Among other casualties of the violence in Tehran: President Obama’s foreign policy hopes. If he persists now in his deal-making efforts, he’ll be acquiescing in fraud and violence. What is happening in Iran now is this year’s Tiananmen Square, and if Obama tries do business with the regime afterward, he’ll open himself to exactly the same criticism Bill Clinton meted out to the elder George Bush: of coddling tyrants.
On the other hand, if Obama does not persist in his deal-making, what else does he do? He promised in 2008 to end the “threat” from Iran’s nuclear program. Diplomacy was his plan A to deliver on his promise. If he abandons diplomacy, there’s no Plan B. Sanctions have repeatedly failed. The president describes force as “on the table” – and there it will stay.
Obama’s outreach to Iran has been slapped away. If the regime prevails in this power struggle, the American president will be left trapped and optionless. Obama badly needs a Mousavi win, not because such a win means change (let’s not get over-excited about that), but because it offered the appearance of change. Without that appearance, the realities for Obama with Iran get very dismal.
37 responses so far
1 InTheMiddle12 // Jun 16, 2009 at 4:43 am
The events in Iran are fascinating to witness.
I have been rivited by the blogs and seeing what is happening.
I was equally impressed with President Obama’s statement yesterday. He’s very smartly not allowing the Iranian regime any room to bring him into their issue while supporting those wanting their votes counted.
I am so impressed by the youth of Iran who have the courage to go to the streets for their vote. It really makes me wonder about the Ameican 2000 election and why Americans, both from the right and left, didn’t do more when they felt their votes weren’t being counted properly.
2 midcon // Jun 16, 2009 at 4:45 am
Come on David. You know as well as I do that in Iran ultimate power resides with Ali Khamenei regardless of whether Mousavi or Ahmadinejad are ultimately “elected” as president. Even Ali Khamenei is subject to the whims of the council of Islamic scholars who elected him as the supreme leader. Without this context, you make it appear that Obama has no one to make a deal with unless he recognizes an illegitimate candidate.
Who “slapped away” Obama’s outreach – Ali Khamenei ? the Assembly of Experts? Like most issues, such as immigration, climate change, financial reform, foreign policy is complex. If you are going to opine about it to us, at least provide context and the entire situation to support your conclusions.
This kind of stuff works with main stream media, but we are just a bit more sophisticated than that – give us credit dude. Just because we spend days debating whether Hitler was a leftist or rightist doesn’t mean we don’t have grasp on today!
3 ottovbvs // Jun 16, 2009 at 5:23 am
David, I do question your motives at times. Whatever the outcome in Iran the Obama administration is going to have to deal with it. The last thing they should be doing is involving themselves in domestic power struggles in another country. If he issued a statement in support of Mousavi the first thing the Ahmadinejad faction would do would be to claim the great Satan America’s “interference” in the affairs of Iran and thereby strengthen his hand. This is obvious to a 12th grader so why isn’t it obvious to the sophisticated David Frum. Perhaps like Limbaugh he just wants Obama to fail even if the consequences for the US aren’t good.
4 barker13 // Jun 16, 2009 at 5:36 am
Gotta agree with Midcon.
(*SHRUG*)
Will the regime be toppled? No. I hope I’m wrong… but my guess is “no, the regime will survive this.”
As to Obama… he doesn’t really have much to do with this.
David. What exactly are you calling for in terms of policy?
BILL
5 balconesfault // Jun 16, 2009 at 5:57 am
This whole situation reminds me of the old parable of the sun and the wind. The two saw a man walking one day wearing a coat, and the wind declared to the sun that he would show he’s more powerful, and blow the coat off the man. But the harder he blew, the more the man wrapped the coat around him.
When the wind was finally exhausted with failure, the sun took his turn – and started to shine. After awhile, the man became warm, and took his coat off himself.
We’ve had 7 years of the US labelling Iran the “Great Satan”, and acting like the wind. Time for the Iranian people to feel a warming from the US government, so they can feel their security isn’t tied to wrapping themselves tighter in the protection of tyrants.
6 balconesfault // Jun 16, 2009 at 6:01 am
Oops – that was the US labeling Iran part of the “Axis of Evil”, in response to their propoganda that the US was “The Great Satan”
7 ottovbvs // Jun 16, 2009 at 6:04 am
balconesfault
wrote 3 minutes ago
……..The neocons of which David is one are unfamiliar with this parable. Blowing, or preferably blowing up, Iran and various others is their preferred solution. The fact that it’s produced a catalog of disasters over the last eight years leaves them unchastened.
8 balconesfault // Jun 16, 2009 at 7:02 am
I asked the question the other day, and got no response – is there any Muslim nation that we’ve gotten any significant cooperation from in the last 8 years where that cooperation didn’t come via a major committment of US dollars?
I find it amusing when I hear people on this site saying that Obama is “projecting weakness” in his dialogue with the Middle East so far. What’s it say when any cooperation you get is predicated on either sending tons of US dollars (see Turkey, Afghanistan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Egypt), or on providing substantial military protection on US taxpayer dollars (Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar).
What’s worse – being perceived as “weak” (which I disagree with anyhow) … or being perceived as a sucker, a rube to be fleeced?
9 midcon // Jun 16, 2009 at 7:17 am
balconesfault,
The only free cooperation we receive from anyone is the UK, Australia,Canada, Ireland, and sometimes France, Germany and Japan. There is no other nation whose friendship and support of the US is not bought and paid for with US dollars or lives.
We generally ignore those countries who stand with us come hell or high water. Instead we spend our capital and energy on those nations whose only interests are their own.
As an American, I know who my friends are.
10 ottovbvs // Jun 16, 2009 at 7:24 am
balconesfault
wrote 12 minutes ago
….Obviously overt intervention in the Iranian election has become the neoconservative and maybe the conservative position. Ledeen, Stephens, Frum, and various other necon voices like the Weekly Standard have picked up the cry but no elected officials so far as far as I can see. It’s hard to believe overt intervention in the affairs of Iran would have widespread appeal in America at the moment. So the question arises what is the motivation of these folks. The only possible one is the stoking of tensions between Iran and the US. Unless anyone else has any other ideas.
11 ottovbvs // Jun 16, 2009 at 7:34 am
midcon
wrote 7 minutes ago
………I think this is broadly true although you could perhaps add a few other countries in Europe like Holland, Italy, Austria and the Scandinavians. The only time these folks have seriously fallen out with us at the official level over the past forty years was during the Bush administration and that was because they perceived the US was departing from the set of values which we all share and what are ultimately what binds us together. The US and Saudia Arabia share interests but hardly values. That’s not say many in the rest of the world like in Iran don’t aspire to those values.
12 balconesfault // Jun 16, 2009 at 7:39 am
“The only time these folks have seriously fallen out with us at the official level over the past forty years was during the Bush administration “
40 years? Let’s make it 35 so we block out all of Vietnam.
That said, the French stance during the lead in to our Iraq invasion always reminded me of the friend trying to take the car keys away from his drunk friend, while the drunk verbally abuses him for being a wimp about worrying about his driving condition and not coming along for the ride.
13 ottovbvs // Jun 16, 2009 at 7:53 am
balconesfault
wrote 8 minutes ago
“40 years? Let’s make it 35 so we block out all of Vietnam.
……..Note I said official level…..Most of the Europeans may not have been happy about Vietnam but there were nothing like the tensions we’ve seen over the last eight years. The French are right a surprising amount of the time, that’s what we and others find so annoying.
14 sinz54 // Jun 16, 2009 at 9:40 am
While overt intervention in Iran is inadvisable, that doesn’t mean the U.S. can’t engage in a little *covert* intervention.
I’m sure there are front organizations that can funnel money and technical assistance to the young Iranian opposition forces. Similar to the way Reagan funded and boosted the Solidarity movement in Poland, working through the Vatican. The USSR didn’t consider that a sufficient provocation to go to war over.
If there are moderate Shiite Muslim organizations in the West, the U.S. should work with them to aid their Iranian brethren.
15 Brutus1776 // Jun 16, 2009 at 10:44 am
Sinz54: While overt intervention in Iran is inadvisable, that doesn’t mean the U.S. can’t engage in a little *covert* intervention.
The covert directives during Reagan were quite impressive indeed, and a great book to read regarding such programs (ISA, Yellow Fruit, DARISSA and the likes) is “Covert Warriors: Inside the Covert Military Operations of the Reagan Era” by Steve Emmerson. Now adays, when we try to institute covert operations, we do not have to worry about enemy intelligence agencies compromising OPSEC, when we can trust Seymour Hersh to do it for them with the New York Slimes:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/29/seymour-hersh-exposes-new_n_109818.html
16 balconesfault // Jun 16, 2009 at 11:51 am
“do not have to worry about enemy intelligence agencies compromising OPSEC, when we can trust Seymour Hersh to do it for them “
a) Yeah, democracy is a bitch.
b) I’d bet that almost nothing that Hersh reveals is ever news to the people being operated on … but only for the US public in whose name the operations are being carried out.
17 Brutus1776 // Jun 16, 2009 at 12:13 pm
Insinuating that a firm appreciation for OPSEC regarding any theater of deployment stand diametrically opposed to democracy as a whole is laughable. Tell me, do you plan on winning any military engagements with a “democratically” run platoon, company, battalion? The military is not a democracy, and that is so they can defend it.
I beg to differ. While some operational intelligence may not have been news when conducting operations against ‘States’ because of their own in-house intelligence programs; it is well known that non-state actors such as al-Queada, depend greatly on the media for their intelligence. Besides, it may be a bet you’re willing to take, members of the military and family members and friends may not find that a bet worth doubling down on sir.
18 balconesfault // Jun 16, 2009 at 12:25 pm
“The military is not a democracy, and that is so they can defend it.”
The military is not a democracy – but the nation who funds the military, and is responsible for the actions of the military, most certainly is.
And I’m sorry, but I reject the assumption that Al Qaeda relies to significant extent on the media for information. I would be happy to entertain your evidence that this is “well known”, but I fully expect that if Hersh can learn about something, Al Qaeda can.
There will always be intelligence programs that the American public doesn’t need to know the specifics of, but only that they exist. Our enemies are already aware of their existence. But when covert actions begin to draw the US into military conflict, rather than just provide the military with information needed to avoid or win a conflict, I’d say that the US public kinda needs to know.
19 midcon // Jun 16, 2009 at 12:26 pm
Our national security and freedom are dependent in part upon our leadership abilities to keep secret only the information that is necessary to maintain our national security and the media to seek only information whose release will do no harm to our national security.
Having been involved in this area for most of my adult life, I will say that I trust our leadership only slightly more than I trust the media. And I do not trust the media at all.
Hersh is not clairvoyant. He gets fed by Congress and Administration folks who have their own agenda.
In any case, I do believe that the U.S. Government should release all Roswell information immediately. Enough is enough, I wanna know!
20 barker13 // Jun 16, 2009 at 1:24 pm
Re: Midcon; wrote 55 minutes ago –
“In any case, I do believe that the U.S. Government should release all Roswell information immediately. Enough is enough, I wanna know!
”
But are the aliens Right wingers or Left wingers…???
(*GRIN*)
BILL
21 chephren // Jun 16, 2009 at 3:24 pm
This is a ridiculous post. Obama’s outreach has not been “slapped away”. The Iranian election was not about America. Lose your US-centric myopia, and look at the situation on its own terms. The struggle on the streets is an internal political dispute between hardliners and moderates – the same moderates that US conservatives and neocons have long pretended don’t matter or even, effectively, exist.
Obama has done nothing wrong here. Talking tough is counterproductive. He needs to avoid rhetoric that will provide a convenient distraction to the regime.
Obama’s Cairo speech appealed directly to the people. Obama needs to proceed with caution, quietly encourage democacy, and respect the people of Iran.
22 danbmil99 // Jun 16, 2009 at 8:30 pm
What crud. Obama’s moves in the Middle East show a really amazing level of understanding and finesse. The idea that the last admin’s schoolyard mentality blow-hard breast-beating did anything good for America is just trash.
I’m no fan of Obama’s domestic agenda, but frankly his foreign policy moves so far seem f**king brilliant, especially in contrast to the team that acted like a parody of “Team America”. (if you don’t know, look it up)
23 Brutus1776 // Jun 17, 2009 at 5:11 am
Midcon: Don’t be ridiculous. All of the information about Roswell was included when the Majestic 12 documents were leaked
Barker: If the aliens come in peace, they are inherently left wingers of course. If they were fairly represented in the movie “Mars Attacks” then they are most assuredly right-wing neocons bent on empire.
Anyone have thoughts on Buchanan’s sentiments as of late? I believe age has tempered the man, as he is saying Pres. Obama’s prudence is to be applauded, and we should turn away from the calls to military action. Nothing like watching him and Barnicle on “Morning Joe” (my one true vice), they are like the old-man muppets.
24 barker13 // Jun 17, 2009 at 5:17 am
Re: Danbmil99; 8:30 PM –
AMERICA… F**k Yeah!
(*GRIN*)
As to Obama’s foreign policy being… er… “f**king brilliant”… a bit hyperbolic, no?
Not that it would be Obama’s “fault,” but if the $hit hits the fan in North Korea do we chalk it up to “coincidence” and judge Obama’s response (whatever it happens to be) as automatically “f**king brilliant…???”
Hey… I do quite a bit of Bush bashing and I’m quite willing to give Obama credit where credit’s due, but I’m not getting where you’re getting this whole “f**king brilliant” thing from.
Care to elaborate?
BILL
P.S. – And just to note… to reiterate… scroll down to my original 5:36 am post of yesterday; I’m coming at this latest Frum hit piece from the same basic perspective as you are. Whatever case Frum is attempting to make… he’s failing. (*SHRUG*)
25 ottovbvs // Jun 17, 2009 at 5:18 am
ottovbvs
7:24 AM
…..Seems like I was premature…..Apparently “Bomb, Bomb, Iran” McCain made some comments yesterday urguing US intervention. However, the Republican voice of sanity in foreign affairs Dick Lugar said no way, Obama is handling it just right.
26 Brutus1776 // Jun 17, 2009 at 5:23 am
As per the “Team America” comments: interesting how prescient Trey Parker and Matt Stone were regarding North Korea and Kim Jong-Il…
27 barker13 // Jun 17, 2009 at 5:27 am
Re: Brutus1776; wrote 6 minutes ago –
“Anyone have thoughts on Buchanan’s sentiments as of late?”
(*RAISING MY HAND*)
(*FIDGETING*)
(*YELLING OUT “ME! ME! ME!*)
I’ve always been a big fan of Buchanan. Not that he’s always right… but my view is he’s consistently right – not to mention intellectually consistent – around 90% of the time.
As I often note, a large helping of Buchanan… a serving of Dobbs… a cup (strained) of Ron Paul… throw in some Krauthammer, a bit of Will…
(*GRIN*)
Hey… I’m a Paglia fan too… love Hitchens… there are plenty of bright, knowledgeable, gifted writers out there, but anyone who has followed Buchanan’s writings for a while has to note – willingly or unwillingly – that Buchanan more often than not hits the nail on the head and his predictions are well worth paying attention to.
Any specific column you’d care to chat about, Brutus?
BILL
28 ottovbvs // Jun 17, 2009 at 5:53 am
barker13
wrote 22 minutes ago
“As I often note, a large helping of Buchanan… a serving of Dobbs… a cup (strained) of Ron Paul… throw in some Krauthammer, a bit of Will…”
……..After all the events of the past eight years have proved all these people so completely right in their prognostications.
29 barker13 // Jun 17, 2009 at 6:25 am
Re: Ottovbvs; wrote 30 minutes ago –
“After all the events of the past eight years have proved all these people so completely right in their prognostications.”
Umm… yeah… pretty much!
(*GRIN*)
Now Otto… back to DailyKos with you! Scoot!
BILL
30 sinz54 // Jun 17, 2009 at 6:44 am
ottovbvs: Actually, Ron Paul wasn’t too far off the mark on the big issues of the Iraq War and the economy.
He had opposed the Iraq War; and he was one of just two Republican candidates for President in the 2008 primary season who said that the U.S. economy was in trouble. (The other one was Mike Huckabee.) All the others said that the U.S. economy was doing well–and that the GOP should be given credit for it.
Of course, a stopped clock is right twice a day, you know the routine. I could not abide Ron Paul’s flirting with the Truthers and other fringe groups.
31 sinz54 // Jun 17, 2009 at 6:51 am
barker13 sez: “Buchanan more often than not hits the nail on the head and his predictions are well worth paying attention to.”
Buchanan represents the 1930s type of right-winger: Isolationist, nativist, with a streak of anti-Semitism (surreptitiously indulged). Examples:
http://tinyurl.com/5fha8l
http://tinyurl.com/md9j74
We don’t need that again.
32 barker13 // Jun 17, 2009 at 11:22 am
Sinz.
(*CHUCKLE*)
One can’t help but notice that once one tears aside the snark… even YOU don’t deny my basic premise. Indeed, you actually support my contention via writing, “Actually, Ron Paul wasn’t too far off the mark on the big issues of the Iraq War and the economy.”
As for Buchanan… regardless of whether you peg him as representing 1930’s type thinking or 1830’s thinking or whatever… (*SMILE*)… you don’t claim his predictions have been wrong more often than not – which would be the counter to my assertion.
Anyway… (*SHRUG*)
BILL
33 Rod // Jun 17, 2009 at 12:22 pm
The appearance of change isn’t change. It’ll still be a rediculous religious dictatorship run by pathetic old men. The bigger problem I see is countries like Russia greeting Ahmadinejad with open arms and congratulating him on his victory. Birds of a feather stick together.
34 sinz54 // Jun 17, 2009 at 2:42 pm
barker13: What were some of Buchanan’s predictions?
35 barker13 // Jun 17, 2009 at 4:13 pm
Re: Sinz54; 2:42 PM –
Fair’s fair, Sinz; you answer my questions (re: Gingrich/Rove) over on the other thread and I’ll be more than happy to answer yours here.
BILL
36 sinz54 // Jun 18, 2009 at 7:37 am
barker13: I don’t remember your questions anymore. Care to repeat them here?
37 barker13 // Jun 18, 2009 at 11:23 am
Re: Sinz54; 7:37 AM –
Nope.
(*SHRUG*)
BILL
You must log in to post a comment.