Senate Iran — now discussing the nuclear deal and Congress

Yeah that point of mine was mostly sarcastic. Still it would be a great irony if the theocracy fell because the people felt they were allied with the 'Great Satan'.

I think what Obama is doing is the best option right now. We should play it cool and see where this goes. Of course that's just my friendly neo-con opinion.

 

Are you a neo-con?

 

I actually agree that Obama is doing the smart thing here. The Iranians view the external as bad, the internal as good. This situation just isn't the same as in other countries where it would be helpful to the people to have the president decry the leadership and help the emerging democratic forces.

I am in part just playing devil's advocate here. The fact that Iran is more democratic than its neighbors says more about the sorry state of the Middle East than the virtues of their system. And who knows, maybe Iraq will turn out to be beacon of democracy GWB wanted. I realize that I am taking a very realpolitik view on this, but there is only blowback when the other side finds out.

We can't be totally sure the election was fully rigged, but the response of the clerics does seem to indicate it was. If there was 100% proof then that would be very devastating to the regime.

 

Our CIA helped overthrow their democracy in 1953, at the request of Britain, so they could monpolize Iranian oil. If Obama throws his support behind the protestors, the Supreme Leader can say they are acting as the soldiers of "the enemy." Their military would then have the morale necessary to move in and massacre them, by calling it an external attack on Iran's sovereignty. Even the protestors would stop and rally behind the government if it looks like the U.S. will intervene, they are a very proud and patriotic nation, and they know how U.S. "liberation" of Iraq and Afghanistan has gone. The best thing we can do is to not interfere, and only speak out on universal values, such as the value of fair elections and the value of human rights (such as the right to not be massacred for expressing your opinion).





Important news update: Iran's Mousavi says he's "ready for MARTYRDOM"

Opposition leader Mirhossein Mousavi said he was "ready for martyrdom," according to an ally, in leading protests that have shaken the Islamic Republic and brought warnings of bloodshed from Iran's Supreme Leader.

Mousavi also called on Saturday for a national strike if he is arrested, a witness said. As darkness fell, rooftop cries of Allahu Akbar (God is greatest) sounded out across northern Tehran for nearly an hour, an echo of tactics used in the 1979 Islamic revolution against the Shah.

 

Obama barely even does that. He puts out a paper statement. A PAPER STATEMENT. This is not coolness or wisdom, it is COWARDICE.

Words and invoking Martin Luther King will not stop the Basij from beating and shooting those in Iran protesting the illegitimate regime.

If this democracy movement fails, Obama's cowardice will be the reason why.

 

Well it looks like Obama has abandoned his "stay out of it" strategy and has now told the Iranian government to cease all violent actions against the protests.



So, you folks here Ghost and others, what do you say now?

 

Obama barely even does that. He puts out a paper statement. A PAPER STATEMENT. This is not coolness or wisdom, it is COWARDICE.

Words and invoking Martin Luther King will not stop the Basij from beating and shooting those in Iran protesting the illegitimate regime.

If this democracy movement fails, Obama's cowardice will be the reason why.


The odd thing about that statement is how it's simultaniously an attack and yet narcissistic towards it's own nation at the same time. Whether Obama spoke up or not will affect this no more than it would have stopped Sri Lanka from crushing the Tamil Tigers.

But come, let's raise the great Presidential phallus. That will surely make the difference. After all the good it did the last time it was used. And the time before that. And the time before that. Go and send that message: as if anyone were listening.

 

The world does not revolve around the United States. A statement from Obama or the US government does no more to help Iranian protestors than making your Twitter page green in solidarity does.

 

Smuggler has yet to explain how, exactly, anything the United States says or does will help the Iranian protestors.

Perhaps you could do that, Smuggler. All you've used so far is heated rhetoric that says Obama should do and say more, without saying what the actual consequences of those words and actions would be.

Oh, and Smuggler? It is not a "democracy movement." Many (if not most) of the protestors are doing it out of a spirit of the original 1979 revolution, feeling that its meaning and spirit has been betrayed by recent events and certain government/theocratic leaders. There are elements of democracy in Iran, but it is not democracy as we know it here (and that's not a value judgment, just an observation).

 

The exact same thing I said before:

The best thing we can do is to not interfere, and only speak out on universal values, such as the value of fair elections and the value of human rights (such as the right to not be massacred for expressing your opinion).

No, it is playing it smart. There is nothing we can do anyways. What exactly do you want Obama to do, send in the special forces?

 

If we are not going to invade Iran to remove Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad from power on the grounds that 1) they are evil, 2) they are a dictator and his ventriloquist dummy act, 3) they are seeking to stockpile weapons of mass destruction and 4)they are an imminent threat to the security of the United States, plus 5) the Iranian people yearn to be free and 6) hey, would you look at all that oil!, then what's the use of being the United States? After all, we have a reputation to uphold.

 

Was Reagan dealing with two wars, a massive deficit, worldwide political dissidence, and burgeoning nuclear power led by an insane dictator?

The situations don't match up, and taking the cautious route here is what is known as the "smart" choice- something I think Americans on both sides of aisle have forgotten about over the past decade.

Has it occurred to you that Obama putting his weight behind the protesters could be the worst possible move for them considering it would give Ahmadinejad the opening to paint the movement as merely a CIA plot to topple the government(which we have done before, mind you)? By abstaining from the debate, Obama is helping the protesters maintain their legitimacy.

 

No, but Reagan helped start us down the path to our massive deficits. Wouldn't want to speak poorly of the dear leader of the GOP, though.

Iranians in general just plain don't like us, no matter their political views. Both reformers and those who favor the current regime actively dislike us, and with good reason.

 

That neocon language, at least, isn't so neo.

 

The irony being, of course, that Reagan's presidency was almost brought down by Iran, as they traded arms for hostages.

 

What about Reagan anger?

 

Reagan's policies led to the mess we're in now, some of them directly, others indirectly. He is not entirely to blame, but the ball started rolling in 1981. Ending the Cold War or not (which may be the only decent thing he did), I will never understand the mass worship of Reagan from the conservative side.

More irony, the Iranian hostage crisis cost Jimmy Carter the 1980 election (that and inflation) and then Reagan sold weapons to the Iranians. And now we're all so concerned that they have them?

As far as Obama--a few days ago when I heard the mass outcries from the GOP side that he wasn't taking a stand, my reaction was, yeah? Wait. He'll say something. As he said before, he likes to learn about a situation before he speaks on it. This is his personality.

If he had said something right away, to the tune of, "**** you, Ahmadinejad, you slimy *******", then the current Iranian regime would have had a ready-made target, and they could have accused us of interfering in their elections, as someone posted that we have done before. (No surprise there, we seem to be pretty good at interfering in other countries' business.) But lo and behold, they accused us of that anyway, and therefore Obama could make his comments supporting the dissenters afterwards.

There was never any real doubt in my mind that Obama fully supported the Iranian people, but I had to do some research to figure out why he wasn't making a firmer statement.

This link is not exactly what I was looking for, but one statement in it sums up Obama pretty well:

Quiet on Iran

Arguing that Sarkozy?s position, in contrast to Obama?s, is a geopolitical role reversal, the Wall Street Journal notes that Obama didn?t ?have anything to say the first two days after polls closed in Iran.? They apparently haven?t figured out yet that Obama never says anything in the first two days of anything, and instead engages in something commonly known as ?thinking.?

 

Here's what I was looking for, it's from a few days ago:

Why Obama isn't showing more outrage on the Iranian elections

 

Was at the protest in L.A. to support this, and I'd say that Obama was absolutely right to not speak up, and I think congress was wrong to do so. A statement against the government would ONLY serve good by being used for propaganda purposes by a very government controlled media, and that would have absolutely hurt the cause of protesters in Iran.
To say the U.S. should've made a definitive statement right off the bat would be to trade the Iranians chance for freedom or improvement of their situation for the U.S.'s ability to claim the moral high ground, and I think those are horribly wrong priorities.

 

I agree with the posters here, the U.S. should let the Iranians solve it among themselves.

 

Kudos to going to the LA protests Lowie. I had wanted to go to the Toronto ones planned, but it turned out things had been "planned" for me yesterday.

EDIT: From a Q/A with Fareed Zakaria:


CNN: What should the United States do?

Zakaria: I would say continue what we have been doing. By reaching out to Iran, publicly and repeatedly, President Obama has made it extremely difficult for the Iranian regime to claim that they are battling an aggressive America bent on attacking Iran. In his inaugural address, his New Year greetings, and his Cairo speech, there is a consistent effort to convey respect and friendship for Iranians. That is why Khamenei reacted so angrily to the New Year greeting. It undermined the image of the Great Satan that he routinely paints in his sermons. In his Friday sermon, Khamenei said that the United States, Israel, and especially the United Kingdom were behind the street protests, an accusation that will surely sound ridiculous to most Iranians. The fact that Obama has been cautious in his reaction makes it all the harder for Khamenei and Ahmadinejad to wrap themselves in a nationalist flag.

CNN: But shouldn't the U.S. be more vocal in support for the Iranian protesters?

Zakaria: I think a good historic analogy is President George H.W. Bush's cautious response to the cracks in the Soviet empire in 1989. Then, many neo-conservatives were livid with Bush for not loudly supporting those trying to topple the communist regimes in Eastern Europe. But Bush's concern was that the situation was fragile. Those regimes could easily crack down on the protestors and the Soviet Union could send in tanks. Handing the communists reasons to react forcefully would help no one, least of all the protesters. Bush's basic approach was correct and has been vindicated by history.

 

I'm of the opinion that you can't diss one theocratic state (Iran) and support others (Israel, Saudi Arabia). It would be duplicitious.

And I must object heavily to the notion that Reagan ended the Cold War.

 

He may not have, but his (worshippers) fans insist that he did.

 

Well if things couldn't get worse, Israel prefers Ahmadnejad because apparently Mousavi is a wolf in sheep's clothing just like how Obama was one for Muslims.

 

IIRC, Israel is not really a theocratic state in the same way as we see in Saudi Arabia or Iran. While it is avowedly Jewish, it is much more a secular Judaism (i.e., Judaism as a culture, not necessarily a set of religious beliefs, which is the basis for the Zionist movement). I could easily be mistaken, however, as I've only seen secondary material and it's not been my area of focus (I have a more detailed history of Israel sitting on my "to read" pile, but it has to wait for a while).