Where’s the Audacity to Hope for Iran?
Barack Obama was propelled to the presidency in part by his book, The Audacity of Hope. But one has to wonder where his fabled audacity was when people just like us needed it the most.
Despite reports of politically motivated arrests, police brutality, and at least one death, hundreds of thousands of people marched in Tehran, Iran today in protest over what they believe to be the fraudulent re-election of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
Barack Obama’s support for Iranians who want nothing more than to free themselves from tyranny should be firm and unwavering.
Not so says Ben Smith, who wrote that “Obama also was elected on a promise to tone down America’s moralizing rhetoric”.
Balderdash. Barack Obama was elected primarily because he was a Democrat in the right place at the right time. His convincing victory over John McCain would have been a true rout if the country trusted his foreign policy direction. Thus far our lack of faith has been justified, as demonstrated by the administration’s failure to lend verbal support to the Iranian opposition in their hour of need.
Only when it became apparent that the Iranian’s protests were not going to fade away did Mr. Obama acknowledge the obvious, that the Iranian election was fixed for Ahmadinejad, the mullah’s choice for president of that country.
Obama said:
“I think that the democratic process, free speech, the ability of people to peacefully dissent — all of those are universal values and need to be respected, and whenever I see violence perpetrated on people who are peacefully dissenting, and whenever the American people see that, I think they are rightfully troubled.”
Certainly true. But Mr. Obama does not go far enough. Americans were rightfully troubled when the fraudulent vote was announced because all people, in every nation around the world, have been born with the inalienable right to elect their own government and that right was stolen from an unknown number of Iranians last week, stolen and trampled by Iran’s oppressive theocracy in its lust for power.
Democrats may want to tone down the so-called “moralizing rhetoric” but I would suggest a different approach: Tell the truth at all times and let the diplomatic chips fall where they may.
Some of the sad truths in this case are that:
- we will never know the true result of the Iranian elections
- even if the votes were counted accurately the open ballot format is inherently repressive and un-republican
- these protests are highly unlikely to change anything, at least in 2009
- a direct endorsement of the protesters by Mr. Obama would almost certainly lead to greater tensions with Iran going forward
So be it. If that is the price of standing on the side of an oppressed people, then westerners of all nations should be willing to pay it rather than appease the sponsors of terrorism that currently lead Iran for another day.
That’s true even if Ahmadinejad would have won the election had the votes been counted fairly, for it’s not the outcome that is important but the Iranian government’s commitment to its responsibility to uphold the fundamental rights of its people. That’s what Barack Obama must defend in the strongest possible terms, even if the result is unfavorable at the polls, the negotiating table, or both.
Barack Obama was elected in part because of his claims to boldness. He said that he would be audacious. The world is waiting.
A public statement from the president would hurt the cause of the Iranian protestors. It would give Ahmadinejad supporters and the Iranian government political fodder to legitimize their claims. The propaganda from that side would then become “U.S. cements victory for Pro-West Figurehead”. The President’s support would not change the outcome which would 1) make it seem like the U.S. does not have international clout 2) possibly create an imperative to back up statements with military action 3) further the image that the elections were not fair 4) tarnish relations with Iran. It would also make Moussavi look as though he weren’t popularly elected, which he may not have been. Obama’s response has been wise, check this out for more on U.S. involvement (great story): http://www.newsy.com/videos/same_old_same_old
1. The US does not have international clout….Obama and the democrats have been telling us that since GWB became president.
2. Why on earth would the USA even consider going to war with Iran over a stolen election?
3. We are all pretty sure the elections in Iran were not fair…why would a statement from the weak Obama make that any more or less appearant?
4. What relations?
Who is in the seat doesn’t matter. America is still the sole superpower, and what our president says or does has a lot of weight internationally.
People seem to be forgetting who controls the press in Iran. Yea, the government. You can bet all the way to the bank that they will spin any outright support for Mousavi into propaganda just as much as you can bet they will do it for continued meetings with Dinnerjacket at this point in time.
It’s not what the elections were, but how the U.S. appears to be reacting to all of this.
Keep in mind, that this is in the foreground, what we’re talking about. And here Obama must choose his words carefully.
In the background, more is surely being done. Don’t forget about the State Department’s contact with Twitter the other day.
How gutless America has become. The only superpower and we are afraid to make a statement about an election In Iran.
Super power my arse. We are a laughing stock to the world and have been for years now. But perhaps we can Twitter them to our side.
Maybe send them an email or two and Obama can use his black berry to converse with Iran.
When things get tough we can Utube them to death and post our results on Facebook. When that don’t go well we can create our own website and have a forum in which the two can debate subjects.
In the end when none of that works we can look at the internet, scratch our heads and wonder how I>ME.MYSELF> was not able to influence Iran with my succinct posts on obscure bloggs. Surely I had it right?
No??
You seem to want Obama to express his full support behind Mousavi, as do many other hawks.
Surely you would be quite angry if another country tried to influence the U.S. elections, would you not? Conservatives were against the same kind of thing when it was them wanting Obama.
Admittedly, the matter of Dinnerjacket using the media to spread propaganda may be becoming less of an issue if what I’m hearing about the rural towns being less receptive to DJ than previously believed is true.
I just don’t think it’s wise to inflame sentiments more that could be used as an attempt to legitimize the election with those who either support Amedenijad or don’t know better.
However, there are things they can do in the background that don’t require talk. You belittle Twitter, but it’s been a powerful form of communication, as have YouTube and other sources. They’ve let the West and their own people see what’s going on. It’s not perfect as a source of organization, but it’s likely been the key source that has brought people to rallies. It’s not going to be something that makes or breaks this insurrection, but it certainly helps.
We don’t know what else they have done, but by appealing to Twitter to keep the sources of communication open when it was most important to do so, they have done that little bit.
I think those that say they they should do more to set of ways of circumventing the regime’s blocks have a good point.
You seem to want Obama to express his full support behind Mousavi, as do many other hawks.
Actually no. Mousavi from what I heard is not going to be much better then the other guy.
You belittle Twitter, but it’s been a powerful form of communication, as have YouTube and other sources………It’s not going to be something that makes or breaks this insurrection
And this was my point and always has been……..their is worldwide anarchy coming and its coming via the internet because people can inflame the passions of other people 1000’s of miles away where they have no interests other then……they can.
The internet is the 666, end of daze, coming of Armageddon…that is and always has been my message….I only try to warn people of the anarchy they are stirring….The internet is our ENEMY…not our friend.
lol, umm Doomed – you can stop using it anytime you want.
Actually OB’s response has been predictably pathetic. The best thing he could have done is publicly express our concerns to the world and the world’s utmost useless voice – the UN. It’s really the only choice. Not our business to meddle in their elections – be them fair or not unless we are invited to do so.
We of course can decide what level of recognition we choose to give their gov’t.
lol, umm Doomed – you can stop using it anytime you want.
Pretty much what they said to Robert Oppenheimer after he finished the Bomb. Uh no one made you build it.
That is true. Yet I can use the advent of such to preach its flaws, and proclaim its vices and warn of its dangers.
Whenever a person in Vietnam can inflame a person in Canada about something happening in Somalia then there is danger. When it happens a 100,000,000 times a day, it is a crisis.
The internet is a great invention….so was the Atom Bomb.
@Doomed – re “In the end when none of that works we can look at the internet, scratch our heads and wonder how I>ME.MYSELF> was not able to influence Iran with my succinct posts on obscure bloggs”
LMAO, seriously! You are so right, so right. That’s why it’s important that someone who matters, someone like Barack Obama, stand up for what’s right.
@Michael Merritt – if asking Mr. Obama to stand up and tell the truth about the Iranian elections – without regard for obscure, future diplomatic consequences – is interfering in those elections, then yes, that is what I want. Deception and fraud created the crisis; truth could end it, if the perps had the courage to allow it.
Would I be upset if the Chinese, for example, pointed out that a U.S. presidential election was an obvious fraud? Yep. But I wouldn’t get mad at the Chinese.
I don’t see it as a crisis, I don’t see it as a danger. I see that the person in Canada or Vietnam can exercise a tad bit of personal responsibility. The internet is no more dangerous than a telephone and it is a far cry from the Atom Bomb.
and it is a far cry from the Atom Bomb.
Wrong. The Atom Bomb had a profound effect upon the world. It changed history and the direction and scope of nations.
The internet is doing the same thing. The two are remarkably similar in their effects upon the world. The difference is that the ATom Bomb was owned by just a few nations who kept it securely locked away from the masses. The Internet is being used by the masses to affect the policy of governments.
In the end MOB rule is never good. The internet is all about mob rule.
The internet is more dangerous on all levels then the Atom Bomb with the same chance of destroying civilization as we know it. It will just do it in different and much more violent way.
Worldwide Anarchy is coming and its riding on the back of the internet.
Now is the time for Beijing to take steps that would change the image people have of China later this year by changing the reality of how they treat Tibet and Tibetans. Now is the time to respect the human rights and religious freedom of the people of Tibet.”
Candidate Barack Obama.
I wonder if at this time he knew that he was going to be president and that he would have to send Hillary Clinton to China begging for money? I understand what he is doing and why he is doing it. The problem is that his agenda for Iran has predetermined his course of action and limited his responses. A classic example of what not to do in international diplomacy.
One can still issue benign statements of support for the PROCESS while still not condemning or throwing a wrench in the machinery that will continue to run long after this event is past. The true diplomat would have had words…….NOT SILENCE.
As was the airplane, telephone, automobile, horse cart, boats, clocks, radar, dams, tents, buildings, bricks, trains
It’d take serious twisting to be able to compare the apple to the chicken.
oh please.