The DOMA thread seems ill-suited to discussing Obama's reaction to events in Iran, and the other Iran thread is more about event-tracking, so.. Commentary has an excellent article comparing Obama to Reagan and the soviet union, also noting the parallels with Eisenhower and the 1956 Hungarian uprising. I think the more apt parallel is the the first George Bush, and the marsh arabs in Iraq, whom he encouraged in their uprising Desert Storm, and then abandoned to Saddam's tender mercies. Obama's Cairo rhetoric was impressive, but his (lack) of action just two weeks later makes it all seem like a foule's post-prandial hot air... [rquoter]Wanted: 'Hope' for Iran Rarely in U.S. history has a foreign policy course been as thoroughly repudiated by events. By BRET STEPHENS On the one hand we have democratically elected Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, reputed hardliner, who on Sunday abandoned his own long-held position and, to the immense disappointment of much of his political base, spoke of his willingness to accept a Palestinian state -- provided only that the Palestinians forswear military pursuits, resettle Palestinian refugees in their own territory, and recognize Israel as a Jewish state, just as the U.N. did at the country's founding. On the other hand there's Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Holocaust-denier and nuclear aspirant, who on Friday was declared the winner of an election so transparently rigged that the only serious question is whether the regime even bothered to stuff the ballot boxes. Since then, scores of reformist politicians have been arrested or intimidated, rallies have been banned, and the possibility of an Iranian Tiananmen hangs in the air. Question: Toward which of these two leaders does President Obama intend to play the heavy? Not, apparently, with the Iranian. On Saturday, spokesman Robert Gibbs said the White House "was impressed by the vigorous debate and enthusiasm that this election generated, particularly among young Iranians." On Sunday, Joe Biden allowed that there "was some real doubt" about the election, but said the U.S. would continue its outreach to Iran anyway. It was only after 48 hours that the president finally echoed his spokesmen. This is a strange turn of events. In Cairo two weeks ago, Mr. Obama trumpeted "my commitment . . . to governments that reflect the will of the people." He also lamented that "the United States played a role in the overthrow of a democratically elected Iranian government." Yet here is his administration disavowing the first of these commitments while acquiescing in the overthrow -- before it can even be installed -- of another democratically elected Iranian government. Now a presidency that's supposed to be all about hope is suddenly in cynical realpolitik mode -- the only "hope" it means to keep alive being a "grand bargain" over Iran's nuclear program. This never had much chance of success, but at least until Friday's sham poll it wasn't flatly at odds with the interests of ordinary Iranians. Not anymore. Here's a recent comment from one Iranian demonstrator posted on the Web site of the National Iranian American Council. "WE NEED HELP, WE NEED SUPPORT," this demonstrator wrote. "Time is not on our side. . . . The most essential need of young Iranians is to be recognized by US government. They need them not to accept the results and do not talk to government as an official, approved one." Someday a future president may have to apologize to Iranians for Mr. Obama's nonfeasance, just as Mr. Obama apologized for the Eisenhower administration's meddling. But the better Eisenhower parallel is with Hungary in 1956. Then as now a popular uprising coalesced around a figure (Imre Nagy in Hungary; Mir Hossein Mousavi in Iran), who had once been a creature of the system. Then as now it was buoyed by inspiring American rhetoric about freedom and democracy coming over Voice of America airwaves. And then as now the administration effectively turned its back on the uprising when U.S. support could have made a difference. Hungary would spend the next 33 years in the Soviet embrace. One senses a similar fate for Iran, where Mr. Ahmadinejad's "victory" signals the ultimate ascendancy of the ultra-militants in the Revolutionary Guards Corps and the paramilitary Basij, intent on getting what they want and doing as they please even in defiance of their old clerical masters. Which means: Get ready for a second installment of the Iranian cultural revolution. Mr. Ahmadinejad signaled as much when he promised to go after the corrupt elements of the old regime, particularly the circle around former president Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, who openly opposed the incumbent prior to Friday's poll. As for the hope -- expressed over the weekend by one unnamed senior U.S. administration official to the New York Times -- that Mr. Ahmadinejad would moderate his course in foreign policy to allay concerns about his legitimacy, the president made his views plain on Sunday. "It's not true," he said. "I'm going to be more and more solid." Those are words for Mr. Obama to ponder. Rarely in U.S. history has a foreign policy course been as thoroughly repudiated by events as his approach to Iran in his first months in office. Even Jimmy Carter drew roughly appropriate conclusions about the Iranian regime after the hostages were taken in 1979. Maybe this president will now draw roughly appropriate conclusions, too. Or maybe he'll just turn his gaze from his nonstarting overture to Tehran to the Holy Land, whose pastures look ever-so slightly greener thanks to Mr. Netanyahu's attempt at reasonableness and conciliation. Israelis shouldn't count on Mr. Obama responding in kind.[/rquoter]
Fools like you and Cheney that advocated a hard line with Iran and Iraq have no legs to stand on with your criticisms of how Obama is reacting to these elections. As rim said, Glen writes well -- The "Bomb Iran" contingent's newfound concern for The Iranian People (updated below - Update II) I'm going to leave the debate about whether Iran's election was "stolen" and the domestic implications within Iran to people who actually know what they're talking about (which is a very small subset of the class purporting to possess such knowledge). But there is one point I want to make about the vocal and dramatic expressions of solidarity with Iranians issuing from some quarters in the U.S. Much of the same faction now claiming such concern for the welfare of The Iranian People are the same people who have long been advocating a military attack on Iran and the dropping of large numbers of bombs on their country -- actions which would result in the slaughter of many of those very same Iranian People. During the presidential campaign, John McCain infamously sang about Bomb, Bomb, Bomb-ing Iran. The Wall St. Journal published a war screed from Commentary's Norman Podhoretz entitled "The Case for Bombing Iran," and following that, Podhoretz said in an interview that he "hopes and prays" that the U.S. "bombs the Iranians." John Bolton and Joe Lieberman advocated the same bombing campaign, while Bill Kristol -- with typical prescience -- hopefully suggested that Bush might bomb Iran if Obama were elected. Rudy Giuliani actually said he would be open to a first-strike nuclear attack on Iran in order to stop their nuclear program. Imagine how many of the people protesting this week would be dead if any of these bombing advocates had their way -- just as those who paraded around (and still parade around) under the banner of Liberating the Iraqi People caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands of them, at least. Hopefully, one of the principal benefits of the turmoil in Iran is that it humanizes whoever the latest Enemy is. Advocating a so-called "attack on Iran" or "bombing Iran" in fact means slaughtering huge numbers of the very same people who are on the streets of Tehran inspiring so many -- obliterating their homes and workplaces, destroying their communities, shattering the infrastructure of their society and their lives. The same is true every time we start mulling the prospect of attacking and bombing another country as though it's some abstract decision in a video game. After The Wall St. Journal published the Podhoretz war dance demanding that Iran be bombed, and after Podhoretz casually called for England to "bomb the Iranians into smithereens" if their sailors weren't immediately returned, I wrote: In this week's Newsweek, Michael Hirsh has a worthwhile article reporting on his observations during his visit to Iran. While listing the internally repressive measures taken by the Iranian government, Hirsh describes Tehran as "bustling," as "traffic crowds the streets and boulevards," filled with the "chic" Iranian women and the "meterosexual" Iranian males who seek greater economic security and prosperity. That is what Norm Podhoretz and his friends hungrily want to annihilate. Matt Yglesias, in a recent post about the administration's "debate" over whether to bomb Iran, wisely included a random photograph of an Iranian street with civilians walking on it. These are the people Norm Podhoretz and his comrades want to slaughter: Our ability to render invisible the people we kill when cheering on our wars is one of the primary mechanisms which make it so easy to embrace that option. Perhaps the scenes unfolding in Iran, our Enemy Du Jour, will make those dehumanization efforts -- the linchpin of our militarism and state of perpetual war -- more difficult in the future. http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/#share
The cool thing is that if Basso gets his way his kids can go fight some of the wars that he advocates, but continually chickenhawks out on.
Why do some think we have some pull in Iran? Best thing to do right now is say little. If what we'd like to see does not happen, you look for opportunities to build on what did happen with the idea of pushing it a little further next time, but ultimately, just like in Iraq, the people of Iran have the choice.
For him it's more like: Do not post gentle on that good site. Rage, rage against a tiny hint of light.
The last thing I want is Obama adding fuel to the base of Ahmadinejad''s fire. We need to stay on the sidelines of this anyways. What good could come out of what you want Basso?
If Obama said anything negative, it would be merely used as propaganda by Iranians. Obama is playing diplomacy masterfully.
basso liked the foreign policy and tone of diplomacy that felt good to talk tough. Of course that type of diplomacy has seen Iran develop and maintain numerous centrifuges. NK now has 8-12 nuclear weapons which they didn't when the last administration began that kind of diplomacy... but it made the bassos of the world feel macho and tough even if it was counter productive to any meaningful results.
Basso's daily checklist: 1. Listen to Rush for 5 hours. 2. Surf right wing blogs and websites to analyze the Rush show with friends and comrades. 3. Post 4 obama bashing threads on cf.net based on steps 1 and 2. 4. Hug my Hannity lifesized doll. 5. Send giggly flirtatious IMs to bigtexxx and T_J. 6. Quickly forget about the 4 obama bashing threads on cf.net after 12 posts. 7. Go to sleep with Hannity lifesized doll.
The comparison to the 1956 Hungary is wrong on a few levels with the biggest being that it wasn't an internal uprising but outside forces stepping, the Soviet Union, stepping in. If the author is going to draw a comparison Tiananmen would be more apt and I doubt that the author of the original piece or Basso would've felt that the US should've intervened then. As for the situation with Hungary while it was terrible if the US and the rest of NATO had intervened the results for Hungary and the rest of Europe might have been much worse. The Warsaw Pact possessed a conventional forces superiority and even with the defection of Hungary there is no guarentee that NATO wins. Europe gets devestated by another war, possibly even nuclear, and even if things the Warsaw pact backs off the precedent is set for intervention and at that point the Soviet Union might feel free to intervene in France during the student riots of 1968. Hungary was tragic and a sad chapter of the Eisenhower Admin. but given the stakes non-intervention was the right move.
That's all the neocons know how to do: Invade Iraq. Invade Afganistan. Now Bomb Iraq. Bomb N. Korea. Bomb bomb bomb. And they wonder why we have a deficit?
I asked you this question in the Iranian elections thread but will ask it again here. What are you advocating the the US do in regard to the current situation in Iran?
there's a lot we could do. here's some fairly common sense suggestions. but i find it absurd that a US president cannot find it in himself to denounce ahman, and offer some form of encouragement towards the millions demonstrating in the streets for democracy. hell, even Sarkozy found it in himself to muster the appropriate outrage. this is a president who has loudly and eloquently proclaimed that words matter- and yet on this, he bites his tongue. i wonder if M'Obama is proud now.
Obama did something that actually HELPED! With a Hint to Twitter, Washington Taps Into a Potent New Force in Diplomacy http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/17/world/middleeast/17media.html?_r=1&hp Obama went to the CEO of Twitter and asked him not to take Twitter down for scheduled maintenance. Pretty damn smart if you ask me.
