The Iranian government is already a pariah internationally – and no matter what the result they are still pariahs. Did any other country meddle in US politics when the right leaning Supreme Court selected Bush in 2000 – despite clear evidence of election irregularities? The track record for the US regarding electoral accuracy, human rights abuses, and altruistic politics is laughable these past ten years. We have absolutely no firm ground from which to comment on Iranian politics – none.

There are clearly major changes afoot in Iran, unlike the changes that took 15 to 20 years to materialize while the Shah was in power – and I expect the ridiculous theocracy in power is on it’s way out – but it will take another decade.

Days ago Khamenei had not spoken, genius. Days ago the level of repression had not been ramped up. Days ago Moussavi had not committed to defying Khamenei. In other words, Obama’s timing is about right — although I thought his remarks to CBS were premature — and yours was wrong.

As you know perfectly well, however much you have to ignore it in order to score narrow political points, timing is everything.

I am always disappointed when intelligent people play stupid for political purposes. You know better, Tully. Or should.

What I believe hurts your position is that actual experts seem to side with the approach he is taking and those screaming against it are the same people who got nothing right for over a decade.

Even Pat Buchanan says he is taking the right approach. Buchanan put it this way(or close to it). Of course the GOP is trying to go after him but I think he’s going about it just right. There are things you can do as a Congressman or a Senator that are not appropriate as the leader of the country.

He also said this- When your adversary is making a fool of himself, get out of the way.

Obama’s previous say-nothing statements are no longer operative, and he has FINALLY joined all but one member of Congress in openly condemning the current human rights abuses in Iran. Without, I note, stepping into the question of the validity of the elections.

Gee, whoever would have thought that such a clear and narrowly focused statement might be called for? Days ago, even? I wonder.

I would like to see more dialogue and I think we all likely misunderstand the position and beliefs of others. I kind of like the idea of profiles too. My guess is that the way we are seen by others is likely not how we see ourselves (correctly or incorrectly)

I really don’t see the blank OK by the left that you say is happening now or which occurred on the Right with Bush. Even now, Bush has 26% or so thinking he did a good job. On what rational planet is that even possible???

The people who have had the most issue with Obama are 1) The Right-which predictably is 100% against everything he has said and done which makes their complaints much easier to dismiss since they (as I tried to point out in the previous post) are often completely inconsistent with the stance they had when their guy was in office. and 2) People like me who don’t see him standing for things on principles that used to be a no brainer for this country. Standing for the rule of law, Not going after torture, war crimes etc. Not having all options on the table when looking at health care reform. Allowing discrimination to continue for one second longer than it should have. So, I do see some balance in my view. I don’t think he’s perfect. You’re right that I think he is a major improvement on Bush. I think almost anyone would have been since he was easily the worst President in my life.

I think the Obamapologist thing you keep trotting out is far less accurate than the constant “everything he does is wrong view” that I keep hearing from the other side. If I have missed a post where you said you were impressed or that he has done something well, for that I do apologize ☺

America is coming off the whole “superpower” bit. Deal with it. 20th Century is over, along with the Cold War.

I would wager that America’s involvement in Iran is, currently, a whole lot bigger than most folks would expect. The difference is, these people aren’t media whores who’ll be popping up on Faux News anytime soon, for folks like Tully and Simon to slobber over.

Agnostick
agnostick@excite.com

I think the sooner we get beyond this kind of thinking, though, the sooner we (those who want to) can engage in an honest exchange of ideas. I said long ago that the proponents of a candidate should also be their harshest critics–it takes extra mental effort to put aside a personal bias and attempt to look at political decisions that a president makes objectively. But what I’ve seen for the past six months is an almost Herculean effort by Obama supporters to justify literally everything the man does. I appreciate the passion, but that passion has eradicated most objective thought. So, in a sense, this is exactly the thing that Democrats hated about the blind Bush followers. Remember how aggravating that was?

As far as Carter goes, I don’t think that there are many folks out there blaming him for what’s going on in the world today, with perhaps the exception of his legitimizing Hamas.

And, just curious (cuz I think the answer would be amusing), what do you think I stand for? Actually, wouldn’t that be a cool feature on the old Donklephant? A little political profile page where posters can keep a persistent description of their world views and perspective on politics. Hmmm…

You mention covertly doing things. I think it is doubtful that some of those things might not be happening now. They likely always are being done. Since they aren’t overt, we likely may not know for decades if they are already doing things you want. Bottom line is that they are a religiously militant country now and will most likely be after whatever happens happens. The people have to decide they are tired of this kind of government.

Our history in the region makes it unlikely that our insertion would do more than snap the rubberband back in the opposite direction. They have already said that Obama’s statements have made many want better relations with us. IMO, Pulling a Machiavelli now would likely screw us there for another 50 years or longer. We would likely have more options almost anywhere but here. They have to demand a new future for it to happen.

Sorry that wasn’t my point at all.

I think Obama is handling this correctly. Especially with our history of removing governments in Iran. The voices I’ve heard from Iran have agreed.

My point is that people like you have no leg to stand on when you talk about setting a good example for the world. You have zero credibility. I think your judgment was flawed then and now and just find it almost ridiculous that you can even get the words out of your mouth that we should do what will show the world what “we stand for”.

Obama has already made it quite clear that we don’t stand for what you stood for. The whole world has embraced that. My issues with him are that he hasn’t gone far enough to distance himself from W. If he makes a clean break with those policies, he will have done more than enough to succeed. Anything more will be icing on the cake.

btw, your side has been kicking Carter around for 30 years so I think the GOP might not be the ones to say let bygones be bygones.

Certainly, caution is essential for the US in this situation. There is no question that it will do no one in Iran any good to offer the regime highly visible US Presidential pronouncements to point to and say, “See, it’s the Americans and Mousavi is their stooge.”

But that does not mean the US must be silent or that silence will keep the regime from blaming The Great Satan or that the US has no options or that it must accept the outcome, whatever it may be, and sally forth to engage the regime as if nothing happened and nothing changed.

Obama promised more diplomacy — but “tough diplomacy” and you aren’t being “tough” if you’re passive.

The US is still the big guy on the block in the sense that it is the only actor in the world that Iran needs to be seriously concerned about. The six days (and counting) of loud protests have already undermined Ahmadinejad’s legitimacy as President, should he continue in that role, and are beginning to target the Supreme Leader. Put these two fac together and you can see good reason why a stronger expression of US concern — at the right moment and made in the right way — is a highly relevant part of whatever calculations Khamenei, Ahmadinejad, Mousavi and others in Iran’s leadership will be making.

There are many ways to do this; a statement by Obama is only one. Lesser officials can ratchet up the tone. Anonymous “high officials” can tell the WaPo that the US may not be so eager to engage with Ahmadinejad, if he emerges with the Presidency only over more dead bodies and repression. Messages also can be sent covertly to any or all the players in Iran. Messages can be delivered also in the form of actions in potentially linked areas (e.g., Obama calls Netanyehu with whom there has been some friction lately to “discuss Iran” and let’s the story out, as if to say indirectly to Iran, “You know, all that stuff about the US leaning on Israel may or may not happen”).

The notion that the US has no cards to play is fundamentally wrong. We may not want to try to change any more regimes by force or arms or by engineering coups, but there is all that “smart power,” is there not?

It is hugely in America’s (and the region’s) interest to weaken the hold of the Iranian regime internally. That would enhance our negotiating position in engagement. And there are plenty of tools available to the President to coax that along. Caution, yes. Smart diplomacy, yes. Passivity, no.

Bullshit again, Michael. More obfuscation and straw men and irrelevant dismissals. I want Obama to be a competent leader simply because he’s our president. He’s failing on this foreign-policy issue, one that should be a slam-dunk for a clear statement of general human-rights principles. He is not demonstrating any leadership whatsoever to the international community here, which international opinions you deemed so overwhelmingly important over the last several years. He’s being a waffle-wrapped weenie in the International House of Pancakes. And yes, that is being noted by other nations. For good or ill, his non-response is an example and a communications signal to the rest of the world.

And yes, the sanctions against both China and Myanmar had some effect. In the case of China in particular it helped lead them into increased foreign trade and greater openness, for example. And sucked them into the beginnings of restricted capitalism, which has over time boosted their own standard of living enormously and entwined them into the world economy. Not to mention financing our own national spending. The international sanctions against Myanmar resulted in the release of thousands of political prisoners, and lessened blocking of international aid response in natural disasters.

We have a goal.

Which is what, exactly? To let the dust settle on the protester’s corpses before resuming the hopeless ass-kissing game with the mullahs? Less yodeling? I ask again, has Obama (or Clinton at State) even taken the very minimal symbolic step of forwarding those “deep concerns” to the UN in any form whatsoever? Where international considerations might help shape the mullahs’ thinking?

Do please acknowledge that I have stated repeatedly above that I am talking about one thing — condemning the brutal repression of the protesters — and not about the election fraud allegations or anything else. As you seem intent on conflating that specific-response thing into a general condemnation response that I have most specifically not advocated. Tsk tsk.

Which accomplished what precisely? Which moved us effectively toward what goal?

The rest of your response is phony macho posturing and bluster.

We have a goal. Now why don’t you make yet another attempt to explain to me how more posturing and louder bluster will get us to that goal.

I think the problem here is that you and I have very different goals. I want to see the protests succeed. You want a club to beat Obama.

It’s funny, Tully, because I’ve read hundreds of tweets from Iran, watched dozens of video clips and you know what I haven’t seen yet? Iranian students demanding more noise from the American government.

No one alive on planet earth has any shred of doubt where we stand. No one.

Absolute and total BS. Obama is being closely watched for his response. Has he even forwarded his “deep concern” to the worthless black hole of the UN for face-saving multi-national “deep concern?” So far his response has best been summed up by Iowahawk:

Frankly, if America is going to regain respect as a geopolitical superpower, we need to make the tough call to sit quietly on the sidelines. That’s why I have instructed my diplomatic team remain strictly neutral and to “let ‘em play.” With time and patience, I hope you will come to think of us as a bigger, flatter version of Switzerland. With less yodeling….The most important thing is that you get this distracting sudden death shootout over with, because it’s really screwing with my legislative agenda. Not to mention my sleep schedule. Until then, I would like to offer my sincere congratulations to the eventual winners, and best wishes in your upcoming playoff series with the Tel Aviv Fightin’ Zionists.

He’s stalling with minimal movement and mealy-mouthed platitudes and hoping the “situation” resolves itself before he’s compelled to pull his thumb out of his tuchis. He can’t even develop the cojones for a symbolic response in favor of human rights and democracy. We both know that the real battle is being waged among the mullahs, in the Expediency Discernment Council and the Council of Guardians, that it is they who will consider world opinion in guiding the government response. We both know that a change of Iranian President will make kittle to no real difference in Iranian foreign policy. We both know that if they decide to go full-bore against the protesters that they will blame the Great Satan (and already have) as the cause of their problems, regardless of what we do…or don’t do. And we both know the signal Obama is sending them is “Whatever.”

Obama’s also being watched and assessed and his non-response slotted into the game plans of other nations for both current and future events. So far, the signal he is sending to the world is “You’re on your own.” Not exactly a beacon of courage and democracy.

No one alive on planet earth has any shred of doubt where we stand. No one.

So it’s about a need to blow off steam, to make ourselves feel good.

As for “who we will stand with” what does that mean in this context? Let me tell you what we’re going to do: nothing. Because in the real world there’s not a hell of a lot we can do. We aren’t going to war with Iran. So let’s not pull another Kurd switcheroo and pretend we’re going to do something, encourage people to stick their necks out for a false promise.

It’s not about us. It’s about them. It’s up to them. Everyone knows what we want and whose side we are on and all we can do by butting in his hurt the good guys.

Of course that is exactly what many on the right want.

Summarizing: you have no answer. You can’t give us any reason to think that more noise from us advances our goals.

The goal is the point. The objective. And our objective is not to express your emotions or mine.

So for the last eight years you had no issue with fraudulent elections, trashing the Constitution of your country, running roughshod over the opposition in your own country and having no respect for any other countries views, starting a preemptive war based on misleading/lying to your own countrymen and finally committing war crimes and not being held accountable (because you have the right to ignore any verdict of the world community that you want to ignore) as the “stand” you would be willing to support then?

That would really show them how different we are.

Someone tell those world leaders that they are making a VERY bad move.

Who would have thought that the President of the United States would sound more limp-wristed than the French or the Germans during a geopolitical crisis.

Funny how “speaking truth to power” becomes so unpopular once your favored are in power, isn’t it? How principle goes out the window, to be replaced by the equivocations demanded of expediency. How those firm strong stands become squishy salt marsh, just waiting for the next tide.

It is indeed a teaching moment, and someone is teaching the wrong lesson. Sad that our president cannot manage to clearly and unequivocally condemn the brutal repression of the protesters, but must instead (YOUR interpretation, Michael) obfuscate and delay and equivocate in order to seek some advantage outside the clear principles laid down by such as JFK and RR, among a long history of others. Why, those who disagree must just not be able to appreciate the brilliant nuance that is Teh Obama!

WISHY WASHY WEENIE. No spine. This one’s not even a question. The brutal repression of civilians is a slam-dunk regardless of who’s doing it, and condemnation for it should be automatic. You’d almost think Obama was ashamed or afraid to condemn it, was embarrassed to display clear principles in public. Sure, they sound pretty in campaign speeches, but when the rubber meets the road and some clear leadership is called for, they’re just SO inconvenient.

“Those ideals still light the world, and we will not give them up for expedience’s sake.” –BHO 1/20/09

Unless it’s expedient, of course.