President Obama was told that Iranian protestors think he hasn’t said enough about the uprising.
Obama: “...the last thing that I want to do is to have the United States be a foil for those forces inside Iran who would love nothing better than to make this an argument about the United States.”
While I can understand the President’s position, it seems too much of a bad gamble. The Iranian Mullahs have been using the U.S. as “a foil” for anti-western sentiment for years. We are the “great Satan” in Iran—at least officially. Anti-westernism is a standard government line. Being guided by conern for that seems, well, misguided. We have a big opportunity here. Amongst Iran’s youth—70% of the country is roughly below 35 years of age—the U.S. is quite unofficially popular. It’s the crusty older religious guys who hate America and the West. We need to capitalize on the pro-Western sentiments in that country. And we need to do it while the momentum is swinging in our direction.
The toppling of the current Iranian regime could mean an entire change in direction for Iranian politics and Middle Eastern politics in-general. Stopping Iran from becoming a nuclear power, and having the the regime that's the world’s largest supporter of terror go belly up, are both in America’s best interest. Of course there's no guarantee a new regime will be “pro-Western” per se, but there is a good chance a new regime will be less of a threat than the current one. It's the moderates waiting in the wings to take over.
This opportunity may not come again anytime in the near future. The Mullahs are becoming desperate and the military crackdown is probably coming soon.
I realize the forces at play here and the balancing act Obama is trying to maintain. But he needs to openly lean more forcibly toward those in the streets. Let's not miss this chance.
President Obama needs to say (and behind the scenes do) more in support of the protestors in Iran.
June 20, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)

4 comments:
I think that Obama's handled this one pretty deftly, Jeff. He hasn't got caught up in the Andrew Sullivan-style popular revolution hype, but seems to have adopted a wait and see approach until the situation (i.e., the extent of the protestors' power and the reaction of the regime) becomes clearer. A wise move as Ahmadinejad and the regime command a great deal of support, and we're seeing the evidence and result of this now.
To refer to your post on Berlin, this caution is how I'd expect a Machiavellian political leader to operate. And I mean that as a compliment.
Peter - First, good to hear from you.
I agree with you in-part. But, as Obama's own chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel said: "never let a serious crisis go to waste." The heat is on in Iran. I fully realize Obama needs to be careful with how he handles this, but he can, in a Machiavellian way I might add, use some fine, carefully crafted rhetoric to help provide moral support to the protesters. Let's at least throw some fuel to the fire.
I'm not sure that "regime change" is likely or desirable. Most people who are protesting are not looking to overthrow the Islamic revolution, just to get a fresh election and some modest reform of the political system. Even if there was a change in government, Mousavi is hardly a western style democrat. And during times of prolonged turmoil, there's always the real possibility that hardliners will come to the fore and gain power, thus making the situation worse.
Peter – If the protests generated enough sympathy amongst the military or other moderate leaders there is a chance the mullahocracy could come down. Regime change, in that sense, is a reality and while risky has a good chance of bringing moderates to power. The Islamic revolution still has support, yes, but it’s viewed differently across Iran and there is a deep divide on how the government should be set up. The Islamic revolution in its original form wasn’t so much about a rejection of change as a rejection of the West. But that was a generation ago. Many in new generation, the majority probably, don’t see it entirely that way anymore. Many of them like American culture and are regularly chided and punished for it. Not everyone thinks the mullahs should be allowed to overrule an elected government either. Western thinking has influenced the younger generation more than the mullahs would like. Mir Hossein Mousavi is despised—amongst many reasons—by the Mullahs and the hard right, because he wants to engage in full negotiations with the U.S., the great Satan.
Yes, Hossein embraces the revolution. At least that is what he says. (He had better if he wants to live or not disappear). I think many in Iran long to connect and embrace Western ideals without necessarily surrendering to it. Certainly the spreading of democracy in the region has fueled these sentiments. Mousavi is a moderate that appeals to a lot of Iranians hoping for change. More than likely, I believe, Mousavi was popularly elected president. The mullahs probably did fix the election. Mousavi is too pro West and that is not acceptable to the mullahs, however. If anything this event only confirms for many Iranians the illegitimacy of a group of old clerics overruling a nation of people.
And I’m not so sure Machiavelli would have agreed with Obama. He was an opportunist. Any opportunity to weaken an opponent is always capitalized on. The real question here is how it’s done. We need not get caught up in this Andrew Sullivan like. But Obama should have used his smooth rhetoric to provide more moral support to those in the streets. He should have made them feel the sacrifices (in the event of a struggle) for a truly democratically elected government are worth it.
Post a Comment
Thank you for commenting.