It’s not a secret to readers of this site that I am not a fan of Barack Obama. I have not been since I learned he remained in the pews of the Reverend Wrights’ church for twenty years. But even more disturbing than that for me has been his Iran policy, which can described as somewhere between dysfunctional and reactionary. In the face of the incredibly brave freedom demonstrators – who, almost on a daily basis, put themselves at risk of beatings and death – we have from our president nothing but silence. Does the man have blood in his veins? This is real “hope,” yet he ignores it. Of course, the freedom fighters themselves have noticed, chanting in the streets “Obama, Obama, are you with us or are you with them?” Good question.
Now the action has escalated to the point that even the New York Times itself has noticed: “Iran’s broadest and most violent protest in months spilled over into a second day on Tuesday, as bloody clashes broke out on university campuses between students chanting antigovernment slogans and the police and Basij militia members.”
Michael Ledeen, as always, has more, including a violent confrontation between the Basij and the wife of reform leader Mousavi. But worth noting from the NYT coverage is the following: “Monday’s protests marked a striking escalation in direct attacks on the country’s theocratic foundation and not just on the June presidential elections, which the opposition has attacked as fraudulent. Protesters burned pictures of Ayatollah Khamenei, and even the father of the 1979 revolution, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. They held up flags from which the “Allah” emblem, added after the revolution, had been removed.”
Separation of church and state – now there’s an interesting idea. Barack Obama, please take note. The curious lack of response in general from the liberal side of our political equation to events in Iran is yet another example of how liberals and conservatives in our culture have had the ideological equivalent of a sex change operation, especially as it regards matters of despotism vs. democracy.
Meanwhile, if you want to stay updated on matters in Iran, as we all should, I would direct you to PJTV correspondent Banafsheh Zand-Bonazzi’s Planet Iran. I will be on PJTV with Banafsheh discussing recent events in the country on Wednesday, but for now check out her site. It has many videos from Monday’s demonstrations – not to mention continued frustration on the part of the demonstrators with, you guessed it, Barack Obama.
“Separation of church and state – now there’s an interesting idea.”
The leftists have never believed in the separation of church and state. The political is supposed to dominate every aspect of one’s life. Religion is no exception. They have never objected when religious figures and organizations support progressive goals.
I know you know the answer to your question, but I’ll give you my interpretation of it anyway. Obambi’s a coward. He’s afraid to confront the Iranians, the North Koreans, the Russians, the Red Chinese, Venezuela and all the other bad guys in the world. He’s much to in love with his own image to even dream of doing anything that might damage it, even it were to be at the expense of the United States of America. I expect to see any day now a brand new monument unveiled in Washington DC, one designed by the Obambi himself and of course it would be a monument of him by and and to him.
“Obambi’s a coward.”
This might be true—but it is of perhaps secondary importance. Our present occupant of the White House barely gave these matters a few hours of thought during his entire adult life. They mostly bored Obama to death. Imperialistic America is supposedly responsible for the troubles of the world. That is beginning and the end of it. Why waste time thinking about things that are so easily explained by leftist ideology?
Obama is barely prepared intellectually to perform the duties of an Illinois state senator. It is shocking that such a shallow man is the leader of the free world. He is the least qualified president of at least the last one hundred years. Obama can also still do an enormous amount of damage because of his executive powers. There is only so much stuff that can be blocked by elected officials.
Roger,
the problem with the none-response of the Obama Administration is that he/they are too naive. They believe that if only Obama gets a face to face meeting with Amadinejhad, that he will actually be able to reason with this man. Nothing if further from the truth. These people only understand the Theo. Roosevelt school of diplomacy…using a big stick on those who cross you. If Jimmy Carter would have had a back-bone 30 years ago, and followed up the Iranian declaration of war (Until the advent of the “Carter Doctrine” it was an instant declaration of war to seize a country’s embassy) with decisive military force, we wouldn’t have 90% of the problems in the middle east that we now have.
Obama is yet another in the mold of Mr. Carter, not only does he dither on difficult decisions (i.e. Afghanistan), but he will shrink from using decisive force and will instead seek to “hold talks” or “discussions”…but these people only understand brute force. Look how quickly Quadaffy (sp?) ended his NBC weapons program when he even thought there was the merest hint that he could POSSIBLY be next on the chopping block. Unfortunately, we now have a president who is seen as weak and indecisive which will have very unfortunate results for Isreal when Iran achieves their desired nuclear weapon. If we permit Iran to gain nuclear weapons, then the arms race in the Middle East will make the cold war look like a childrens game. Don’t believe for a minute that Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf States as well as Egypt won’t immediately start crash nuclear weapons programs. Also, ANY influence we now have in the region with be ephemeral at best and support of local states will evaporate…
You all have parts of the problem but are missing a big one.
Obama dithers because he really doesn’t know which side he wants to win, or, he knows that his choice is anathema to virtually all Americans. The left, of which Obama is a card carrying member, does not object in the slightest to authoritarian, repressive regimes as long as they don’t support America.
“Of course, the freedom fighters themselves have noticed, chanting in the streets “Obama, Obama, are you with us or are you with them?” Good question.”
When they’re chanting for Putin to come help them people will understand that Russia has been encouraging this revolt all along. If they manage to gain positive credit for helping to free Iran while the US under the control of cadre of Dorian Grays, Russia will then be in a position to garner a great deal of support from Europe for the idea that Europe can no longer depend on the US and that Europe no longer need fear Russia. Ever since NATO declared itself to be the world policeman and trampled on the centuries Old Russian ally in the Balkans, Russia has had as its main goal the breaking up of NATO. With the current realities in Europe, that means either rebuilding the Warsaw Pact (doubtful) or swaying the entirety of the EU towards Russia by making the US out as an unreliable and unpredictable partner now too distant from European realities to be a reasonable ally.
Once the little matter of breaking up NATO is taken care of, Russia can then start working on the really tough matter of getting the Islamic states to fight one another over matters of faith. That’s the long term solution the Russians have in mind for their problems with Islamic terrorists and something they think history proves Muslim states are prone to even without anyone working behind the scenes to stir the Islamic pot.
Regards