Tweet
I, of course, agree – with SubGod and I have to respectfully disagree with SB Shock.
If you recall, SB the Iranian revolution in 1979 took over a year to come to fruition. As far as influencing the current Iranian government, I agree that outside influence is unlikely to have any impact on its behavior; however, that is not really the point. “Outside influence” can, and has, had a positive impact upon those who wish to remove an oppressive government – even if it is just words of encouragement and support. Our own government had a profound impact on pro-democracy movements behind the Iron Curtain – and back then we managed to support those movements while at the same time engaging with the Soviet Union – despite the fact that many made the same arguments that you and others make today.
In my judgment, President Obama's Iran policy has been an ethical and practical embarrassment from the beginning.
Starting with what it appears has become the primary force in the President’s foreign policy: Moral equivalence. After the protests started the President, strictly adhering to this principal, put Mousavi and, by extension, the crowds in the street and Ahmadinejad on the same moral plain. While, as I previously stated, I may have been sympathetic to this point of view prior to the “election” (with regard to Mousavi vs. Ahmadinejad) after the election I view this position as morally disgraceful and practically untenable.
Furthermore, for the first few days the Administration and some in the media issued pompous "in the know" suggestions to the effect that Ahmadinejad may have "really" won the election. As if to attempt to legitimize what is and was inherently illegitimate from the beginning.
Then we were advised that those individuals who from the start saw the issues at stake and supported the reformers with strong words of encouragement were some sort of interventionist “neocons” who wanted to do another Iraq-like invasion, or would egg on reluctant demonstrators only to betray them in Hungary-like fashion -- a sadly typical, but odd, strawman that the Administration and others set about setting ablaze. I have not read a single article encouraging such action.
Then it was openly stated that we were unsure who would win, with the obvious inference that we are hedging our bets at the expense of values and principles. Our moral outrage, in the words of the President himself, seemed to hinge on the outcome of the struggle at hand. Throughout the next several days, we've seen split-the-difference, 50/50, "debate going on" fluff, as if risking one's life to promote freedom is just a narrative that competes with another from thugs who wish to crush them.
It seems the Administration was caught completely flatfooted, which I understand; however, no one apparently appreciates the stakes at hand, that there was an outside chance that many of the key issues of our time — from lunantic nuclear proliferation to terrorist subsidies to undermine neighboring democracies — are in play, and worth the risk of strong moral condemnation of the Iranian theocracy. It is almost as if this administration assumes a nuclear Iran is a done deal, and is now more worried about scrambling to come up with plans B and C.
Then we are to believe that outreach to the Iranian mullahs and Islam in general, in the interviews given by the President on local television in the Middle East, the Cairo speech, and the video sent to Ahmadinejad explain the popular uprising against a theocratic radical Islamist dictatorship — rather than the intrinsic desire for freedom among millions deprived of same for 30 years by a ruling Islamist clique, not to mention the presence of a still vibrant Shiite-majority democracy next-door in Iraq? What logic! So I guess that I am to understand that speaking out in praise of Islam appealed to those opposing radical Islam to such an extent that then going silent in their hour of need helped them even more.
To live is to maneuver. This Administration is demonstrating, with regard to this particular crisis, a profound inability to reassess its own dogmatic beliefs (something they, of course, accused the Bush Administration of doing) and deal with reality. They need to learn to walk and chew gum at the same time.
If you recall, SB the Iranian revolution in 1979 took over a year to come to fruition. As far as influencing the current Iranian government, I agree that outside influence is unlikely to have any impact on its behavior; however, that is not really the point. “Outside influence” can, and has, had a positive impact upon those who wish to remove an oppressive government – even if it is just words of encouragement and support. Our own government had a profound impact on pro-democracy movements behind the Iron Curtain – and back then we managed to support those movements while at the same time engaging with the Soviet Union – despite the fact that many made the same arguments that you and others make today.
In my judgment, President Obama's Iran policy has been an ethical and practical embarrassment from the beginning.
Starting with what it appears has become the primary force in the President’s foreign policy: Moral equivalence. After the protests started the President, strictly adhering to this principal, put Mousavi and, by extension, the crowds in the street and Ahmadinejad on the same moral plain. While, as I previously stated, I may have been sympathetic to this point of view prior to the “election” (with regard to Mousavi vs. Ahmadinejad) after the election I view this position as morally disgraceful and practically untenable.
Furthermore, for the first few days the Administration and some in the media issued pompous "in the know" suggestions to the effect that Ahmadinejad may have "really" won the election. As if to attempt to legitimize what is and was inherently illegitimate from the beginning.
Then we were advised that those individuals who from the start saw the issues at stake and supported the reformers with strong words of encouragement were some sort of interventionist “neocons” who wanted to do another Iraq-like invasion, or would egg on reluctant demonstrators only to betray them in Hungary-like fashion -- a sadly typical, but odd, strawman that the Administration and others set about setting ablaze. I have not read a single article encouraging such action.
Then it was openly stated that we were unsure who would win, with the obvious inference that we are hedging our bets at the expense of values and principles. Our moral outrage, in the words of the President himself, seemed to hinge on the outcome of the struggle at hand. Throughout the next several days, we've seen split-the-difference, 50/50, "debate going on" fluff, as if risking one's life to promote freedom is just a narrative that competes with another from thugs who wish to crush them.
It seems the Administration was caught completely flatfooted, which I understand; however, no one apparently appreciates the stakes at hand, that there was an outside chance that many of the key issues of our time — from lunantic nuclear proliferation to terrorist subsidies to undermine neighboring democracies — are in play, and worth the risk of strong moral condemnation of the Iranian theocracy. It is almost as if this administration assumes a nuclear Iran is a done deal, and is now more worried about scrambling to come up with plans B and C.
Then we are to believe that outreach to the Iranian mullahs and Islam in general, in the interviews given by the President on local television in the Middle East, the Cairo speech, and the video sent to Ahmadinejad explain the popular uprising against a theocratic radical Islamist dictatorship — rather than the intrinsic desire for freedom among millions deprived of same for 30 years by a ruling Islamist clique, not to mention the presence of a still vibrant Shiite-majority democracy next-door in Iraq? What logic! So I guess that I am to understand that speaking out in praise of Islam appealed to those opposing radical Islam to such an extent that then going silent in their hour of need helped them even more.
To live is to maneuver. This Administration is demonstrating, with regard to this particular crisis, a profound inability to reassess its own dogmatic beliefs (something they, of course, accused the Bush Administration of doing) and deal with reality. They need to learn to walk and chew gum at the same time.
Comment