusing attention at "enemies of the state" -- oh how like Hitler!

How can you say the man is mad?

 

Yes, of course we can Do Business with cruel dictators! We talk with Red China, don't we? We supported Pinochet for crying out loud! And it was only by dealing with Gorby that we got Yeltzin and his cronies... We've even done business with North Korea!

 

This is all realpolitik, and as long as it serves America's long term as well as short term goals, I am all for it! I am no fucking idealist, no Carter. He's the last man, by the way, who would have acted as you wish. Because Jimmy, for all his faults, was a decent, honorable human being.

I prefer assholes, myself. Your mileage may vary.

 

Where was Bush, pray tell, during the violent suppression in Ethiopia? Did you not even hear about it? Hahaha! We only hear about such things when our media decides it is important. Check out globalvoices, they're a decent, broadranging newssource.

Our

Submitted by adamwestrop on Fri, 07/03/2009 - 14:50.

Foreign policy needs to be a bit tougher and we shouldn't be afraid of offending people. Our policies need to be dialed back 200 years or so and take a life out of our ancestors books.

How to build a shed