I think that is exactly the problem. I believe that there is a lack of understanding in the WHite House of where the fault lies for the issues in the Middle East.
-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
Protests in Iran
- Thread starter OUSOONER
- Start date
I think that is exactly the problem. I believe that there is a lack of understanding in the WHite House of where the fault lies for the issues in the Middle East.
The wrong thing? Since when was condeming the violence the wrong thing? As for 'supporting' democracy it is still not entirely clear what the heck happened with the election. There are plenty of indications of fraud but no proof. And regime change, gimme a break......
I find the criticism of the current administrations response to the current situation in Iran mildly ironic. While the previous administration certainly talked a big game sometimes it certainly was selective in doing it, talking a big game but often doing little and staying silent in cases like the jailing of an opposition presidential candidate in Egypt. Who was timid then? Like with much in politics, there seems to be a lack of self awareness or history in the recent criticism.
The original condemnation of violence was weak and was not adequately aimed at the government. The early statements were more calls for calm and a refrain from violence on both sides. As if unarmed protesters had to be scolded for violence against armed police in a police state. Days later the President did get more forceful. Better late then never, but shameful for a U.S. President. Yes it is true details about the actual election are sketchy. But why does it take an election irregularity in an election held in a theocratic police state to justify our President coming down on the side of protesters wanting more freedoms and fairer elections? Were the many protests in Poland not legitimate because their single party elections were fair? What would have happened in Poland if President Reagan, PM Thatcher and Pope John Paul not supported Solidarity, one more year under tyranny, two, 1000 more political prisoners?
It is you that talk politics now. I don't know all the details of the Egyptian candidate jailing. But if I take your word that it was wrong and even timid, then what possible justification does that give the current President for more of the same, unless it is just politics? I am not talking politics here. You brought it up. Presidents make mistakes. If Bush did so with the Egypt case then fine. On balance it is clear Bush spoke and acted more forcefully for freedom and democracy then not. Mr. Obama has many years ahead of him to do the same. I find he is not off to a good start.
What is the final result of talking tough when the protests started; will it change the regime's cracking down on the protesters? No, it would have played into their hands as they can make a stronger case for "western involvement". Right now state run TV is running interviews with people saying they were convinced to protest/rob/vandalize by the exhortations of the BBC and phone calls with people in the US. Add a nice video of the president condemning the election to aid that message. And whoever is the final victor will have to be dealt with diplomatically; strong condemnations and more of the hamfisted "Axis of Evil" rhetoric will only make that harder.
I doubt that Mousavi would have wanted an endorsement from us, as it would have been easy to pin him down as a puppet of the West. And Iran isn't 1980's Poland.
That is pretty much irrefutable. The rest isn't.
It takes away legitimacy from the government, and makes it easier to take subsequent steps.
This.^^
+37
I would not recommend throwing support to Mousavi. No one on the Hill has, as far as I know. I recommend being more supportive of protesters. Just who is riled up about the rantings of U.S. involvement by the Iranian government? Only those that buy into that crap in the first place. We can not win with them, EVER! The U.S. is always at fault. The President was meek and we have already been blamed. You say it yourself, lies about the BBC promoting violence are aired. So if you are to be blamed regardless of how you react, then just do the right thing and throw the protesters a bone. With that said, it seems with every day that passes, the President in slowly ramping up his rhetoric. So if he gets to the point that satisfies his critics, and he takes a strong supportive stand for reform in Iran, is he not then, albeit days late, doing everything wrong by your book? What would change his rhetoric but the realization that he was either wrong before, or that it is now safe to side with the would be reformers? Either way, not couragous.
You must believe that the election aftermath has been static, and that the President is condemning the violence to quell critics. The situation has been anything but; if the Ayatollah had succumbed to pressure from some of the more progressive clerics and allowed a wider-range of re-counts or offered opposition candidates spots in the government, or had allowed peaceful protests (as was happening overall in the days after the election) then I doubt we would see the President condemning the violence. It is only after the increasing violence, the speeches by Khamenei saying we were directly involved that he ramped up his condemnation.
I welcome his caution in getting involved; it would have had no value to come out with strong rhetoric early on provoking harsher reprisals toward the protesters from the Ayatollah and the mullahs. You must believe that if he came out strongly condemning the election it would have had a positive effect for the protesters; I disagree.
As for regime change; dear sweet God, you must be kidding.
After so many years of empty and bellicose rhetoric, it is tough sometimes to see actual diplomacy in action.:icon_wink
So it would have been OK to declare peaceful political protests illegal and break them up, violently or otherwise, just for a promise from the Ayatollah to have a recount? I guess we should have never thrown our support to the far more peaceful revolutions and reforms that occurred in most of the former Soviet block because they were not violent enough?
You don't know if more violent reprisal would have come on the heals of a more firm statement from the U.S. And even if it did, maybe that would have ignited something bigger. If you don't believe that coming out for the protesters would have a positive effect on them you have not been paying any attention to what political prisoners and dissidents have been saying for over 50 years!!!! As for regime change, that is the third time in two days someone has given me the open ended brush off. Just what do you mean? Do you prefer the Iranian government as it is comprised? Lets be clear, either you think the current government in Iran is a trustworthy agent that can be dealt with in diplomacy and provides all the basic human rights to it's citizens or you don't. If you don't, then there should be a change. I am not calling for covert action. But I believe it is a moral obligation to hope, pray, wish (take your pick) for the fall of governments run by people that abuse the human rights and dignity of their citizens and destabilize the region around them. I believe it is patriotic to hope for reform in a regime that has had a hand in killing hundreds of Americans. If you have a popular uprising in Poland, China, or Iran that requires nothing of the U.S. but words of support, then your potential return on investment is very very large and the down side small (more of the same name calling :sleep_125 ). Oh, and bellicose rhetoric is no less a tool of diplomacy then meek timid words. In fact, it works very well in the Middle East where strength is respected. I recognize the place for quite diplomacy. But this was not the time. Mr Obama could have found a voice somewhere between bellicosity and timidity.I welcome his caution in getting involved; it would have had no value to come out with strong rhetoric early on provoking harsher reprisals toward the protesters from the Ayatollah and the mullahs. You must believe that if he came out strongly condemning the election it would have had a positive effect for the protesters; I disagree.
As for regime change; dear sweet God, you must be kidding.
After so many years of empty and bellicose rhetoric, it is tough sometimes to see actual diplomacy in action.:icon_wink
Bingo. I don't understand what we're supposed to do differently that would have any real effect, but I'm open to your ideas, Wink. Short of military action, or threat thereof (and there's no way in hell we're going to do that), there isn't much we can do that will sway things in our favor. It's just going to have to play out. Wink: You present a false dichotomy. Sure, you can either be for or against the regime, but where does that leave you? We can complain about Iran all we want and "delegitimize" to our heart's content, but who are we kidding. Let's be honest, nobody has the stomach for a military confrontation (overt or otherwise), so let's stop pretending that something like that is even on the table.
Brett
Oh, by the way .... they're killing more people in Tehran today ... and apparently, nobody give a damn.
Latest 'news' reports ....
Even the 'lefties' agree ....
Iran-updated Apparent massacre in Baharestan Sq
Latest 'news' reports ....
Even the 'lefties' agree ....
Iran-updated Apparent massacre in Baharestan Sq
No one is talking about military action. Most of these reforms/regime changes happen from within without outside military action. That is the opportunity we are missing. It happens all over the world. Look at the transition Taiwan made, or South Korea. The vast majority of the post cold war map in Europe was drawn without significant violence and no outside interference. All these changes took place under the nurturing and encouragement of western nations supporting reform. Chief among them the U.S. You say what can we do that will have effect? Well, Mr. Obama is quite proud of his rhetorical skills. Most of his supporters think him as some contemporary Winston Churchill. So put those TelePrompTer skills to good use. Natan Sharansky, Lech Walesa, Vaclav Havel, Alexander Solzhenitsyn, and many Cuba political prisoners all tell of the power of U.S. support. The bright light that shines from the U.S. illuminates abuses so that they can not be indiscriminately applied. Drop the cynicism just a minute. We are talking about people with real feelings. They react like any of us. If they don't feel like they are getting anywhere. If they feel like their sacrifices are not appreciated or their words are not being heard beyond their own borders, they lose hope. You still are not getting it. If you will not come down on the side of reformers, in the streets or the Parliament, then you must be happy with the current arrangement. There is no significant downside to not supporting reformers in Iran. We get blamed one way or the other. Unlike Pakistan, we don't have to worry about nukes ending up in the wrong hands, yet. The timing could not be better. We support protesters in the streets BECAUSE it will give us a chance to deal with reform minded people that might abandon nukes to get out from under sanctions, soften their support of Hamas and Hezbollah so those cost can be plowed into their domestic problems, and let Iraq be because their democratic experiment will no longer be a threat, but a guide post. And the down side? We get blamed like we already have been. The protesters get their heads bashed at an increased rate and they retire to their homes licking their wounds until picked up by the police and disappear. The mullahs just might realize they dodged a bullet, and the legends and rumors of legends are quietly told in coffee houses and homes and at bus stops for years, until there is another spark. And then it will be bigger, more intense, and better organized. In the intervening time an entire country remains just as oppressed as they are now. And those are the down side issues. The U.S. doesn't fire a shot, Iran doesn't have nukes to lose control of, there are no refugees, Iraq is not destabilized. It is like buying a raffle ticket at the church social. The most you can lose is the $5 the ticket cost. The up side is you can win a new Chevy Cobalt. And the $5 goes to a good cause regardless. The President turns the speech writers loose and delivers his first real speech as a world LEADER. If it helps and we are lucky, we get reform of one of the most repressive governments in the world. If it doesn't work we are called names by a bunch of nut jobs no one we care about listens to, and the President chalks up a barn burner pro liberty speech for his library and the U.S. comes down on the side of self sacrificing reformers, women that simply want basic human rights. How can someone not want a change in Iran? How can any change conceivable be worse then what we have now?
Right again. I think you're giving this "reform movement" much more credit than it's due. This has just about zero chance of turning into any kind of significant change in the government there. You're acting like they're on the cusp of some kind of mass revolution where our "moral support" might just be the little bit of encouragement they need to overcome the regime. In two months, no one will remember this. I hope I'm wrong - I really do, but my healthy cynicism hasn't failed me yet.
Brett
I'm coming from what I would call a pragmatic or realist standpoint; whichever side is on top at the end will have to be dealt with diplomatically and isolating the hard-liners will only make the diplomacy harder and further isolate us from them.
And I shouldn't have given you the open-ended brush off; my point on regime change is that is nice to hope for, but should not be an overt aim of the US. I'm all for working the back channels and trying to get rid of the current leadership there, but if anyone in our administration said the words regime change they would be making a huge mistake.
You also make it seem like the only choices are "you don't support Iran's regime=you must support strong words" and conversely "you don't support strong words=you must support Iran's regime". There are plenty of choices beyond those.
I am glad the pragmatists are in charge vice idealists. But that is just me.