Iranians Ask Obama for Help, Obama Sides with Khamenei and Ahmadinejad

June 23rd, 2009 By: Michael van der Galien | Tags: ,

iran protestOn the very same day that an Iranian student told CNN he wants the international community to condemn the Mullahs in charge of his country, and to stop doing business with them in any way whatsoever, the White House said Iranian functionaries are welcome to celebrate the July 4th celebrations with them.

Utterly unbelievable.

Can you imagine celebrating a revolution that brought liberty, justice, and freedom to Americans with representatives of a regime that is currently fighting against its own people in an attempt to hold on to power? It’s insane. This would have been impossible under every single president… except for Obama.

Let’s let the Iranian student called Mohammad do the talking:

Let me tell you something. For about three decades our nation has been humiliated and insulted by this regime. Now Iranians are united again one more time after 1979 Revolution. We are a peaceful nation. We don’t hate anybody. We want to be an active member of the international community. We don’t want to be isolated. Is this much of a demand for a country with more than 2,500 years of civilization? We don’t deny the Holocaust. We do accept Israel’s rights. And actually, we want — we want severe reform on this structure. This structure is not going to be tolerated by the majority of Iranians. We need severe reform, as much as possible.

He went on to say that he and his fellow protesters consider the current regime to be illegal:

Americans, European Union, international community, this government is not definitely — is definitely not elected by the majority of Iranians. So it’s illegal. Do not recognize it. Stop trading with them. Impose much more sanctions against them. My message…to the international community, especially I’m addressing President Obama directly – how can a government that doesn’t recognize its people’s rights and represses them brutally and mercilessly have nuclear activities? This government is a huge threat to global peace. Will a wise man give a sharp dagger to an insane person? We need your help international community. Don’t leave us alone.

That’s right. Mohammed and the other freedom loving protesters want the West to starve the regime. Exactly the opposite, you’d say, from what Obama and his advisers want to do.

How best to do this?

Actually, this regime is really dependent on importing gasoline. More than 85% of Iran’s gasoline is imported from foreign countries. I think international communities must sanction exporting gasoline to Iran and that might shut down the government.

Obama’s reaction to the elections, the protests, and the violence perpetrated by the regime has been shocking. The man has no love, no compassion for those struggling to rid themselves of an highly oppressive regime. He simply does not care about them.

As far as I can tell, there’s only one possible explanation for his behavior: He’s so anti-American that he considers freedom, human rights, etc. to be not universal but American values. Therefore, he opposes spreading them to other countries, even when their peoples ask for it.

It’s outrageous, it truly is.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Technorati
  • SphereIt
  • NewsVine
  • TailRank
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon

This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.

  1. Patrick Glenn
    June 23rd, 2009 at 17:07
    Reply | Quote | #1

    Michael, while I’m with you in spirit, allow me to play devil’s advocate momentarily. I’ll admit that, at first, I thought: Why can’t the Obama administration do one of its regular late Friday afternoon “media drop” policy reversals on this 4th of July invite to the Iranian ambassadors? That would allow them to get out of a public relations mess without loudly calling out the Iranian regime for being the ruthless thugs that they are. But then, I thought: maybe the WH “realists” want to use the 4th of July event as thematic cover.

    Right now, a U.S. warship is shadowing a North Korean arms vessel in international waters. The NK’s have threatened that, if the U.S. boards or attacks the vessel, they will retaliate “a thousand fold.” The NK’s have apparently scheduled another long-range missile test launch on, you guessed it, July 4th – they love to lob those things on holidays, which maybe give them a little extra attention. If the Obama administration is planning to take a tough line against NK – perhaps a big if – then it could be useful to invite the Iranian diplomats for hotdogs – “see, we always prefer to explore peace if at all possible, but if you back us into a corner . . . ”

    Also, to be fair to the Obama administration, the E.U. is – for its part – really only offering the Iranian anti-regime elements the kind of help that Obama understands: rhetorical support, but no action. If the E.U. would initiate a gasoline embargo against Iran, at the same that millions of Iranians held a general strike, the regime’s days would likely be numbered.

    Setting aside the short-term strategic maneuvers, though, I do agree with you that the Obama administration is sending a deplorable message with the 4th of July invite. In the grand scheme of things, this episode reflects the depravity of cultural relativism, historical revisionism, apology tours, and groveling to the world’s brutal thugs and dictators. In the long-run, The United States, Europe, and the free nations of the world would be better served by cultivating and projecting cultural confidence, while unashamedly espousing traditional liberal values. Of course, that might estrange some of our “friends” like Saudi Arabia, which are rivals to Iran and yet – for example – might be a little ambivalent about the unrest and calls for democracy and liberalization there. Nevertheless, I do wonder: How many diplomatic victories have we earned from cultural relativism and are those “victories” worth the internal damage to our own societies? And, like you, I am skeptical about Obama’s true intentions vis-a-vis Iran. With Obama, you usually have to ignore what he says and watch what he does.

  2. David
    June 23rd, 2009 at 17:42
    Reply | Quote | #2

    I suspect that Obama does not know much about foreign policy beyond a few standard boilerplate political clichés. The bottom line with “realism” is that it prefers a stable dictatorship to a volatile and unpredictable free country. It looks on Iranians seeking freedom as an embarrassing inconvenience.

  3. Jeb
    June 23rd, 2009 at 18:45
    Reply | Quote | #3

    As far as I can tell, there’s only one possible explanation for his behavior: He’s so anti-American that he considers freedom, human rights, etc. to be not universal but American values. Therefore, he opposes spreading them to other countries, even when their peoples ask for it.

    Have your emotions so clouded your judgment on this issue that you can see no other reason, or have you really become that nakedly and blindly partisan, or is this just hyperbolic excess?

    How does it serve American interests to follow your prescribed course of action?
    How does it help the protesters?
    What other sanctions can the US impose or cause to be imposed?
    What is our best opportunity to foster change in Iran?

  4. Michael Linn Jones
    June 23rd, 2009 at 22:01
    Reply | Quote | #4

    Michael: I respectfully disagree. Barack Obama sides with Barack Obama. Everything else is just coincidence.

  5. Doomed
    June 24th, 2009 at 15:30
    Reply | Quote | #5

    Well Obama is now doing what he should have done right away. Sometimes in foreign policy things are just the right thing to do.

    Issuing a statement in support of democracy and freedom is the right thing. Im sure there are war mongers out there who would love to just bomb the crap outta Iran but they are few and far between although a few thousand blogs plus their posters might make you believe they are a bazillion strong.

    Everyone whom Ive talked to right and left has thought that it is appropriate to 1. stay out of their business 2. Show moral support for freedom and democracy. 3. Issue a statement from the leader of the free world supporting what we as a nation are all about.

    In my view Barak Obama was simply embarrassed to do so because he like his fellow far lefties believe America should be apologizing for its actions rather then standing up for its beliefs. I really believe that is the way they feel. Jimmy Carter was the last far left Politician in the White House and his actions were Identical to Barak Obama’s so far from what I’ve been able to ascertain. Once Carter retired he has led a crusade around the world criticizing the USA.

    In his heart Barak Obama could not bring himself to speak kindly of our virtues because he believes that if we have ever wronged anyone…ever…then we are not worthy to speak up and to speak out. Get over it Obama. Our few transgressions will never overshadow the blood, sweat and tears and money, time and effort the USA puts in around the world in helping people, races and nations in their times of need.

    America is great. Stop apologizing for her notebook full of transgressions while overlooking her library of great deeds.

Comments are closed.

PoliGazette Comments Policy

PoliGazette encourages comments from all viewpoints, especially those that disagree. Comments submitted must, however, adhere to the following standards. Comments that violate these standards may be edited or deleted without notice at the sole discretion of the editors. Commenters who repeatedly or egregiously violate these standards or who attempt to argue publicly with editors regarding the comments policy may be banned from commenting further.

(1) Comments should address the substantive content of the post. Comments that repeatedly or blatantly misrepresent the content of the post or of others' comments are not welcome. Comments that respond to something other than which the contributor or commenter may have said are irrelevant and should not be posted.

(2) Comments should avoid vulgarity as well as racial, ethnic, religious, or sexual bigotry.

(3) Comments should not personally attack the character, personal integrity, or professional reputation of any PoliGazette contributor or of other commenters.

(4) Comments should reflect the contributions of the commenters themselves and should not include extensive cut-and-paste reproductions of others' words except insofar as necessary to supplement the commenter's own arguments. Link spam, trackback spam, and propaganda spam will be instantly deleted.

(5) Public figures are considered open to all substantive criticism of their policies and statements. Comments that present objectively false factual information about public figures (i.e. "Obama is a Muslim") or that attack public figures by attacking their families are not welcome. Comments that merely repeat slogans for or against a candidate without engaging in substantive comment are not welcome.

Questions or challenges to these policies or their application should be directed to the editors by email only.