David Cameron Fails his Persian Exam.

Richard

Oh, god, the self-righteousness again. Last time you knew better than the police how to restrain someone (and an acquaintance who is trained in restraint techniques agreed entirely with me, by the way). Now you know the only possible way to deal with Iran, so everyone who disagrees must, by definition, be wrong. I called my blog "My Doubts" as a comment on how the dangers of such self-certainty, and to remind me not to become like you.

Disorganised1

As you say, David Cameron can currently support any cause, becasue he speaks purely as the leader of a party that does not command policy ~ so why not be populist ?
The danger is that when he is in power the words are thrown back in face - "Now you are Prime Minister why don't you support X, Y & Z like you said you would ?"

However, it's nice to believe we have a politician who thinks what is right matters more than what is circumspect.

porkbelly

The tiniest sign of incipient backbone on Cameron's part and Mrs. Massie is livid: she likes her politicians invertebrate. Do you really suppose Mrs. Thatcher would have mumbled the sort of half-hearted weaselry emitting from Obama and Miliband? She would have had the rhetorical howitzer out of the handbag in no time. Our current Supreme Leaders' reluctance to voice anything more than timid bleats is having one sure effect: it is emboldening the Iranian regime to commit further violence and repression, secure in the knowledge that there will be no repercussions abroad. We are too scared of their nuclear weapons to take action - and they don't even have them ready! Imagine the grovelling once they detonate a bomb - Obama will have to take up yoga to accomplish his forehead-scraping bows before Ahmedinijad. So perhaps spinelessness is a good thing after all - part of the job description these days for Leader of the Free World.

Alf Tupper C.R.O.F.

Somewhat puzzled to find myself agreeing wholeheartedly with every detail of this piece.

Maybe I'm on one of these out-of-body experiences.

Richard

he talks about glib sermonising.......! Tha whole article is glib sermonising.....!

Desperate Dan

Disorganised1 - Cameron is not being populist by making these statements. On the contrary. We've just got rid of one PM who ignored the interests of the UK and its citizens by getting involved needlessly and disastrously in other people's squabbles, the last thing we need is another one.

Craig

Some silly comments are going around and none more fatuiuous than those coming from Porkbelly. Maybe old Pork doesn't remember the Baltic demonstrations in 1990. who did that great warror of Freedom, Maggie Thatcher, side with? Was it the people fighting for independence from Soviet rule? No, it was Gorbachev. And she was right.
It McCain,or even worse the histoircal ignoramuses like Krauthammer were in charge, these protestsx in Iran would never have got off the ground. The don't want to help the Iranian people, they want a war with the Iranian government, a war that would be disastrous for everyone. Thank God they are not in power.

Michael Sweeney

Spot on Alex. Obama's speech in Cairo and his current restraint are proving quite shrewd. Less is more.

sarah

Now is our chance, with this dissaray in Iran. Never mind the inept cameron, our leaders back home must strike to safeguard our futures, by taking out Iran's nuclear potential and teaching that so called 'civilisation' a lesson they never forget.

Craig

I'm not sure whether Sarah is real or just a parody of a bomb em all neocon. Does she really want to bomb the people who are trying to bring down the Mullahs? I fear so.

Gil

The problem with Alex's view,m one that is shared by and large with Andrew Sullivan is this: They seem to think that every politician who is calling for support for the demonstrators is necessarily calling for an invasion of Iran. Nothing could be further from the truth.

The view that the Neoconservatives (and it's interesting that only the ones with Jewish names are mentioned, the others are left nameless) are calling for Obama to do more on Iran means that they want the US to attack is unsupported by evidence.

It is true that those called by the media 'neoconservative' had a lot input into the decision to go to war against Iraq. However, Social Sciences or Politics is not a laboratory and until I see proof that those politicians have said that they want the USA to attack Iran IN SUPPORT OF THE DEMONSTRATORS then the people writing this like are talking absolute crap.

Iain Dale is merely a commentator and can say what he likes. For god's sake, stop turning molehills into mountains!

Stephen Rothbart

Gosh! Who should I follow? A man who says what he believes in or a man who says what might make him popular and voted Present as a Senator so may times, he almost holds the world record?

I know - I'll take side with someone with a backbone, and from what I have heard coming from Iranians rather than CNN and BBC commentators, so would they.

Craig

Gil - it's not a question of calling for an invasion of Iran, although some iditos seem to be advocating that. It is a question of not doing the Mullah's work for them. If the Iranian people are convinced that foreign powers are agitating against the government they will line up behind the government. That's what would happen if the advice of Iain Dale and David Cameron was followed through. I'd have thought that after his embarrassment, after precipitately givng his support to Saakishvilli before the facts came out, might have meant Dave was better prepared. I'm afraid not. I want him to win the election but if this is a taste of his naive foreign policy then I'm worried.

NJ

“Like the rest of the world, we were impressed by the vigorous debate and enthusiasm that this election generated, particularly among young Iranians. We continue to monitor the entire situation closely, including reports of irregularities.”
- Robert Gibbs 13th June 2009

“I am deeply troubled by the violence that I’ve been seeing on television”
- Barack Obama 15th June 2009

“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…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.”
- Barack Obama 20th June 2009

“We respect Iran’s sovereignty, but we also are witnessing peaceful demonstrations, people expressing themselves, and I stand for that universal principle that people should have a voice in their own lives and their own destiny. And I hope that the international community recognizes that we need to stand behind peaceful protests and be opposed to violence or repression.”
- Barack Obama 21st June 2009

Drip, drip, drip…

As predicted, on cue, the Americans were blamed immediately (June 17th) for the post-election trouble in Iran. It was always a mistaken argument that they should keep quiet, or that speaking out (“glib sermonising”) would “hand the regime a propaganda victory”. Whatever happened, the “Zionists” & “Great Satan” would be condemned for their “intolerable” influence.

The protesters have already been “tarred” by association – we’re already past this point.

Obama didn’t need to openly support Mousavi, but should have issued a general statement on democracy & human-rights.

(The general drift of the Obama administration’s policy away from democracy promotion toward “realism” has been depressing to see. And I’m not sure it will be entirely appreciated by the pro-democracy activists, political prisoners, students & intellectuals in the region)

So when the regime didn’t let us down, & the policy of “not meddling” was shown to be absurd, the emphasis was changed from not upsetting the Mullahs, to not upsetting the “silent majority”.

This fallback position (for the sophisticated) was superior to the intellectually bankrupt, dangerous & unsophisticated NeoconLikudnikWarmongering from others, who asked for the President to be a little more forceful & outspoken, than his June 13th statement.

Needless to say, the Obama policy was all about “caution, humility & restraint”. And anyone who disagreed was offering “syrupy sentimentality, hope and a lot of empty talk” when asking the President to use “soft-power” (words) to support democracy activists who were holding up placards in English & being gunned down by theocratic thugs. Anything else is “dangerous foolishness”. And didn’t you know “denunciation is superfluous” too? (eye roll)

Unfortunately, however, the Obama supporting NYT & Washington Post (plus the US Congress who voted 405-1 in solidarity with the protestors) began questioning the “keep quiet” meme of the New Realism.

Presumably, they were becoming part of the “Khamenei-Neocon agreement" which wanted to keep Ahmadinejad in power. This would play right into the hands of the bomb-em-all neocons, who will need to demonize Iran before the bombing campaign starts.

We know this because Washington Post editorials, are controlled by Zionists, who print “hackneyed AIPAC boilerplate”, apparently.

As the death toll & repression rises, the idea of a Grand Bargain over the nuclear issue is looking increasingly harder than it was to begin with. Any negotiations from now on, will end up giving legitimacy to a murdering theocracy, which never had any in the first place.

But this is all unsophisticated thinking.

As is any “dubious historical analogy” or comparison made with democracy movements supported by Western leaders in history. From Reagan & Thatcher’s freedom rhetoric to Eastern Europeans, or the evil moral absolutist Bush-the-Younger who openly “meddled” by calling for democracy in Lebanon (along with the French, who of course, have absolutely no history of “colonialism” in the Middle East at all).

These examples are “desperately simplistic” & give rise to “knee-jerk assumptions”.

Yes, I agree, every example is different. Yes, I agree, every comparison isn’t necessarily accurate.

But there are certain underlying principles or general lessons we can learn from studying them. (statements & encouragement in support of dissidents, protesters, democracy activists, & a general solidarity with the oppressed)

But that’s not allowed.

The only valid historical parallel, with respect to the Iranians, is the one that equates Iran with China, & Obama to Nixon. That is fine, apparently (even though the nature of both regimes are completely different, the Iranians have rejected negotiations/talks for decades, sponsored terrorist organizations outside their own borders, & M.A.D. doesn’t really apply to messianic religious extremists who think martyrdom, & national immolation, are good things.)

But hey, what do I know?

I’m just a pro-Ahmadinejad ChickenhawkNeoconLikudnikWarmonger who is all “about warfare against Israel's perceived enemies” & that is “the prism” through which you have to watch my every statement.

Gil

Craig, your statement that 'If the Iranian people are convinced that foreign powers are agitating against the government they will line up behind the government.' needs to be backed up.'

Actually, many of them are callign for the world to stand with the,.

And as NJ@4:55 says: 'The protesters have already been “tarred” by association – we’re already past this point.'

Good post, NJ.

Craig

Gil - if the Iranians want vocal support they will ask for it. They haven't. Thre is a lot at stake here - far too much to be ruined by grandstanding and blowharding. Obama has got it right. Do you really think that the Hezbollah loss in Lebanon, the Pakistani crackdown on the Taliban and the Iranian protests are nothing to do with his Cairo speech? But I'm just an unsophisticated Spectator reader. Do you think we would have had the same results with John McCain's Manichean view in charge? What would I know? I used to stand firmly with the National Review, neocon crowd. But their myopia and inability to react to changing circumstances has put me against them totally.

pinkie brown

Utter nonsense. As if the protesters will suddenly lose support because the mullahs will say they are inspired by America or Britain. Whose support will they lose? Do you envision a great mass of undecideds suddenly going out into the streets to support the mullahs because they say British or American politicians are the source of the unrest? If the protests were as large as they seemed to be, it is far more likely that support from Obama would have encouraged more protesters to come out and make those who already had bolder.

Richard

Have you seen http://tinyurl.com/l76uga what the protesters want?

Gil

Craig, Obama's speech had nothing to do with the results of the Lebanese elections. People were sick of the harm and Hizbollah's 'state within a state' had done to the country.

Pakistan's fight against the Taliban pre-dates Obama and goes back to President Bush.

You really need to get those blinkers off.

Craig

It's quite clear taht many people here are the right wing equivalent of those trendy lefites who ahve a boilerplate opinion ready for anything. Anyway, sorry to disappoint you but only a minority of AMERICANS want Obama to do more. 15% or REPUBLICAMS think he is being too beligerant. The soprt of grandastanding that Gil and others here are calling for would be posturing of the very worst order but that's ok because it would make them feel self-righteous. Thank God we've got adults in charge.

Craig

One other thing. Both Henry Kissinger and Zbigneew Brzinski have backed Obama's handling of things. I think I would trust their experienced judgment, don't you?

sarah

Craig - everybody who realises the inherent dangers to Israel of a racist Iranian regime wants pre emptive action now.

Not just against installations that can be rebuilt; against the very infrastructure that holds Iran together, like we did to the Lebanese and Gazan who dared stsand up to us. I post this here because I know I am among friends

Gil

Craig, you're projecting on me others' views. To be clear, I don't support attacking now and I don't agree that Obama should be more forceful then he is already.

Also, you're praising 'Zbig'? Let me remind you that the Cold War ended under Reagan, not 'Zbig'. You'll be praising Jimmah in a minute.

Why is it that so many posters have no idea how to read critically?

Nick Ould

Completely agree. If anything, comments amde by the regime are a direct attempt to goad reactionary statements out of the UK and USA, as they know it can only help their cause. One only needs to take a cursory glance at modern Iranian history to see that this is the case. Look at Ahmadinejad- he has presided over massive inflation during his tenure, but he still has supporters; mainly because they see him as a brave man standing up the rest of the world.

NJ

"posturing"
"glib sermonising"
"denunciation is superflous"
"grandstanding and blowharding"
"reactionary statements"

"This is foolish and dangerous foolishness at that"

"this isn't the first gauche or misguided foreign policy gaffe Cameron has made"

"There may be a time when more forceful interventions from foreign governments prove more helpful than counter-productive but I'm not convinced we've reached that stage yet."

So, are we at that stage yet?
Does Obama fail his Persian Exam too now?

http://digg.com/u16Udn

Doesn't Obama know that his "self-righteous" statement has just "handed the regime a propaganda victory"?

Again, folks, we were past the stage of "not meddling" a week ago, but it's good to see the President moving away from his orginal statements, and doing the right thing.

It only took him a week & 4 statements (each of which were an improvement on previous ones). But he got there in the end.

Thankfully, he doesn't seem to follow fatuous "public opinion polls" when making these decisions.

logdon

Funny that Obama's reluctance in making a stand doesn't apply to Israel.

Now they're demanding East Jerusalem. Pretty soon there'll be nothing left.

Is that his plan?

logdon

Try this

http://www.meforum.org/2168/iran-silence-is-not-neutrality

Fergus Pickering

No he didn't. The last twelve years haven't brought us Brits much to be proud of. 'Twas ever thus. When Labour are in power we are craven and disgraceful. To be a great Satan, or even a little Satan, is a very marvellous thing. Makes any Brit feel good. Keep up the good work, Dave. Britons never, never, never... you know the drill.

Craig

Gil, NJ, Sarah etc - have a read of this
http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0622/p09s03-coop.html

NJ

Thanks Craig.

I've already read it, and I'm familiar with Trita Parsi's work in general.

However, I think the "political football" charge is ridiculous (and insulting) as it implies that everyone else is motivated by shallow politics, as opposed to 'higher principles' of President Obama.

Sadly, the facts & events are passing by many of these commentators. Obama has already moved (as I pointed out twice previously) away from his original, untenable, position. He has quite rightly abandoned Alex's (& others) strategy & adopted, gradually, a more robust tone. Good for him.

Some Iranians viewed the Great Satan as interfering from the start - lots of others didn't & wanted vocal support (as any google search of dissidents will confirm).

So people can stop wasting time, columns, & blog space, fighting the 'evils' of Bush, Republicans, conservatives, neocons, warmongers, National Review (& whatever else...)

You don't have to openly support Mousavi, or use bellicose rhetoric or issue threats, in order to give solidarity with democracy activists. It was always a false choice from the moment the argument was made.

And the idea that Obama's "realist" policy (or Cairo speech) has been the catalyst for protests in Iran is even more fatuous than the belief (by some) that he is responsible for the election result in Lebanon too.

Only someone who knows very little about the history of both countries (especially in the last 30 years), or someone who is so ideologically blinkered could claim such a thing. (Take your pick what one Anderson Cooper, CNN & the NYT fits into).

The argument is over. It took eight days, but here we are.

Now, the question is how do they move forward.

And surely, we can discuss that in a civilised way, without the usual dog-whistle swipes at "neocons" (or whoever else may disagree with policy, or an emphasis of policy)?