Iran: The View from the White House

From the NationalIranian American Council:
The Obama administration’s approach to the election — keeping its comments low-key and not signaling support for any candidate — was exactly the right approach. While tempting, empty and self-serving rhetorical support for Iranians struggling for more freedoms serves only to aid their opponents. History has made Iran wary of foreign meddling, and American policymakers in particular must be sensitive to giving hardliners any pretense to call reform-minded Iranians foreign agents. That’s why Iran’s most prominent reformers, including Nobel-laureate Shirin Ebadi, have said the best thing the U.S. can do is step back and let Iran’s indigenous human rights movement progress on its own, without overt involvement from the U.S-however well intentioned.

The whitehouse position has been the same all along. It was all the media syndicates that published the headlines that are senselessly inflaming the situation. Where are the headlines that ABC put up in response to the State Department statement that ‘we hope the election reflects the will of the Iranian people’…even the ABC headline turned that into ‘USA denies Amadi-Nejad victory’ or something like that. It would help if the Iranian leadership would express a little more concern for the sentiments of their own young people and less concern for our well-funded headlines. If they want the US official view, they should get it from the whitehouse or the state department, not ABC.

Andrew- The fight of the young is not going to end today. We will all watch this generation grow into their aspirations with courage, creativity, and tanacity.

And I guarantee you we would have and have had a similar response to riots and unlicensed public assemblies.

Why would Obama take a position one way or the other when he hasn’t figured out which way the wind is blowing yet? You don’t seriously expect him to have an honest and firm opinion based on what’s right, do you? He’ll just backtrack on any lie…err…statement he makes anyhow, so it’s meaningless either way. P.S., Iranians, if he says he’s your “staunch advocate”, you really better run because you’re about to land under a large bus.

Taking a position is foolish. In a country where the establishment still whines about the american coup in the 50′s foreign agitation would move calculations away from the gauging the ability of Ahmadenijad and Khomeni to keep the peace and onto stopping foreign incluence.
The best thing the Obama admin can publicly do is not recognize Ahmadenijad as the winner. Anything is is the same sort of stupidity that gets people like Ahmadenijad elected in the first place (thanks bush). He’s already trying to paint the opposition as backed by foreigners, don’t give him ammo for his propaganda.

Obama…you can’t vote “present” on this one.
You sure enjoy the perks of the job. It’s time, however, to start accepting the responsibility too.

Ahmadinejad is just itching to lay blame for the unrest on “foreign interests.” Don’t you think the White House knows that? With a big shout-out from the West, Ahmadinejad will have all the ammunition he needs to legitimize his election, and claim that the unrest is just the work of outside agitators. The White House is taking a measured approach, and it’s smart. Bush loved to play into the hands of his opponents. “What would Osama really find amusing? I know– I’ll invade Iraq!”
Try using your brain power every once in a while — it’s fun!

What is the evidence of a rigged election? It may have been rigged but what is the evidence? Notable that our “allies” – Zardari of Pakistan and Karzai of Afghanistan have congratulated Ahmadinejad on his victory.

The Iranian people — and every candidate, including the very experienced Moussavi — had the opportunity before the election to debate and request the presence of international observers at the ballot stations. They did not. This was THEIR election, and they did not — for good reason — desire a Western presence. The ballots, according to tweets coming from citizens, were burnt without being counted. Some of the ballot boxes have been hidden by citizens.
Understandably, some of the students are now begging America for support; however, it is for their religious leaders to exercise authority and protect the young muslims who are being hunted down, attacked and arrested by the government security forces.
There will be a great need in Iran for doctors, dentists and nurses over the next few months. I’m certain that if the government allows it, there will be any number of American volunteers. But it comes down to — what will the people with the guns allow?

Was Acorn involved?

You gotta stand for something or nothing at all.
Our president has chosen the later.

“Yehudit- How quickly you have forgotten that we had our own media blackout during Gaza?”
You should try comparing apples to apples.
The media blackout during Gaza was not ordered by the US government, unlike this action ordered by the Iranian regime.

My opinion on this isn’t firm, but it seems that we continue to have trouble extending constitutional rights to multi-national corporations that were intended to be secured for men.

oregonbird — Are you crazy? The “religious leaders” are the main despots in Iran. Even if Mousavi won the election, he’d still just be window dressing.
Until you overthrow the theocracy, there’s no democracy in Iran.

Obama is in over his head and drowning. He has no clue about what to do.

The reality is that the most extreme element of an extremist movement have seized control in what is obviously a purge against opponants, planned well in advance. Emboldened by the weakness of the appeasement-minded West, knowing well there would be no consequences, they made their move. They didn’t even care about keeping up appearances, just rig the vote as everyone else does in the Middle-East (if they even bother with elections) & give a fig leaf to the appeasers.
Iran is going forward with it’s program to acquire nuclear weapons & we are sitting & watching, while Obama is making pretty BS speeches totally unconnected to reality.
But atomic weapons are real, unlike Obama’s world-view.
How secure do you feel knowing that crazy religious fanatics who hate America will soon have nuclear weapons?

hi..sir your comment is such very logically and learn full your comment is
increase to me..thanks :):)
——————-

To Terry,
What consequences do you want another war? Don’t our troops already have enough to do trying to win the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq? Screaming at the Iranian government like John Wayne will not get us anywhere. Our troops are already stretched to thin and you don’t want to sign up to go fight.

In his speech in Cairo, Obama should have been more forceful and direct about the people of the Middle East having more rights, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of oppression by dictatorial repressive religious governments.
In Iran the mullahs saw Obama as weak and know that he will not speak out strongly against the brutal religious dictatorship in Iran.

V. Brame – I think you have little understanding of the Middle-East. You are looking at the world through rose-coloured glasses, to put it mildly.
And what will be your reaction to the first Iranian nuclear test? Perhaps the same as to the recent test by N. Korea, that is, pretend it didn’t happen.
You ask me if I want another war? No, I want to PREVENT another war, a nuclear war. And appeasement of a fanatical bunch of Islamic crazies is certainly not the way to prevent such a war.
You evidently have a very high tolerance for risk but I don’t. If I asked you to play Russian roulette, would you?
A preemptive strike on Iran is not a land war requiring troops. The U.S. certainly has the means to carry out such an operation.
Or, as it seems, you prefer to wait until Iran has nuclear weapons & a delivery system – then, what do we do?
Give in to Iranian nuclear blackmail as they undermine American interests all over the Middle-East?
This is no different than the appeasement of the 1930′s of Hitler & the Nazis & that led to WWII.

William…
you are right.. we have plenty on our own plate.. the U.S. is wary of isolationism, we should be wary of trying to run the world.. we don’t do a great job of running our own show.. maybe we should provide a better example…

V.B.
I’ll take it a step further..
after years of supporting these offshore military conflicts (under the guise of the UN .. in some instances); I am now inclined to believe that we should get out.. if the other economic powerhouses want to have us participate in another, then they need to put up the manpower and money… and then we could provide aid…

I think it is clear now that Iran wants nuclear weapons. They are sitting on a huge amount of oil. Why do they need nuclear power right now? Ahmadinejad has gained the presidency again via rigged elections. The supreme leader has made a weak promise to investigate the elections but I believe he wants an iron fist to control the country. So much for new moderate ideas overcoming hardline Islamic rhetoric. Another how many more years of worrying by the world will now begin. The good people of Iran wanting democracy and changes have effectively been silenced. A dangerous turn of events in a world beset with violence.

William,
Very true! This is the moment when the Iranian people need to decide what future THEY want. We propped up the Shah many years ago, and this is the result. We will have to deal with whomever is in power. The people of Iran who want freedom may not win this, but the seed is planted

“We have to deal with the Iran that we have rather than the Iran that we wish we had,” says the official.
sounds an awful lot like:
“you go to war with the army you have—not the army you might want or wish to have at a later time”

“We have to deal with the Iran that we have rather than the Iran that we wish we had,” says the official.
Clearly, they wished for A to lose..what isn’t clear is whether the U.S. covertly funded the opposition.
Iran will learn alot from US/UN-NK inactions.
The storm is gathering…

Some of us write as if the Countries of the World are part of the United States of America where the President can influence the outcome of events.
Last time I checked, Iran is still a Sovereign Country under its supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khomeini who sees Reformists as threats to his supreme powers.
Everyone that has been following Iranian Politics knew that the June 12 election was for Mir-Hossein Mousavi to lose.In addition to being popular, he had the backings of Ex-President Rafsanjani and Ex-Prime Miniter Khatami whose administrations made far reaching reforms in Iran.
The first law of nature is Self-preservation, Ayatollah may find it difficult to control Mr Mousavi who is expected to be pro-western and Moderate in his view. The Ayatollah needs to preserve his hold on overall authority, and the re-election of a Radical Ahmadinejad who is largely seen as a hero among the 120 million Shiites muslims spread across Iran, Bharain, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, Pakistan and India, will ensure his continued survival.

“We have to deal with the Iran that we have rather than the Iran that we wish we had.”
Holy shades of Donald Rumsfeld! Ironic that the metrics, so to speak, enunciated by that vilified Secretary of Defense have proven so durable, isn’t it? It seems worth noting that Rumsfelds’ Old Europe/New Europe formulation, for which he was also excoriated, is now positively ubiquitous in any discussion of Euro politics.

“It’s worth keeping in mind that President Obama expressing concern for, say, Mir-Hossein Moussavi, wouldn’t necessarily be a way to help Moussavi.”
I’d disagree. If Obama bothered to get in the game that way what would be the worse that would happen? The mullah’s use such an endorsement against Moussavi? Thats going to have what kind of negative effect amongst Moussavi’s supporters? His supporters wont care. They dont believe the mullahs now anyways.
Obama likes to talk about all the things America is supposed to be when he’s bashing what Bush did. Yet now that he has a chance to live up to his propaganda, he’s completely silent. Bush had it right, the ruling regime in Iran is evil!

Given the slow response to the situation by the Obama Administration, I propose that Obama appoint George W. Bush as the “Decider Czar.”
The “Decider Czar” will make all decisions for the administration leaving Obama free to do the two things he likes best .. campaign and blame Bush.
Part of the “Decider Czar’s” duties will be to answer that 3AM phone.

Boies and Olson.. the old B&O might be able to reconcile the Iranian election.