Neocons in a Persian Wonderland

Wednesday, 17th June 2009

Apparently black is white and up is down when it comes to some people's analysis of events in Iran. Here, for instance, is our old friend Stephen Hayes:

Obama says he doesn't want to be seen as "meddling" given the long history of US-Iranian relations. Leave aside the question of whether simply stating the obvious is "meddling." If the majority of Iranians believe that Ahmadinejad's re-election is not legitimate, isn't it more likely that Obama's silence in the face of a stolen election will be viewed as another chapter in that long history rather than the end of it?

There's a simple answer to this: no it is not likely that the Iranian people, to the extent they give a damn about the American president, will see his circumspection as "meddling".

And here's John McCain, telling breakfast TV this morning that:

We’re not interfering when we take the side of the opposition.

This too is pretty simple stuff: you may not think of it as interference but what you think doesn't matter. They may see it as interference and what they think matters rather more than whether or not pundits and politicians in the west can puff their chests out and feel good about themselves for saying all the right things...

It's pretty amazing, really, that so many Friends of the Opposition want Obama to take actions that would damage the opposition.

Filed under: Foreign Policy (318 more articles) , Hackery (218 more articles) , Iran (144 more articles)

Previous Back to Alex Massie Next

Blogs: Martin Bright | Susan Hill | Melanie Phillips | Coffee House | Faith Based

Actions: Print this article | Email to a friend | Permalink | Comments (4)

Post this entry to: del.icio.us | Digg | Newsvine | NowPublic | Reddit

Post comment

Bill Markley

June 17th, 2009 8:26pm Report this comment

Eastern Europeans who suffered under Communism found anti-Communist statements by Ronald Reagan to be very encouraging and helpful, and they were discouraged when American leaders were accommodating to their oppressors. Havel, Scharansky, Bukowski and others testified to that, I believe. Why not provide more encouragement to the Iranian opposition than Obama is offering, which is pitifully small?

Craig

June 17th, 2009 9:45pm Report this comment

The Iranian regime is built on anti-Americanism, protecting the people from the Great Satan. That is why Obama cannot get involved. If he does, the credibility of the Iranian opposition will be undermined, they will be portrayed as little Satans. There is a massive difference between eastern Europe in the 1980s and Iran.

Michael B

June 17th, 2009 10:44pm Report this comment

"There is a massive difference between eastern Europe in the 1980s and Iran." Craig

There are also massive similarities, not the least of which is an oppressive and threatening and destabilizing overlord and a corresponding usurpation of electoral and other freedoms. What we are witnessing in Iran is, effectively, a coup d'etate if not a revolution. Also, Iran is a formally constituted theocratic republic, so no, it isn't primarily built upon anti-Americanism. The latter can be used ad hoc or more systematically, but it's not a central pillar of that regime.

In general, any blatant or more subtly erected strawman can be sneered at and therein deflected from more thoughtful, more probative consideration and, voila: baby thrown out with the bathwater.

What Obama is doing is, to be kind, ineffectual, reflecting a core anemia and weakness, a studied myopia, a self-blinkered and ideologically blinkered quality. He is the chief executive of the U.S., not a professor at abstracted remove from events who can decide not to "meddle," as if a rhetorical circumlocution can somehow wash his hands of the necessity of concrete decisions and more commensurate, more prudent actions.

Jimmy Carter I resulted in domestic and international failures of momentous proportions. We still, with Iran and otherwise, live in the wake of those "non-meddling" decisions. Obama is continuing to earn the appellation of Jimmy Carter II such that it may afix itself to his own term for increasing numbers of observers and analysts. Already, in too many noteworthy respects, it's a name that fits.

porkbelly

June 17th, 2009 10:56pm Report this comment

Of course there is also the possibility that Obama doesn't actually believe in shopworn, discredited, Bushite values like freedom and democracy. He certainly hasn't been very vocal about defending them up to now - his efforts have been aimed at improving relations with the world's dictators, autocrats and tyrants. Or perhaps the best way to stand up for the values you believe in is to keep mum while they are being trampled on?

Post comment