What Iran Is And Is Not

There doesn't seem to be too much new in the latest from AP out of Iran. But this quote might be noteworthy, as much as it strikes me as unworthy of an American administration. What exactly does this guy need to see to find out "What Iran is and is not"? Anyone who has been able to read a newspaper for two decades should know that by now. And the last week should only serve to drive the point home. It isn't exactly inspiring to me. Where did hope and change go? Out to lunch?

In an interview taped Friday with CBS, Obama said he is very concerned by the "tenor and tone" of Khamenei's comments. He also said that how Iran's leaders "approach and deal with people who are, through peaceful means, trying to be heard" will signal "what Iran is and is not."

Update: More news on Saturday in Iran here.

Comments

[Bob]

Yes, Obama's refusal to rattle sabres and strike tough-guy poses over Iran is such an abdication of his official duties. I mean, look at all that was accomplished when Bush called Iran and North Korea part of the "Axis of Evil." OK, maybe nothing was technically accomplished, but at least the American neocons got off on it for a few days. Or how about when George H.W. Bush's administration encouraged Sunni Arabs to rebel in Southern Iraq in the immediate aftermath of the first gulf war, and then sat back and watched them get slaughtered by Saddam's forces because they decided that they didn't really want to get involved after all.

The neocons are just looking to ratchet up the tension with Iran, because it's basically the only approach they know. They're always talking tough, at least as long as it's someone else's ass on the firing line.

[lala]

Love this line -

"Despite Kerry’s unquenchable need to appear erudite, this perspective is nonsensical, at the least."

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/kerry-throws-witless-support-behind-obamas-gutless-stance/

[jana]

Obama can't be bothered with all of this foreign policy silliness... He was busy writing jokes for the Radio & Television Correspondent's dinner he attended last night.

And, as for rattling sabres and striking tough-guy poses... I don't think condemning a government that is shooting people in the streets is exactly going out on a limb... even France is standing up for the protestors...

[Bob]

Sure enough, even without Obama having made more overt statements in support of the Iranian protesters, apparently the state-run media is pretending that he did because it serves their interests:

Via Andrew Sullivan, an Iranian-American web site reports:

http://niacblog.wordpress.com/2009/06/20/the-latest-from-iran-saturday/

"This morning a friend of NIAC who gets Iranian Satellite TV here said that state-run media showed President Obama speaking about Iran this morning. However, instead of translating what he actually said, the translator reportedly quoted Obama as saying he “supports the protesters against the government and they should keep protesting.

Assuming this report is correct, it shows the Iranian government is eager to portray Obama as a partisan supporting the demonstrators."

You see? The reasons the Obama administration has given for not more directly taking sides are precisely correct. People should cool their jets and not try to turn this into a cheap partisan political issue.

[rrpjr]

"The neocons are just looking to ratchet up the tension with Iran..."

It isn't the "neocons" ratcheting up the tension, nimrod. It's the people of Iran. Yeah, they're guilty.

So any thoughts about the people of Iran and the quest for freedom?

[Dan Riehl]

"are precisely correct"

You might think so, I don't. And what the Iranians tell, or don't tell their people has nothing to do with the rightness of Obama's position. In essence, you're saying we should believe or say what we do because of who they are? Yes, a real stand for principle and freedom there, for sure.

[john]

Yes, because saying something along the lines of "We condemn this brutal reaction by the Iranian govt." would be such an endorsement. Why Reagan's regular denouncements of Soviet brutality sure stunted the Polish Solidarity movement.

I don't know whether I should fear or pity the type of person who can't even get outraged by the outright murder of peaceful demonstrators.

[Manix]

Obama should outfit Hayes, Kristol, etc. with box-cutters and tickets on Iranian Airways, and let them carry out their mission. We hate the Iranians for their lack of freedoms.

[Bob]

"In essence, you're saying we should believe or say what we do because of who they are?"

Who, what, where? I'm not sure what that sentence means, exactly. Let me restate what I'm saying: Despite the eagerness of right wingers in this country to see Obama condemn the Iranian leadership in the manner of ineffectual demonization that we saw with the Bush administration, it doesn't much matter one way or the other. Bush's sabre rattling changed nothing. Were Obama to rattle sabres, not only would it do nothing as well, it would even give the Iranian leadership one more thing to use to try to discredit the protesters, by saying that they were pawns of the U.S.

Of course, right wingers are more concerned with this as a cheap political issue than they are with anyone's actual well being. The Iranian people themselves, or the Iraqis for that matter, are just pawns in the geopolitical games of the neocon consortium.

rrpjr says, "So any thoughts about the people of Iran and the quest for freedom?" But what I meant by "ratcheting up the tension" is in terms of the neocons' designs on U.S. domestic politics. I think they'd love to have gotten us into another war with Iran the way they did with Iraq. And again, it has little or nothing to do with any concern on their part for Iraqi democracy, and everything to do with political power here at home.

[Bob]

"I don't know whether I should fear or pity the type of person who can't even get outraged by the outright murder of peaceful demonstrators."

John, of course I'm outraged and of course I wish for the Iranians to overthrow Ahmadinejad and the ayatollahs. I'm just tired of right wingers thinking that this is all about them, with their ostentatious posturing and trying to use this as a cheap political issue. I suspect that you care less about any actual Iranians than you do about your own sense of self-importance.

[gus]

I agree talking nice to the Russians brought down Communism.
What do you libtards smoke while drinking the KULT KOOL-AID??

[gus]

Nothing personal Bob, but you're a dim bulb. We need to do what is right, righteous and correct. I understand you libs have no values nor morals but normal humans do. Freedom and Democracy is the goal of all peoples who recognize the existance of such values. Not libs, they love power and control.
The people of Iran feel cheated by a fraudulent election. You need not agree whether they were cheated on nor, but you DO NEED TO, support he principle of peoples self determination. That does not rattle any saber. That does not condemn Iran's government. It is what it is.
Bob, this is personal. You're a f@#$ing moron.

[john]

Bob,

And yet you can't bring yourself to be critical of Obama's previous refusal to make any substantive remarks opposing the regime's actions (incidentally he basically just did what I wanted, it only took several days and several independent statements of condemnation by several of our allies but good on him). Instead you provide some weak argument about a fear of endorsement which is belied by all the English signs carried by the protesters, clearly aimed at the the US, and reports that both the Sec. of State and VP were pushing for a stronger reaction. I mean come on, the President called the violence a debate, how can you not be critical of that.

I find it funny that you try and attribute to me a partisanship which you yourself are fully displaying. Anybody who disagrees with you and criticizes Obama is suddenly a partisan hack; according to you an entire wing of the political spectrum is coldly using the violence in Iran to score points. I must say that that's a rather handy method of viewing the world as it allows you to dismiss any substantive criticism as simple politics.

[Bob]

Under the circumstances, gus, these overwrought displays of supposed solidarity for Iranians on the part of Americans can come off as silly and narcissistic. Like when Republican Congressman Hoekstra twittered,

"Iranian twitter activity similar to what we did in House last year when Republicans were shut down in the House."

Sure, Pete. It was JUST like that, except of course for the tear gas, the boiling water dropped from helicopters, the beatings and shootings and dead people. What a twit.

Of course we all support the right of self determination, but beyond that, it's not about us. Obama struck the right tone in one of his recent statements:

"The Iranian government must understand that the world is watching. We mourn each and every innocent life that is lost. We call on the Iranian government to stop all violent and unjust actions against its own people. The universal rights to assembly and free speech must be respected, and the United States stands with all who seek to exercise those rights.

As I said in Cairo, suppressing ideas never succeeds in making them go away. The Iranian people will ultimately judge the actions of their own government. If the Iranian government seeks the respect of the international community, it must respect the dignity of its own people and govern through consent, not coercion.

Martin Luther King once said - "The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice." I believe that. The international community believes that. And right now, we are bearing witness to the Iranian peoples' belief in that truth, and we will continue to bear witness."

So tell me, gus: what would you have Obama say or do beyond this statement of support for human rights and justice? To me, it seemed like an appropriate statement under the circumstances.

[gus]

Bob run along son, you're moral relavitisim is causing you to piss all over your self. Get lost loser.

[Any]

"You see? The reasons the Obama administration has given for not more directly taking sides are precisely correct. People should cool their jets and not try to turn this into a cheap partisan political issue."

Bob absolutely right.

If MLK were alive today he would have been as silent over the trampling of human rights in Iran as the White House as been. He would think “oh my, I must be cautious lest my statements regarding obvious truths be used me against in print, by a regime that always does that under any circumstances any way. And yes I must always be cautious of speaking truth if it would get the neocons off. And besides, I have a dream of people just cooling their jets ”

[Bob]

The difference, Any, between MLK and the current situation with Iran is that Iran ISN'T OUR COUNTRY. MLK always had allies among his countrymen, many of whom were in powerful elective offices like Lyndon Johnson, who could enact laws and enforce court orders with military power if necessary. Unless you propose invading Iran -- which wouldn't surprise me a bit despite what a bad idea it would be -- then we're little more than spectators to their internal political struggles. Under the circumstances, your wing-nut posturing and a buck-fifty will get you a tall decaf at Starbucks while doing absolutely nothing for the Iranian freedom movement.

And John, Obama was making a good-faith effort to make some headway with Iran on a diplomatic front and probably didn't want to needlessly antagonize their leadership. Now that the leadership has trashed what little legitimacy they may have once had, perhaps he'll change his strategy. Maybe diplomacy was never going to work with Iran, but giving it a try didn't cost us anything and was probably the right thing to do. But maybe all bets are off now. It's still a rapidly developing situation and we'll have to see. But I see your point. The political posturing of American wing nuts is of critical importance to the Iranians going forward. Because no matter what, it really is ALL about YOU.

[Any]

“The difference, Any, between MLK and the current situation with Iran is that Iran ISN'T OUR COUNTRY. MLK always had allies among his countrymen, many of whom were in powerful elective offices like Lyndon Johnson, who could enact laws and enforce court orders with military power if necessary. Unless you propose invading Iran -- which wouldn't surprise me a bit despite what a bad idea it would be -- then we're little more than spectators to their internal political struggles. Under the circumstances, your wing-nut posturing and a buck-fifty will get you a tall decaf at Starbucks while doing absolutely nothing for the Iranian freedom movement.”

Ok, I waded though this spectacular non sequitur...and I think you're saying MLK would have said nothing regarding the Iranian situation. I think that’s what you said, though I confess I started to get sleepy somewhere around “wingnut posturing.” MLK would have been silent. I disagree. So it goes.

BTW I approve of Obama’s finally commenting today on this event, better late than never. I think protesting Iranians appreciate it as well. From your comments, I guess you don’t appreciate or approve, ya know, Iran not being our country and all.

[Bob]

"Ok, I waded though this spectacular non sequitur...and I think you're saying MLK would have said nothing regarding the Iranian situation."

Not at all, Any. I'm saying that your sense of personal vanity is absolutely the most important consideration. And if ostentatious displays of solidarity with the Iranians makes you feel important, then who cares what MLK would have done, or what I think MLK would have done. Because it really is ALL about YOU, baby. And it's great that you approve of Obama's comments. The world is so much better of a place as long as you're happy.

[john]

Bob,

I love the fact that you have to result to insulting the opposition because of your inability to address the substantive points made. Also I notice that you're suddenly no longer concerned about the appearance of the US endorsing a candidate. I wonder if this has anything to do with Obama's remarks earlier today. Nah couldn't be, that might mean that your opinion is entirely dependent on the whims of your political leaders rather than your own reason.

But I digress, the fact of the matter is that any and all negotiations cost a certain amount in the diplomatic arena. By not having pre-conditions Obama was essentially showing his desperation and undermining any strengths which the US has. Obama further exasperated this issue by refusing to call the Iranian brutality what it was, and instead insisted on calling it a "robust debate" which once more shows his willingness to negotiate under any circumstances. By taking such a stance Obama was signaling to the Iranians that he didn't give a rat's ass what they did. Once more I must insist that anyone who cannot be critical of Obama calling the beatings and murders of protesters a "robust debate" should not be taken seriously in any respect.

But once more I must commend you on your ability to completely dodge any criticism of your positions by claiming it is all partisan rancor. That is truly an enviable gift.

[Bob]

There are separate issues here, john:

(1) There's the issue about people demanding to see displays of belligerent posturing over Iran because it's the typical neocon way of doing things. My opinion is that eight years of such posturing by the Bush administration gained absolutely nothing with either Iran or North Korea, and got us into a huge and costly mess in Iraq that we would have been better staying clear of. You may not find Obama's approach satisfying to your inner neocon, but you certainly can't claim either (a) that as president he's not entitled to try something different, or that (b) you have any evidence that your preferred approach would have worked any better. You claim that "no preconditions" is the only correct approach. So tell me what that approach accomplished during Bush's entire eight years?

(2) There's the issue about what's happening in Iran and our own personal feelings about it. It should go without saying that I want to see the current regime overthrown, and that I'm horrified and disgusted by the scenes of violence. My heart goes out to the protesters and the victims.

(3) On the specific issue of MLK, the point I was making is that MLK was working within his own country, and was in a legitimate position to protest and act and eventually get results. Certainly he would have supported the general notion that any people should be free and live in just societies, which certainly applies to Iran. But I get the idea that you exaggerate the significance of Americans making overwrought displays of anger to the situation in Iran. Iran is not our country, and we're largely reduced to being spectators. You can emote about the situation all you want, but I think it's silly to pretend that you -- or even Obama -- are in a position to influence actual events very much.

Basically, starting out by trying diplomacy hasn't cost us anything. If anything, Obama has only made it clearer that it's the Iran regime that's acting in bad faith. We had to make a break with the past eight years of the Bush administration acting in bad faith to gain any moral authority to help in whatever the next steps may be. At this point, nobody can say where it's going to lead, but Obama made a good-faith effort, and if the Iranians have unilaterally torpedoed that approach, then we'll have to try something different. I know that patience and restraint is difficult for right wingers, but you had your turn and accomplished absolutely nothing. Try to keep your pants on and let Obama do it his way. And also don't cheapen the lives and the sacrifices of Iranian protesters by using this situation as a platform for vain, self-righteous posturing.

[chi hair straightener]

First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win chi flat irons.