Obama and the Media Get It Wrong on Mideast Elections
When it comes to the Middle East, false narratives are the norm, not the exception. President Obama and the mainstream media that lionizes his every word have seriously misinterpreted recent developments in the region — specifically the Lebanese elections and the sham election in Lebanon’s mothership-state, the Islamic Republic of Iran.
In Lebanon, the Iranian-backed terror group Hezbollah was subjected to a crushing electoral defeat at the hands of U.S.-allied secularists and moderates. The international press was quick to credit Obama’s charisma — particularly, his unprincipled speech in Cairo — for this welcome news. The Associated Press proclaimed, “President Barack Obama’s outreach to Muslims lingered in [Lebanese] voters’ minds.” Cynthia Tucker credited the speech too, asserting, “Obama changed Lebanese minds,” namely because his speech was “a much-needed step away from the Cheney-Rumsfeld ‘just bomb ‘em’ doctrine.”
Thomas Friedman at the New York Times quoted Paul Salem, the starry-eyed analyst at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. “People in this region have become so jaded,” Salem explained. “And then here came this man [Obama], who came to them with respect, speaking these deep values about their identity and dignity … and this person indicated that this little prison that people are living in here was not the whole world. That change was possible.”
These misperceptions about Lebanon recall an old Arab proverb: “When shooting an arrow of truth, dip its point in honey.” Leg-tingling about the president aside, Hezbollah lost the election in Lebanon for several reasons; chief not among them was Obama’s amoral speechifying in Egypt.
For starters, domestic Lebanese politics played a substantial role. The breaking news that a pending UN investigation would purportedly blame Hezbollah for the 2005 assassination of Rafik Hariri, the popular former premier, certainly had a large part in Hezbollah’s defeat. In addition, these were just the second elections since the occupying Syrian forces, Hezbollah’s patrons, were kicked out of Lebanon in 2005, and the first elections since the Israeli-Hezbollah war in 2006. For the people of Lebanon, both events reinforced how detrimental Hezbollah’s presence in Lebanon truly is, and both events were proactively supported and encouraged, explicitly and implicitly, by the previous administration — yes, George W. Bush — to the hesitation, trepidation, and even chagrin of realists and doves in Congress.
To credit President Obama’s speech in Cairo for the continued democratization of Lebanon is as far of a stretch as feasibly possible. In his speech, Obama never mentioned the upcoming Lebanese elections, Hezbollah, or “terrorists” in general. He mentioned Lebanon precisely one time, in the context of respecting the Maronite Christian minority. But Lebanon has always reserved the presidency for Maronites and Lebanon’s top Maronite leader, General Michel Aoun, is one of Hezbollah’s sole Christian allies. Obama has even gone so far as to once proclaim that Hezbollah has “legitimate claims.” This is a nihilistic and ideologically medieval group that has killed more Americans than any organization in the world not named al-Qaeda. “Legitimate claims.” What should we make of that?
The USA should lend moral support to the forces of democracy in Iran. Going beyond that is just meddling in foreign affairs. The Iranians know what they are doing, either manipulated or on their own. It’s the usual story: the powerful play and the little ones get beaten. The final say might be in the hands of the Ayatollah.
vivo
Please tell your president to work up the wisdom and courage to lend moral support to the forces of democracy in Iran even at the risk of reminding some of his freedom loving and enhancing predecessor.
Vivo:
I see that you are confused when you do get the party line from HQ. So let’s deconstruct your post to find out where you stand.
“The USA should lend moral support to the forces of democracy in Iran.”
A nice bland statement which can apply to either candidate for President. The outcome of the vote is democracy even enforced at the point of the gun.
“Going beyond that is just meddling in foreign affairs.”
No, that would be meddling in internal affairs. If we were to oppose Iran’s actions in supporting the neo-Nazi forces of Hezbollah or Hamas then we would be “meddling” in foreign affairs.
“The Iranians know what they are doing, either manipulated or on their own.”
Yes both sides know what they are doing and of course the forces opposing the Mullahs are being manipulated by the neo-cons and Jews.
“It’s the usual story: the powerful play and the little ones get beaten.”
Both sides are to blame and the dumb sheeple are caught in the middle.
“The final say might be in the hands of the Ayatollah.”
You don’t say? My you are so perceptive. And of course the Ayatollah will make the right decision and Obama will wisely accept it.
Unfortunately, the president appears to be either totally naive and imcompetent on this matter or he actually supports the status quo in Iran. Win win?
“Their interpretation of events in Iran and Lebanon has combined self-righteousness with ignorance.
That summary line nicely characterizes almost everything coming out of this administration.
From 1939:In The Shadow of War, by Robert Kee, “Those who believed in a policy of appeasement, (were) backed almost as an afterthought by preparation for its failure, now confronted the awkward reality that the afterthought was likely to be the most important part of their policy.”
Go easy on Obama. The man has enough on his hands trying to drag down and financially ruin his country. Foreign relations, normally the province of Presidents, must take second place to our eloquent and brilliant reformer, if it has any real place at all.
Obama has voted “present”, problem solved.
What Iranian Dissidents and American Patriots should do.
http://hyphenatedamericans.blogspot.com/2009/06/what-iranian-dissidents-and-american.html
Nicholas, your notes on Mousavi leave me wondering, What do the Iranians want out of these protests? What do they think Mousavi is? Or do they want to turn over the whole mullahcracy?
From the Iran Daily
Leader Approves
Vote Inquiry
152169.jpg
Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei on Sunday said that if the defeated pro-reform presidential contender Mir Hossein Mousavi has complaints about the June 12 elections he should follow up the matter through legal channels.
“In the previous elections too some contenders had problems. They followed it up through the Guardians Council (GC), as the legal source responsible for attending such complaints. It is obvious that this time too complaints should be pursued through legal channels,“ the leader said in a meeting with Mousavi, IRNA reported.
Ayatollah Khamenei referred to Mousavi’s letter to the GC and said the powerful oversight body has been ordered to carefully examine it.
In a letter to the GC the former prime minister said the election was rigged and the result should be annulled.
The leader referred to enemy provocations and the behind-the-scenes machinations for creating tension in the streets and told Mousavi: “By nature you are different from those who want to create problems, and it is crucial that you proceed with gentleness and clam.“
He lauded the unprecedented participation of the people in June 12 vote and addressing Mousavi said, “Thank God Almighty, the election was valid and held in a clam and sound manner. You should pursue your concerns through the law.“
In the past few days people, especially the youth, poured into the streets in protest and claimed that the election was rigged. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad won the election with 24.5 million votes while Mousavi took 13 million votes. The two other contenders, former commander of Islamic Revolution’s Guards Corps (IRGC), Mohsen Rezaei and former Majlis Speaker, Mehdi Karroubi together garnered about a million votes.
Jannati’s Statement
Meanwhile, GC Secretary Ayatollah Ahmad Jannati in a statement Monday called on the defeated presidential aspirants to submit their complaints as soon as possible.
“Pursuant to the directives of the leader in his meeting with the presidential contender Mousavi and based on notes one to three of Article 80 of the election law, the GC thanks the leader for his recommendation to follow up the complaints via legal channels and hereby announces its preparedness to attend to all complaints within the legal deadline,“ the statement said, ISNA reported.
GC Spokesman Abbas Ali Kadkhodaei on Monday said the Council has invited the three former aspirants who have complaints about the results of the election to attend a meeting with GC members on Tuesday and raise their concerns.
He said the Interior Ministry had sent the election results to the GC on Monday and the Council is now reviewing the validity of the vote and will announce its decision within the legal deadline.
Positive Impact
Judiciary Chief Ayatollah Mahmoud Hashemi Shahroudi also on Monday said that the presidential elections had a very good impact on the international community.
“We hope that President Mahmoud Ahmadniejad in his second term will be more successful through the coordination of other officials while the judiciary, like other institutions of the country, remains at the service of the people and officialdom,“ he noted.
The top judge added “If the candidates have complaints about the results of the election they should follow up the subject through the legal channels and prevent their supporters from coming into streets which only benefits the opportunists and vandals.“
The new government should also employ the services of the defeated presidential hopefuls and the elite in its programs for the next four years.
“I sincerely and humbly urge the people to be patient. It is not fair that the valuable services rendered to the people and the realities of the election are undermined.“
http://www.iran-daily.com/1388/3425/html/
The naif Obama and his leftist and pitiful foreign service along with the mental midgets in the US Press just don’t know how much they don’t know. Think of all the money wasted at those affirmative addicted elite universities learning about the wonders of 19th Century Marxism.
All politicians take credit for positive events and blame negatives on an underling. Why should an illegal President be any different?