Don’t Iranians Deserve ‘Hope and Change’ Too?
The Iranian election has given the world a jolt of reality. For those confused about the nature of the Iranian regime, its true colors are now revealed. But it has also been a clarifying event in America.
It has been obvious for some time that the American Left has given up on democracy and human rights as fundamental tenets of American foreign policy. But never before has it been so clear just how ruthless and indifferent they are to the aspirations of those who would be crushed by the boot of despotic regimes. And never before have we seen how Herculean a task it is to deny and obfuscate the nature of these sorts of regimes in order to pursue a policy devoted to stability, engagement, and process as goals in and of themselves (rather than as means to some greater ends).
The Iranian election and its aftermath demonstrate just how vast is the difference in approach between the Obama administration, which has embodied the Left’s total embrace of realpolitik, and its conservative critics.
This illuminating discussion from the Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace, Juan Williams. Mara Liasson, and Bill Kristol suggests that the hope and change crowd isn’t in the White House, at least not when we get to hope and change for citizens of other countries:
WALLACE: So you think all of President Obama’s efforts or hopes to reach out to Iran on some level — that that’s dead?
WILLIAMS: Well, it looks like it. I mean, the only thing is that there’s the possibility that you get Ayatollah Khamenei and others in search of some kind of domestic appeasement, saying to people, “You know what? Oh, no, we’re going to negotiate with the international community. We’re going to take steps to try to amp down the tensions here.” But that’s the only hope.
I don’t see that there’s much hope now in terms of these negotiations going forward because President Obama would look weaker. It would look as if he was giving in to this man who’s not even legitimately elected.
KRISTOL: Juan’s giving up on reaching out by President Obama. At the moment you should be — this is the moment for President Obama to step up. He does have some credibility, presumably, with people in Iran. He should support the democrats.
HUME: Right.
KRISTOL: He should support the demonstrators. He should say that stealing elections is unacceptable, killing demonstrators in the streets of Tehran is unacceptable. He could work with the Europeans to say, “Let’s bring in international observers to review whether this was a fair election. If it wasn’t, let’s think about having another election.”
WALLACE: But you’re saying turn up the heat, not reach out to the ruling regime.
KRISTOL: Reach out to — right, reach out to the Iranian people. I mean, this is the — I really am shocked that Obama has said nothing so far, and we’ll see what he says today.
But I mean, doesn’t America — when these things happen, there’s — when there are democratic protests and there’s a chance for success, their success depends on outside forces helping them. That was true in Lebanon.
KRISTOL: No, I do want to …
LIASSON: No, no.
KRISTOL: … open communication channels.
HUME: No.
KRISTOL: I do want to send money. And I want to tell the Iranians who are on the fence and who do want trade with Europe and do want warmer relations with the U.S., “Look, you’ve got now to back off or else you don’t get anything you want.”
The worst thing the U.S. can say is, “We don’t care what you do in there. We desperately want to engage the regime no matter how thuggish it is.”
LIASSON: It’s worth a try. The worst thing that happens is you get a very clarifying moment if it fails. And that in and of itself might lead to some kind of a resolution of this.
HUME: But does anybody sense that the inclination of this administration is to do what Bill suggests? I think not. This president couldn’t have been blind to what Ahmadinejad is and what he represents, and he was prepared to reach out to him, as has been pointed out here.
I think he will continue to — that’s what they said yesterday in the face of all of this. I mean, I think it’s going to be — you know, it’s going to look terrible to do it now, given the questions about the legitimacy of this election. This will all play out in the next couple of days.
This is the approach which the Obama administration seems to be choosing, a ruthless determination to pursue some deal, any deal (there has to be a deal, right?) with the mullahs.
Unfortunately the Thief in Chief administration seems to have adopted a philosophy of “Whatever Bush did was wrong! Saying we support an Iranian human rights uprising just makes things worse!” They seem to think that the lesson from the “failures” of the Bush administration is that intervening in any foreign affair just makes the situation worse and emboldens the people we’re criticizing since people hate America so much. Therefore they aren’t going to take advantage of this once in a generation oppurtunity to overthrow the barbaric islamist theocracy in Iran because they’re uncertain about being Americans and the values we’re supposed to advancing in every dark corner of the world. They’re leftist academic cowards and ideologues who have no spines who would rather bow down and advert their eyes from the Iranian mullahs rather than risk upsetting them. Afterall their new policy on Iran is to work with the Iranian despots to improve relations at all costs in order to best achieve regime change or moderation. Except all they’re doing is emboldening them.
“what must they think in Syria, Moscow, China, and North Korea?”
They are thinking the same thing that President George W. Bush was last year when Obama commandeered and totally wrecked the budget crisis meeting in the Whitehouse, “I cannot believe that the American people are stupid enough to elect this fool..”
Roger Cohen has a minor epiphany in today’s NYT:
“I erred in underestimating the brutality and cynicism of a regime that understands the uses of ruthlessness.”
You don’t say. What a brilliant guy.
So Iran had an election, huh? Big deal! Stop deluding yourself about these 12th Century savages. They’re playing a zero sum game of global domination while we’re splitting Clintonesque hairs over the definition of the word “is”!
Iran is an islamic theocracy run in tandem by fascist clerics drooling over the legalities of buggering underage family members, and a bug eyed “Twelver” intent upon triggering a global nuclear war that will usher in a new era of Mohammedan supremacy in the world.
And guess what folks, the Iranian population supports these whackos! Abdullah Six-Pack is sucking this Koranic crap up by the freakin’ barrel full. The riots in TerrorRan aren’t the birth pangs of “freedom”, they’re an Islamic fist-fight over who gets the honor of blowing your infidel carcasses to little itzy-bitzy pieces of goop.
“Hope and Change” my a$$!
“What will Obama choose?”
Barack Obama is overwhelmed by his responsibilities. He is also instinctively anti-American and blames our own country for most of the ills of the world. Such a mindset inevitably leads to a hands off approach. We presumably will only make matters worse by intervening. This is especially true if the dictators are perceived as people of color. Obama has no plans whatsoever to punish the Iranian mullahs. That would be blaming the victim.
The present “progressive” slant on foreign policy is actually a very old one. It goes;
“We are irredeemably evil. Anyone who is our friend is, therefore, also evil. Conversely, anyone wise enough to hate is is, ipso facto, good. As such, we shall accommodate those who hate us, and punish those who do not; In each case, they will be getting exactly what they deserve, and we shall gain Virtue as a result.”
The One is simply practicing this philosophy to a greater degree than any of his predecessors, notably Carter.
There is also the “engagement” factor. In this mode, the “enlightened elite’” believe that to prove their higher degree of “consciousness”, they must pursue “dialogue” at all costs, even if the end result is the (brutal) status quo. It’s very much like playing an arcade-type computer game, to them; their self-imposed rules prohibit “winning” (because, since we are evil, it would be a Very Bad Thing if we “won”),so their objective is to simply Keep Playing Forever. They believe that if they can extend the “process” indefinitely, they will both look saintly, and ensure that they will never be stripped of power- because they will say, “If you give my office to someone else, the Process will collapse”.
The old saying “To travel hopefully is better than to arrive” has no place in international relations. Unfortunately, those who value appearance above substance believe that it is the only thing that matters.
clear ether
eon
Why would Obama be upset? He got elected the same way- stuffing ballot boxes, fraud, etc…. He should be proud of his protege’!
#5
Sad but very true.
…there is nothing more important to the Obama administration — not freedom, not democracy, not justice, not fidelity to allies — than “getting a deal.”
Probably. Just before the (sham) Iranian election, the Narcissist-in-Chief was out there personally taking some kind of credit (as a function of his speech in Cairo) for a loosening & opening up of healthy debate etc. inside Iran.
While, in fact, Friday’s election in Iran seems to have been some kind of corrupt exercise in power tightening by old Khameini (the guy who couldn’t conceal his glee after 911) and Spidery A’jad.
When you and your hangers on (Emanuel, Axelrod et al.) think in small, tight circles of control, any sort of deal is considered a feather in your cap. (Chicago on the Potomac) Said deal and being able to point to your own (narcissistic) alleged achievement is the point, not the plight of the Iranian people.
Same is true in Israel, it’s an Obama “win” if he can force Netanyahu on the settlement question.
I don’t think Israel should rely on the US as it has in the past. And the aspiring democracy movement inside Iran shouldn’t look for much in the way of US support, either.
Excellent article Ms Rubin, but all is not lost. The United States is now run by cool people who ceate their own reality. So here’s how it will shake out.
When it’s obvious that the people of Iran won’t accept the rigged results the mullah’s will relent and announce that the votes have been counted again -this time by non Jews- and Moussavi won, after all.
The American media will credit Obama for the outcome. Everything will continue as before with pretend moderates in charge of both Iran and the United States.
Obama is throwing the Iranian people under the bus. He wants to keep overseas ‘distractions’ to a minimum so he can get on with the more pressing business of imposing socialism on America.
And the ‘international community’ won’t blame Obama for the repression of the Iranian people, but it will scream blue murder if Israel acts against Iran’s nuclear program.
Ditto, x 2…
…they’re uncertain about being Americans and the values we’re supposed to advancing in every dark corner of the world. They’re leftist academic cowards and ideologues who have no spines who would rather bow down and advert their eyes from the Iranian mullahs rather than risk upsetting them.
…the “enlightened elite’” believe that to prove their higher degree of “consciousness”, they must pursue “dialogue” at all costs, even if the end result is the (brutal) status quo…They believe that if they can extend the “process” indefinitely, they will both look saintly, and ensure that they will never be stripped of power- because they will say, “If you give my office to someone else, the Process will collapse”.
Drop the narcissism my fellow citizens. This revolution isn’t about Obama or America, it’s about Iran.
Hey, if we don’t like the results of their election, doesn’t that give us the right to invade?
“C,can I just eat my waffle now?”
What will Obama choose?
Why to vote ‘Present’ of course!
Far be it from him to stand up for any ideals of liberty and freedom abroad when he won’t do so at home…it would set a bad example to his followers and the American people that you really should stand up for those things. Can’t have that!
Of course he does want us to forget that the Tree of Liberty is nourished by the blood of tyrants and patriots. People might get suspicious about the folks looking to take a chainsaw to the Tree of Liberty with their noxious poison of taxation being ‘good’ and that, really, the tree should be chopped down to make space for the sick, the poor and the lumber used to house the politically correct.
If you can’t stand up for liberty, what good are you? Not just as a President but as an individual citizen? And verbal support for it, abroad, should be damned easy, no?
Instead we get: ‘Present’.
The silence that speaks volumes.
So, y`all are willing to risk Afghanistan and Iraq for the sake of the people of Tehran? Thats a interesting position, and reminds me of the way some folks were ready to go fight Russia over Georgia. Reality is for cowards, eh?
Didn’t the Left have a hissy-fit over Reagan dealing with Saddam because he won via rigged elections?
But now it is OK for Obama to deal with Ahmadinejad even though he won by riggging the Iranian elections.
Am I missing something here?
The problem with realpolitik is that expediency can lead to incongruity
17. fnord:
Iran is the most active destabilizing agent in the entire area (Saudi money and Paki tech also are bad news) if they change government in any way that leads to less lunacy it is a win all around. A “Velvet Revolution” would be best (far less blood in the streets and a quicker recovery) but a move to a more secular democratic model would be welcome by any route.
Iraq and Afghanistan would both be far more stable with a secular (or at least a less militant)Iran between them.
“The post-election options couldn’t be any more clear-cut: fight for democracy and human rights — or cut a deal with a thuggish despot at any price. What will Obama choose?”
Uhhh…..hmmmmm….oh,…..let me guess…..
OH! I know! I know!….
He will indeed cut a deal with a thuggish despot at any price.
The reason I know that is because during the election campaign he SAID HE WOULD.
It’s not difficult to figure out what Soetero will do if we just check and see what Soetero said he would do.
There is this caveat: the only time he was lying was when he said the oath of office. He never had any intention of upholding the Constitution, or of protecting and defending the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic. That one was a lie in every context and every iteration.
Every despot in history has telegraphed their intentions in advance (Japan, 1941; Hitler, 1939, etc.)
“…the Obama administration, which has embodied the Left’s total embrace of realpolitik…”
That’s the nugget right there. This administration has gone hook, line and sinker for Nixonian Realpolitik in a manner that would make Tricky Dick blush. The difference is that in those days they had the excuse (note; not justification) that America had bigger fish to fry vis-a-viz the USSR. No such excuse exists today. They really think they are doing the right thing by supporting the 3rd world despots and snubbing our democratic allies.
Kinda curious how the endgame plays out for this Iranian election.
The big K reversed his “Divine election” commandment and has moved for a recount.
Ajad has his opponent, who very well may be the true winner in a warehouse somewhere with bamboo under his fingernails and jumper cables affixed to his testicles in an attempt to get him to make speeches to quell those who got snookered into believing that their vote meant something.
So now they recount,if they come out with the real count, then they have to trot out whats left of a man of Ajad’s opponent and what will Ajad’s voters do??
If they determine that Ajad is the winner then they simply roll with the obvious farce that this election wasn’t rigged from the get go and the riots continue as they are until crushed or the people get their hands on the Mullahs and/or big K himself.
None of this recount is making sense, count me in as one of the crowd who is thinking this is a coup on Ajad’s part in trying to take over completely, although I think his plan on keeping the big K as a silent figurehead is falling apart.
Disgusting.
Anton: I agree with you 100%. All I am saying is that open US support for the democratic forces will propably be counterproductive. And that president Obama will have to weigh very carefully what steps he will take. The Iranians have kept to a sort of gentlemans agreement in Iraq and Afghanistan these last years, they could raise hell if they wanted to. So before you scream “Obama is throwing the Iranians under the bus! Fascist!” think about the consequences.
PS: Drider, “the remnants of a man” just held a speech to a rally of his supporters. Ho-hum.
I fear that Ms. Rubin’s serial lack of knowledge of the basics of international relations have, once again, led her to undermine what is at its base a sound policy argument. Ms. Rubin shows a disturbing lack of appreciation for realpolitik (or realism, for that matter) and her article descends into a sort of bizarre attack on realpolitik by equating it with liberalism of the sort practiced by the Obama Administration. It is difficult to think of anything being much further from the truth (though it is true that the Bush Administration’s policies were no less no-“real”)….
Perhaps if Ms. Rubin were to take an introduction to international relations class at one of the colleges that are so often attacked on these pages she might find herself both more theoretically accurate and, perhaps, substantively enlightened as well (to be clear, I speak of political science departments and not sociology or ethnic or womens’ study departments). I teach such a class, in fact, and would be happy to aid her path towards some semblance of mastery of the field.
Finally, although Ms. Rubin argues that “… never before has it been so clear just how ruthless and indifferent [the Left] are to the aspirations of those who would be crushed by the boot of despotic regimes,” please note that these are the SAME people that defended and apologized for the Soviets brutal and repressive for 50 years (or at least their intellectual inheritors, a point made in today’s piece by Mr. Simon “Iran: NYT’s Roger Cohen is the new Walter Duranty”)! This level of, in Ms. Rubin’s words, “den[ial] and obfuscat[ion] the nature of these sorts of regimes” is NOTHING new to the Left; thinking otherwise would be to misunderstand them as badly as Roger Cohen (claim to) have belatedly misunderstood the Iranian regime.
Ask a Chicago politician to back an honest election? Are you kidding? The Census is being rigged even as I write this to make sure nobody comes close to unseating the Democrat control.
An Iranian prespective for you -
The silent majority in Iran has finaly come out. People want an end to the theocracy – nothing short of it. One way or another we will get there. Hopefuly, the west will side with the people of Iran this time.
BTW – Islam has been forced into Iran – and majority of us just fake having a religion.
The events in Iran are an obstacle to Obama’s plans in the Middle East
http://hyphenatedamericans.blogspot.com/
I find it disingenuous that conservative Americans are pretending to ally themselves with the progressives of Iran.
The fact is that conservatives won in Iran and won the election fair and square. The protests look big because progressives in the cities voted for Mousavi, but the conservatives and family values voters dominated in the rural areas.
Western media needs to stop exploiting these protests and exaggerating them as a revolution.
Wow, I would’ve never guessed that ACORNS voter fraud influence reached that far. /sarc
smith: Hard to believe anyone can be so twisted as to confuse conservative Americans with the thugs who beat and kill protesters in the streets of Iran.
Sadly, Jen, Obi’s answer is no, nobody is entitled to “hope&change”. #2,6,9 above are right, Obi wants the “deal”, causing the Guardian Coucil to kill in the false belief they will get away with it, and leaving us and the Israelis with no choice in the end but to defend ourselves.
#30 whos pretending?Despite what some think ,the political Right and Left worldwide arent going anywhere.Both have free market and human rights as the centerpiece of what they do have in common.Yes they can be at each others throats about other issues,but solidarity on human rights i like to think they do close ranks when it comes to that issue.
I love it when reality explodes in a leftists face. Barry don’t change a thing you’re feckless foreign policy is imploding everywhere. As someone who wishes you all the worst I hope your arrogance and ego are more important than changing your cowardly policy of appeasement. Go Barry go!
#30 smith – This is another lie of the Left. Islamists are NOT Conservatives. They adhere dogmatically to a world domination principle by any means, preferably by force, but also by lies.
They do not believe in liberty. They believe in big government. They do not allow free will or dissent from the Party line. They are against abortion, but NOT because they are pro-life. This is a means to conquering the world. Numbers of devotees make great weapons. Same thing with homosexuality. They’re not busy breeding more troops for al Illah. Heresy! Death!
Because it is a “religion”, the Left sells the lie that the Muslims are on the right of the political spectrum, but they are not. They are for Statism. That means they belong on the political Left.
The problem is the misunderstanding of the term Conservative. It refers to conserving the Constitution and the ideals of America (Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness). One can be ‘small c’ conservative and be hidebound about anything.
bobdog 26, perhaps you could eloquently educate all of the rubes here like myself (i’ll choose to leave Ms. Rubin out of this; i’ll let you just speak down to me for the moment) as to how diplomatic subtleties matter when one is dealing with a thuggish dictatorship like Iran? do you not believe that there a black and white place we can arrive at where we simply espouse our support for democracy, will of the people and “international law”? is it really any more complicated than that, given these particular set of circumstances (hey, maybe i’m starting to understand this realpolitik stuff)?
You’ve got it all wrong……. Obama took a bold step in the Iranian situation by….. I think I heard him whisper….. Present !!
I knew this day would arrive and I was hoping for John McCain to be the man in charge at the White House.
Remember when Russia invade Georgia last summer? And at his campaign stop, he told the Russians to cease hostilities and that “we were all Georgians now”.
What was Obama’s reaction: to take it up with the UN Security Council, that both parties cease their doing. It was only later that Obama issued a strongly worded statement against Russia.
Can you imagine McCain saying to the Iranian protesters right now : “Today, we are all Iranians”.
That Russian invasion cemented it for me in my decision to vote for McCain. He had good instincts then. Even his choice for Palin. But to drop his debate with Obama to do the bailout and to vote on it with all that pork.
His instincts failed him and he crashed and burned like an aviator pilot that wound up getting picked up on a Vietnam lake, to be sent to Hanoi Hilton, and be broken.
Obama, this is the moment of truth in your presidency and you are flinching from it badly. Your presidency has been about domestic issues. It is in events like these now in Iran (and soon Pakistan)that is paramount which can make you a great statesman.
Or a broken president like James Earl “Jimmy” Carter.
I can only imagine you in your post-presidency years putting up drywall for Habitat for Humanity for Gaza homes after more untold bombings by Israel and reconstruction by US.
Sort of like Sisyphus.
As with Carter today.
This was Obama’s chance to make a statement that would resonate throughout the world from Iran to Venezuela to North Korea; a chance to state that we stand united with those who stand up to a repressive regime and demand to have their voices heard.
The end result of course should ultimately be determined by the Iranian people, but those in Tehran who held up signs printed in English should not feel that they are alone. The United States must be circumspect in it’s actions, but it should be bold in it’s words.
America’s place in this world is special. As Reagan said, it is that “city on a hill”. It is not too late for Obama to accept Reagan’s mantle and speak to the oppressed masses yearning for freedom. We must stand with them.
Get over it, people. You lost the election, Obama won. The level of delusion here is breathtaking – election fraud, imploding foreign policy, the census being rigged…wow, I wonder how long it will be before we are thrown into the gulags that Obama is building in some secret place? This is a democracy, people. Democracies are messy. Your side doesn’t always win, but usually what a good citizen does (you remember the concept of citizenship, don’t you?) is carry on by contributing to the common good instead of retreating into a fantasy world in which the only voices they ever hear are those who echo their sour grapes and who agree with their paranoid fantasies.
What will Obama do?
I think he will just ask himself: what would Reverend Wright do? Then peace will settle across his face as he answers proudly: of course! God damn America! Then he call Biden for some average American lunch with Dijon mustard, muttering screw America and the Iranians, I’m Obama, the chosen one.
The lefts love for totalitarian dictatorships knows no bounds.
He’ll take the low road and cut a deal with the Mullahs. It’s all about HIM, yannow. HE cannot be embarrassed, no matter what – and so he’ll screw over the Iranians without a second thought.
The man is a moral imbecile. Expecting anything but self-regard from him is just dumb.
Truly I tell you, Barack Obama is the first anti-American president.
Does anybody else notice that when Obama doesn’t react to an event, he is alsway reported by the White House to be “deeply concerned”? That makes me fell alot better.
There is little Hope for Change in that cesspool called Iran. Their so-called religion guarantees it!
#46
“always” not “alsway”/”feel” not “fell”–sorry, long day.
I agree that Iran deserves hope and change, too. That’s why I think we should do the unselfish thing and give up Obama to be their leader while we hold another elcection. I think we’ve had enough change for now. Let’s spread the wealth and let Iran get a chance.
#32 Gun toting libertarian (to smith): “Hard to believe anyone can be so twisted as to confuse conservative Americans with the thugs who beat & kill protesters in the streets of Iran.” Well, I guess it depends on how one defines “conservative.” I see similarities between the Iranian theocratic thugs and the home grown thugs of anti-abortion groups like Operation Rescue.
Reports indicate that Obama can’t find his Blackberry, even after he checked the couch cushions. Sources say that he is “very concerned”.
Dearest all,
My comment here is that we have seen this kind of action before. Whether it was UC Cali during the VN war or Chicago during the elections .. or even Kent State .. the photo of peaceful people with meaning getting killed…
Why are we so surprised?
I am so sorry for the death of a beautiful child in front of her Father.
Only God knows why.
This image will burn in my mind
I have no solution. I can only offer hope.
Since we have been killing each other since we crawled out of caves, I doubt there is no near term relief but hope.
Thank you.
/My heart tells me
/we just want the truth
/Just ask yourself
/What’s a soul to do?