To Those People That Want Obama To Take A Stronger Line In Iran: You Don't Know Anything About Iran

I came here to say exactly this. These "critics" have been shown to be dangerously wrong on so many issues that anyone listening to them is either ignorant or delusional.

King George (Bush) I....I remember how well it went for the Kurds, when he encouraged them to oppose Saddam....hell, it really didn't matter what the Kurds did after that...they got a target painted on their backs....by his 'call' to the people of Iraq to overthrow Saddam....that went soooo well......

lovetrust, I think you've been misinformed about the Kurds. Hussein always hated the Kurds, as did the rest of the members of his tribe. Bush I was told by US intelligence agencies that within Iraq there was a well-organized opposition that was ready to take down Hussein and that he did not have to send the American military in there to do it. I'm sure Bush, as a combat veteran himself, saw no point in needlessly sending American trops to their possible deaths if the issue could be handled domestically.

It is my understanding that the domestic opposition came from within the Shiite sect, who again had a long history of clashes with Hussein's Sunni sect.

so, I left out the shiites...left out the mothers too...saddam always hated the kurds, and they were mentioned as capable of mounting a formidable opposition...I think there were intelligence reports, but I'd hardly call them intelligent...the opposition obviously wasn't at all capably organized, or armed...I was actually hopeful swartscoph would be allowed into Bagdad, because, at that time the intel was good (and I use that term loosely) concerning the inhumane oppression Saddam's regime was undertaking, and mothers were hiding their sons, who were made to join the militias under threat of death..and, even mothers were being murdered for hiding their sons.....I realized that probably most of the eligable men were made to fight for this maniac, and they sure could have used some back-up, because they were deathly afraid of his brand of terror.

So, it's plausible that a far better outcome in Iraq could have been acheived then....than how it turned out later... Hell, who didn't want to get rid of that madman? The Baathists.... lot of bad blood that wasn't there before we came along...supporting the idiot...

This is not the time to stick our nose in Iran's affairs. Nobody needs attention diverted from their possible election fraud. They can sort it out themselves.

MaryEllen Galloway

Finally, it seems that any decision that President Obama makes will be the "wrong one" for some of these "Obama Haters". These people will find something wrong, "whatever". I don't even listen to their "disagreements/bashing" any more. "They" need to get over it.

This is, sadly, too true. I voted for the man, but that doesn't mean that I agree with everything he has done in the last six months - I don't. But the "Everything Obama Does Is Wrong" contingent really goes out of their way to set up no-win scenarios. If he speaks up, it's 'useless teleprompter rhetoric;' if he doesn't speak up, he's 'failing to show leadership and promote American values.'

You're right, that crowd is best ignored... but they are soooo annoying....

Scott

If anything will unite the Iranians it will be if they are convinced by Ahmedinejad (SP?) that we are butting into their problem. That's what I'd do if the recount wasn't going my way.

Thanks for your reply.

Scott,

That's probably exactly what would happen. A Mousavi government would be so much more respected in Iran if it is the work by, of and for the Iranian people.

jamesg;

Even the State Department's request for Twitter to delay its maintenance to keep the site up could be construed as U.S. interference in the election protests.

...very true....and, then I wonder what the state department's 'Radio Free Iran' is saying....I'm a lot more worried that we are trying to covertly divide and conquer Iran via the propagandist route....Confusion doesn't work for anybody but the manipulators. I'm all for the people of Iran, and, if we have any faith in our own democratic ideals, we'd allow them the opportunity to perhaps set an example...for us... America is too inconvenienced...too intimidated these days...too divided these days to nip the corruptions within our own government in the bud here....getting involved in any way only serves the gossips and the manipulators, who serve no democratic cause.

I don't think we should even say we support one side or the other...it's just not our fight, the fact that we 'can' make it 'our' fight is so utterly arrogant and short-sighted that it endangers our own views on what a democracy is....sabre-rattling, well, that just beats all....

just because you can doesn't mean you should....

I agree with you, lovetrust.

And, I don't think the one hour of downtime on Twitter would have been a bit deal anyway for Iranians.

However, I do think the international community somehow needs to find an effective way to deal with widespread abuses within countries, such as the atrocities in Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, Sudan, etc. The United States can not be the world's policeman, and the United Nations and other nations aren't effective at it either.

For example, it would be nice if a way could be found to hold Iranians accountable for abuses such as the apparently unprovoked attacks on Iranian students in their dormitories. But, I don't think the United States is well suited to do it.

With the breaking news today of House Res. 580 passing today 450-1 we are on a path which I do not think we should have taken. Obamas' approch was perfect.

Leave it to the still angry (what else is new) McCain to stir the political pot, slam Obama and likely pressure congress in the wrong direction. Nice going.

Thank God I did not vote for you and Gidget we would be @ war w/Iran right now instead of watching the Iranian ppl take control of their own lives.

With the breaking news today of House Res. 580 passing today 450-1 we are on a path which I do not think we should have taken. Obamas' approch was perfect.

Regarding Stardust-943605's comment #4.5:

I think the vote was actually 405-1 on the nonbinding resolution according to various news reports I've read.

When everything is said and done about that House Resolution, I think virtually nothing will be done. If passed, a similar resolution from Senators, including Senator McCain will also be nonbinding. Unfortunately, I agree that the resolutions likely will be used by the Iranian government to criticize the United States.

But, as long as President Obama seeks to stay "neutral," Iranian authorities will know he is behaving much differently from former President George W. Bush.

In my opinion it is very important for the Iranian protesters to behave very peacefully in all their protests. Protesters who set fires, storm buildings, etc., will do much more harm than good to their cause. And arguably led to several of the fatalities thus far.

If the Iranian government or its supporters commit massive violence against peaceful protesters, then international outrage and Iranian outrage will likely lead to some type of action. But, I pray that a just and nonviolent solution is found instead.

Regarding John McCain, he has a reputation for being hotheaded which is probably one of the reasons he was not elected. But, as a veteran who was a horribly abused P.O.W., he knows enough about the horrors of violence and war to desire to prevent them.

Nonbinding? Do you really think the Imperial Leaders when they used soundbites will make that clear? Very funny.

Attack the victims er...protesters. Not buying it. I see you did not give equal criticism of the Supreme Leaders and supporters.

McCain so wedded to his own interests and sore loser has continued to make un-useful attacks on Obama. This is not the first. Also kinda funny your comparison-McCain calling for Obama to take harder line (concern troll?) which would likely lead to the very consequences you claim McCain understands 'horrors of'...

Regarding Stardust-943605's comment #4.7:

Fortunately, the Senators and Representatives who are spouting off do not have the authority to make decisions and take action. President Obama is exercising more restraint in his words, which I agree with you is the better choice.

While the Iranian leaders may make much of the Congressional votes, they know that the military obeys the career military leaders and the President, not the Congress. I think they are much more interested in the President's views.

I condemn violence on both sides of the Iranian election situation. But, the huge crowds of protesters likely vastly outnumber the authorities. Thus, if the protesters start burning or charging buildings, the outnumbered authorities will respond with violence. I much prefer nonviolent protests.

And, although I doubt the votes could have been counted so fast, there are some indications, including a scientific poll before the election, that Ahmadinejad may have won by a big margin.

This president has absolutely no clue to anything about the boy scouts, let alone how our military system works...Come on people you elected an assistant social worker to lead our country......mr. o ourCommander In Chief {lol}.....is just a puppet on the strings of our real government............. "Big Brother"............

Below is a link to a Washington Post article about that pre-election poll I mentioned in my comment #4.8.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/14/AR2009061401757.html

Since the majority of Iranians apparently lack access to Twitter or the Internet or the ability to speak or write English, the views we read in the United States (which often are from well-educated English speakers) are not likely typical of the majority of Iranians.

The quote from and link to a London Times article below indicate Ahmadinejad's popularity among many.

in poorer areas, where women were mostly clad in long black chadors and very few spoke English, Mr Ahmadinejad enjoyed strong support.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article6489120.ece

There are deep divisions in Iran now and I think President Obama is wise to remain relatively neutral, while promoting open communications. The world will be much better off if the two sides resolve this peacefully rather than Iran eruptiing into a civil war -- especially one with the United States picking sides.

@ Scott;

The problem I have is, these people want change, and, without some backup from the world, they are doomed before they start.

If the theocracy is overthrown, there would be a massive change in the middle east.

I don't think we would now what to do with the change, but the norm isn't doing any good now!

We do know that, armies that pledge total reverence to a government, have changed their minds before.

If the thousands that are protesting, just here the words from the world "We are with you", it will change. Its suprising what happens to folks when they have word backing.

These revolts, if backed by other countries, would have changed the world as we know it back then.:

• 1990–1995: The Log Revolution in Croatia starts, triggering the Croatian War of Independence.
• 1990–1995: The First Tuareg Rebellion in Niger and Mali.
• 1991: The Kurdish uprising against Iraqi President Saddam Hussein in Iraqi Kurdistan.
• 1991: The Shiite Uprising in Karbala, Iraq.
• 1992–1995: Bosnian War of Independence.
• 1992: An Afghan uprising against the Taliban by United Islamic Front for the Salvation of Afghanistan, or the Northern Alliance.
• 1994: The 1990s Uprising in Bahrain, Shiite-led rebellion for the restoration of democracy in Bahrain.
• 1994: The Zapatista Rebellion: an uprising in the Mexican state of Chiapas demanding equal rights for indigenous peoples and in opposition to growing neoliberalism in North America.
• 1994–1996: The First Chechen Rebellion against Russia.
• 1996: An Islamic movement in Afghanistan led by the Taliban established Taliban rule.
• 1997–1999: The Kosovo Rebellion against Yugoslavia.
• 1998: The election in Venezuela of socialist leader Hugo Chávez is called the Bolivarian Revolution.
• 1998: The Indonesian Revolution of 1998 resulted the resignation of President Suharto after three decades of the New Order period.

1999–present: The Second Chechen Rebellion against Russia.

1990–1999

The Zapatistas are awesome. They're still around and active in politics.

What's really screwed up is that they were pretty much responsible for replacing the right wing dictatorship with a more democratic situation, and were marginalized by the new government almost immediately.

were marginalized by the new government almost immediately

Politics at its best!

anti-neoliberal social movement and seek indigenous control over their local resources, especially land.

From the First Declaration from the Lacandon Jungle, the Zapatistas presented to the people of Mexico, the government, and the world their Revolutionary Laws on January 8, 1994. One of the laws was the Women's Revolutionary Law, which stated:

1. Women, regardless of their race, creed, color or political affiliation, have the right to participate in the revolutionary struggle in any way that their desire and capacity determine.
2. Women have the right to work and receive a just salary.
3. Women have the right to decide the number of children they have and care for.
4. Women have the right to participate in the matters of the community and have charge if they are free and democratically elected.
5. Women and their children have the right to Primary Attention in their health and nutrition.
6. Women have the right to education.
7. Women have the right to choose their partner and are not obliged to enter into marriage.
8. Women have the right to be free of violence from both relatives and strangers.

Remind you of our times now in the U.S.!

If the theocracy is overthrown, there would be a massive change in the middle east.

Here's the problem. You are assuming that these people want to overthrow the theocracy. What happened when we ousted the regime in Afghanistan? They created another theocracy. They did the same in Iraq. I see no reason to believe that Iranians wouldn't do the same thing.

Just because these people are trying to overthrow the current regime does not mean that they are ready for an entirely new form of government. Likewise, it does not mean that they are ready to embrace America as an ally. You are assuming that "the enemy of my enemy is my friend", but in reality they can hate Ahmadinejad and still hate America and everything it stands for.

I think Scott is right. Anything we do to make it seem like Mousavi is pro-America or that America supports him is actually going to hurt his chance of enacting real change in Iran. This is the lesson we never seem to learn, and I'm glad that Obama may be finally changing that.

Sometimes its good to stand up for the everyday folks. This so-called revolution, in Iran, is at least something. May take a few more, but one day, those folks will be first, instead of last.

Here's hoping they win something at least one time!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Adam Kemp

Here's the problem. You are assuming that these people want to overthrow the theocracy. What happened when we ousted the regime in Afghanistan? They created another theocracy. They did the same in Iraq. I see no reason to believe that Iranians wouldn't do the same thing.

This is certainly possible; however, I think that we need to consider progress as something other than either/or choices. Even though the idea of a theocratic government is anathema to (most, unfortunately not all) Americans, I would suggest that a more liberal theology would be an improvement over a conservative, let alone fundamentalist application of religion.

A half loaf is better than none.

But along with that bad assumption is the assumption that they want our help, or even our support. I agree with Scott that I think our support would hurt their cause more than help it.

I think if we outwardly supported the internal uprising, it would continue, and hopefully, the theocracy government would be over thrown from within. We will never know now!

...play with fire much??? oh, I see....if all turns out hunky-dory in your lalaland dreams, maybe we'd win political points, and they'd be thanking us for saving them....only

''armchair warriors often fail, and we've been poisened by their fairy tales.....lawyers clean up all details since Ollie had to lie....''

paraphrased from 'the end of the innocence'....Don Henly

Scott, that's not saying a lot. What makes you think Moussavi and/or Rafsanjani would be any better? Not what I heard from Iranian ex-pats.

That is asking a lot of Obama. Has not shown a good track record yet.

Steve, you take the words right out of "my mouth" by saying exactly what I have been saying: "stay out".

Somewhere in one of the other posts, it was noted that "Patience is not an American virtue". I think it is now - what a wonderful thing! This is why we always "rush to judgement- and trouble". Too Impatient! "Slow down, the World Isn't Going anywhere" (as my mother used to say). She was right. I made 63 years old TODAY, and nothing has changed. Trust me, "the more things change, the more they stay the same".

Thanks again for saying what you said. I'm with you.

As I mentioned below, is it possible McCain is so politically naive or is he just trying to score cheap political points at the cost of our foreign policy and a bunch of dead reformers in Iran?

...Yes and yes.

I agree with you: YES AND YES! Unbelievable, no wonder he wasn't elected (among other good reasons).

Half the world speaks english as a second language. Pisses the French off to no end.

ALL commercial flight Ops (ATCs, Pilots) must speak english.

Sadly, our GOP leaders are telling the rest of the world how potentially dangerous we still are as a nation....McCain doesn't care about any country finding its own way....always in the back of the universal conscious mind looms the threat of how things can get totally undone within a country because of our ignorant, hubristic, currently out-of-power Republican party...this is current events, folks...so in love with the industrial military complex...and that speaks volumes as to how wary we should all remain of their return to a majority powerhouse...

js --

They might have been looking to the US for moral support when we helped to overthrow their first democratically elected government. Now, not so much.

The point, however, is that the US inserting itself into this situation will drive people to the right in Iran.

What do you suppose would have been the effect if communist China had come out strongly in support of Obama in the last election? Would the Left have said "Thank God somebody out there cares?"

Nationalism trumps partisanship every time.

--Ti

jsbach-

what Obama's detractors refuse to concede is that the moment he declares the US supports the opposition - the goverment is then most likely to begin killing people widespread in the name of "US intervention". It's true that there are probably many Iranians who would like our help - but until we know for sure who will be running their government we need to take a wait and see approach...

The US has been interfering in Irans internal affairs for over 50 years and what do we have to show for it: we overthrew their gov't in 1953 and installed the Shah. The people tossed out the Shah in 1979. The current gov't is in control BECAUSE of their hatred of the US

We should stay out of it.

I like Scott but unfortunately he's engaging in a very bad case of intellectual dishonesty in this article which I pointed out in my first comment above and reinforce here. If you're going to debate this issue you need to be honest about it and not deliberately misstate what others have said who differ with you on it.

theyreallcrooks,

I thank you for reminding me of our history with Iran. I don't want the U.S. interfering but as a human being, I'm looking at this whole thing with great sadness and disgust.

Bill Harrison,

Thank you for the link. I was completely wrong about McCain's view on this matter. That was my failure in not following up to begin with. I only heard excerpts and that was my mistake.

js (susan)

You're welcome, Susan. It's important that we not put words in our opponents' mouths and that's what Scott's doing in this article and he should know better.

Why is it a problem to act as you have some "RESPECT"? All the Repugs, Obama Haters and other ill-ilk, wants our President "to cut off his nose to spite his face". Will they be happy then? I DOUBT IT! What is so wrong with P-A-T-I-E-N-C-E? Nobody is going ANYWHERE SOON!

Why is everyone (except those thinkers like me) so in a hurry to taunt, harass and urge on others with these war mongering acts? Truly, is it that you can not live without a WAR??

BH: I am rather nonplused by your continual dissing of this seed. You appear to be in the minority. That is not the reason I disagree w/you I simply fail to see how it is productive other than an attempt to disrupt.

I see seeds all over I disagree with: the position, see true motive etc however I do not feel the need to lurk, make never ending same arguments and remarks. Others capable toto come to own conclusion w/out me. I just have better things to do.

I have news for you "Stardust", I don't give a flying fig what some anonymous idiot writes on the internet or for that matter the plurality of opinion on this piece. I've been studying Iran longer than you've probably been alive. Do you know R.K. Ramazani? He was one of my grad school professors. Do you know David Ignatius? I do:

President Obama was right to speak carefully about the events in Iran during the first week of protest. But it's time for him to express his solidarity with the Iranians who are so bravely taking to the streets each day. He can do that without seeming to meddle if he chooses his words wisely.

Obama should invoke the Iranian yearning for justice -- which was a powerful theme of the revolution. He should cite Iran's own rich history of political reform, going back to Cyrus the Great, whose declaration of human rights was chiseled in the Cyrus Cylinder in 539 B.C. He should cite the Iranian constitution of 1906, which established elections and basic freedoms. Democracy is not an American imposition but an Iranian tradition.

"We clearly have to be on the right side of history here," says Karim Sadjadpour of the Carnegie Endowment and an informal adviser to the White House. But he cautions that "if we try to insert ourselves into the momentous internal Iranian drama that's unfolding, we may unwittingly undermine those whom we're trying to strengthen."

Obama's agenda of "engagement" with Iran must be on hold for now. He shouldn't renounce his offer of talks, but allow it to sit. Let the Iranians chase the West for a while; they're the ones who need legitimacy.

I sat tonight in a restaurant downtown here in DC while this moral mountebank of a president was cracking jokes while people wanting freedom were treated to this and far worse. @!$%# him. Now you think about that for awhile.

That's news? Hmm. All that you stated niether here nor there. How much you know about Iran not the point nor an issue here. Plenty of ppl w/like credentials disagree w/you.

You have failed to explain how your continual negative messages dissing seed and seeder - all pretty much the same - as well as your premise are valid or productive.

Stardust,

How much you know about Iran not the point nor an issue here. Plenty of ppl w/like credentials disagree w/you.

It does make a difference. You are choosing to ignore another side to the issue by someone who does know.

You have failed to explain how your continual negative messages dissing seed and seeder

What in the world are you saying here?

Ignore? Well no. I am well aware that there is another side. I disagree w/ it. That is all.

I also disagree w/the tactics. To accuse someone of being dishonest repeatedly and claim 'credentials' card does not impress me nor am I fooled by such tactics-I look @ the issue only and the posturing and other props do not disuade me.

Anyone is free to start their own seed where they can call the shots and say whatever they please.

This is nothing new and has nothing to do with credentials-a difference of opinion.Very clear. Happens every day somewhere esp @ NV and any discussion/message board. Where have you been.

What in the world am I saying here??? Anyone who speaks the Engish language should know. Very clear.

Scott, good work. Thanks for writing this. I am increasingly alarmed over the way the conservatives and it's supporters have resorted to attacks and spin. It is really not a new thing, as it has been their normal business since at least the 70's, but it is more vicious than ever (and they are still attacking Jimmy Carter). It seems even the "nice" Conservatives don't mind name calling and ridicule anymore. Bill's post is a perfect example. I guess if you can't critique the issue, then you have to resort to juvenile name calling and bullying tactics.

I agree with you Steve and I'm not looking for an argument. Not at all. But, at this particular moment in time, there is a historical happening going on in Iran. These people are putting their lives at stake here and I feel they deserve to hear that people on the outside are supporting their cause.

I don't know if the people care two hoots about our show of support but I'm only thinking out loud. I wish we could somehow let them know.

I will never forget that one lone man in China who stood in front of the tank refusing to move. What a powerful statement he made to the outside world.

I wish we could somehow let them know.

you think the people of Iran don't know right and wrong enough to find their own way?

...how many millions of people must be displayed as evidence that change in in the works for Iran??? should we drop millions of leaflets upon these citizens of Iran or sumpin??? Oh, let's encourage the kurds to overthrow Saddam again...let's have another proxy war, pitting Iraq against Iran....oh, let's show them our 'concern'.....maybe some folks (like me) think a massive show of support for the sake of a real, pragmatic resolution is far more important than just attacking the idea that Iran is able to cope with its own internal problems... Torment is all we're capable of enabling presently....the status-quo is already cornered into coming clean...what do you want...?? credit???

Thanks, Steve!

ake1...keull...very keull comment... are you Andy Rooney???

Hi judy, in the scheme of things, it is called "ACCEPTANCE". Thanks for the "allied" post:-)

This is by far the most intelligent and cogent analysis Patrick Buchanan has offered in a great many years and lo and behold his sister seconds him.

I like Pat Buchanan, but he was and is an isolationist, so he'll likely never find a reason to intervene in foreign affairs, until it is on our doorsteps.

No way. Obama was right about mustard on hamburgers, it is the American condiment. We have something in common, Obama and I.

Don't you mean "freedom fries"? :)