Back in the day -- the 60's that is -- conservatives fostered and circulated the idea that the people who were opposed to continued armed interference in Vietnam were all but on the payroll of Chairman Mao. Mumblings about "front" organizations and accusations of treason were commonplace even without anything resembling the internet to make it easy. One of the planned results of the strategy was to make it easier to continue the war indefinitely, violate the civil rights of objectors and easier to get conservatives to support the violation. Suggestions that Ho Chi Min preferred the Democratic candidate was heavy ammunition against him.
Now of course the Mullahs of Iran are far smarter than the average American -- who isn't? -- and if Barak Obama were to take on the traditional Republican role of moral bloviator and condemn the crackdown in Iran, they would be delighted to have the excuse that the thousands in the streets are foreign agents, motivated and backed and perhaps even paid by the United States. Any kind of violence could then be justified against these "enemy combatants" on religious and political grounds. Our open support of the protests in Tehran would effectively taint the movement which could be discussed as a Western incursion and not an Iranian movement by Iranians to take back control of Iran from a corrupt government.
Our Average American however, never can seem to resist a chance proudly to display anger and even more so when he can pretend it's moral outrage. CNN's current poll shows 76% in favor of having the President "condemn" the government of Iran as though he were himself an Ayatollah pronouncing a fatwah. Of course he has expressed sympathy for those seeking democracy and there is no one in the world who would think that we would support Khamenei anyway, but the contest between statecraft and soul satisfying, but counterproductive, rage has a predictable outcome.
I have severe misgivings and doubts about the way in which our economic predicament is being addressed, but when it comes to handling touchy and dangerous world affairs, Obama seems almost a genius compared to the man the Republicans would have had as president, strutting about a stage like an overweight, underpowered Mick Jagger, singing "bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran."
Capt. Fogg,
ReplyDeleteYes, Iran is relevant to us, but not about us. Those clamoring for an angry response are profoundly wrong. I have been reading that in some districts, more people voted than were even on the rolls. That's a good indicator even to this simple-minded dino that the mullahs rigged the election on a grand ayatollah scale. Of course, there's some sense in massive election-rigging as a gesture: it says to the entire people, "We know you know we did this, and we don't care because there's nothing you can do about it. Go ahead, you impious slobs, make our day." If that's so, now they must be finding out that their power is not unlimited after all. My guess is that the great majority of Iranians, even though they may not be interested in a purely secular government, are sick to death of a near-absolutist theocracy (such regimes are ever noteworthy for their "cruel, irreligious piety") and would like something more balanced and open-ended. A Euro-style general strike sounds like the next move, no?
To hear some say it, why shouldn't we get involved in helping determine the winners of an Iranian election?
ReplyDeleteIt worked pretty well the last time didn't it?
And they haven't forgotten. Only a country as ignorant of history as we are and only with a political party willing to take advantage of that ignorance, could we be as oblivious to the fact that we're not always seen as the good guys - and because we're so often not.
ReplyDeleteWhat makes my stomach turn is that they're already saying that this protest is the direct result of Bush's demolition of Iraq.
You can't fix stupid and unfortunately you're not allowed to kill stupid either.
Not all Republicans and conservative commentators are deserving of our wrath because there have been thoughtful voices amidst the rabble. Former SoS Henry Kissinger termed Obama’s approach “balanced and nuanced. George Will called Obama’s critics “silly.” Senator Lugar, the most senior Republican expert on foreign affairs thought Obama’s approach to be “just about right.” Even Pat Buchanan had this to say:
ReplyDelete“It is impossible to believe a denunciation of the regime by Obama will cause it to stay its hand if it believes its power is imperiled. But it is certain that if Obama denounces Tehran, those demonstrators will be portrayed as dupes and agents of America before and after they meet their fate. If standing up and denouncing the Ayatollah and Ahmadinejad from 7,000 miles away is moral heroism, it is moral heroism at other people's expense.”
Conservative commentator Peggy Noonan characterized Obama’s approach as “restrained, balanced and helpful.”
Buchanan and Noonan hit the proverbial nail. I only wish they drove that nail through the tongues of John McCain, Lindsey Graham, and Newt Gingrich who deserve our harshest condemnation. It is not enough to say these men are brash, ill spoken, and ignorant. More than that, they are lowlife political opportunists who really don’t give a damn about freedom, human rights, American foreign policy, or our national interest. They are chumming the waters for political advantage while demonstrating a callous disregard for the blood of young people on the streets of Tehran. My cephalopod opinion: McCain, Graham, and Gingrich are the vilest scum in the political Universe.
Chris Matthews played the video of McCain and his "bomb Iran" performance this evening. worth more than a thousand words, I'm sure.
ReplyDeleteWe dodged a bullet with this last election -- we surely did.
It appears that the Iranians counted 40 million votes in 2 hours.
ReplyDeleteIn contrast, Minnesota, several months after the election, still cannot determine that Franken beat Coleman by a couple of hundred votes.
It's a strange world! ;-)
ReplyDeleteEarlier today, political analyst Karim Sadjadpour of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace was interviewed on NPR's Fresh Air to discuss this unprecedented moment in Iran's political history.
ReplyDeleteWhat Sadjadpour points out: The current uprising would not have been possible during a Bush administration.
Had Iranian elections taken place before Obama, the citizenry loyal to their country would have been far more willing to accept the status quo because a belligerent and bellicose American president bent on regime change would have been perceived as a greater threat. With Bush gone, with the threat of regime change by the Great Satan removed, deeper resentments were able to rise to the surface.
What critics of Obama refuse to recognize is the impact of his presidency in places like Iran, Lebanon, and continental Africa. The slogan, "Yes We Can," is chanted in Farsi on the streets of Tehran.
Critics such as McCain and Graham should just shut-TFU. They have nothing to offer, and their words are counter-productive.
Arrested Iranian protesters are blaming the Voice of America and the BBC for instigating a riot.
ReplyDeleteBeatings or waterboarding?
I would bet on a little of each.
Absurd. If it's really protesters and not paid actors, I'm sure there was some "enhancement" involved in the interrogation.
ReplyDeleteTyrannies are all the same - protest is always "outside agitators" in the case of the civil rights protests, Communist front organizations during the Vietnam debacle and now, the all purpose "liberal"
For the rest of the world, we've been the scapegoat any time someone griped about their local tyrant.