Get Real Baby: When Will the Realist Start Getting Real?
The New Republic
Washington Diarist by Leon Wieseltier
The Long Arc
Post Date July 15, 2009
I am not an Iran expert, unlike almost everyone I meet, but I find it hard to imagine that the young men and women suffering the blows of the Basij would not welcome our support, that they are in the streets with angry thoughts of Mossadegh. If these events have shown anything, it is that their enemy and our enemy are the same.
His little essay explains in a very simple way why Obama’s approach with Iran is wrong.
On a rainy day in 1993, I sat with my parents at the opening ceremonies of the Holocaust Museum and heard President Clinton, who was doing nothing to stop the genocide in Bosnia, suggest that the genocide in Bosnia must be stopped, because never again can we allow genocide to occur. My mother laconically whispered that “he talks about Bosnia as if he is somebody else.”
If all of us support the dissidents but the president does not, the dissidents have an American problem. If none of us support the dissidents but the president does, the dissidents do not have an American problem. And either way, the president is “meddling.” Obama’s parsimonious performance in the first weeks of the rebellion in Tehran, the disappearance of his eloquence and his championship of change, was an attempt by the president to impersonate the rest of us, to be just another saddened consumer of tweets and feeds. Hence his refrains about “bearing witness” and “the world is watching.” That is uplift for a demonstration, or a vigil. Witnessing and watching are varieties of passivity. The rest of us witness and watch, because we can do little else.
I could go on, but I guess the horse is dead. I just am amazed that any conservative on this blog could believe Obama has the right approach. I just might have enough time now – I feel a PG Rant coming on in the very near future! 
gurusteve
E the Wise
DFV the Scribe
Andre the Defiant
Wes
pg - your humble messenger
thompaine
Drowning Creek
Sting the Away
Obama has said that we are “appalled and outraged” by Iran’s “unjust actions.” He has named their crimes (“threats, beatings, and imprisonments”) and has repeated for the world the “heartbreaking” case of Neda. He has repeatedly praised the protestors and declared that they are “on the right side of history,” implying that the regime is on the wrong side of history. Now, his administration is suggesting that any and all US-Iranian bilateral negotiations — the pièce de résistance of his entire Iran policy — may be off the table.
If this is insufficient, as many conservatives seem to believe, what would suffice? And if Obama had said whatever words you wished to have heard, and at the time and volume of your desire, how exactly do you think that would have changed the situation on the ground in Iran?
I don’t have any illusions that Obama has
noany instincts to back up his rhetoric; there’s nothing in his history that evidences a concern for freedom or the rights of oppressed peoples. I’m sure that this was simply a case of his advisers saying, “Our polls show that this isn’t good enough, Sir. You’re going to have toughen your stance.”But toughen it he has, nonetheless.
DFV the Scribe
July 2, 2009 at 8:21 am
I do not think it would have changed what is going on in Iran at all THIS TIME. I think it has weakened our position world wide for the future. It is far from just conservatives that have this view. The author I quote is not a conservative.
Far from toughening things, I think all he did was change his political rhetoric to a more popular tone domestically as you stated. I am quite sure the mullahs understand this. And know it for what it is.
Damien my friend did we not try this approach at least once before under the Carterists? Jimmy ratcheted up his rhetoric too for all the good it did. Once you show hesitation it is extremely difficult to get the initiative back.
Reagan, a president we admire, negotiated, talked with, and reached agreements with the country he himself called the Evil Empire. He also kept upped the pressure always on their actions and policies. He took direct actions to bankrupt their economy for goodness sake. He said “Tear Down This Wall!”, He did not misapply King’s “Long Arc” statement to justify fence sitting. MLK never would have parsed his words to avoid offending Bull Conner.
Speaking of Reagan isn’t it a bit ironic that he traded arms for hostages with the Iranians? We weren’t exactly on “speaking terms” at the time. Countries, even ones with tyrannical regimes, will negotiate when motivated. Just as the North Vietnamese only came back to the table after Nixon resumed the bombing in the North.
BTW – There are a number of other complicated side issues here like Israel, Iraq and Obama’s broader outlook regarding Islam.
ADD: Even the angst riddled Roger Cohen thinks Obama should initiate a game change…
He makes a few good sappy points. He certainly over thinks. As I said before – Nations talk when they want to. The problem is not a lack of understanding.
pg - your humble messenger
July 2, 2009 at 10:37 am
This is worth expounding on – He voiced these things only after he was criticized and the American people made it clear they did not approve of his approach. His first reaction was wrong and tentative. Contrast that with his immediately siding with Chavez and the rest on Honduras. His instincts are wrong because his principles are.
After he revised what he chose to “emphasize” regarding Iran, he still continued to present things as even though the regime was committing these acts it changed nothing with our overall approach to it. He rode that horse until the saddle chaffed from criticism. Only then did he “toughen” things as you put it and mention taking US-Iranian bilateral negotiations off the table.
This is no way to run a railroad!
(I know this is what you said, only you did it with fewer words. I just wanted my moment in the sun.)
pg - your humble messenger
July 2, 2009 at 10:43 am
Let me just say that it is good to have a Wes sighting.
DFV the Scribe
July 3, 2009 at 12:04 am
BTW – There are a number of other complicated side issues here like Israel, Iraq and Obama’s broader outlook regarding Islam.
Absolutely, and I imagine that I would agree with PG on those issues. My points on Obama vis-a-vis Iran are unconnected to any analysis of his overall foreign policy.
His instincts are wrong because his principles are.
No doubt and well stated.
DFV the Scribe
July 3, 2009 at 12:19 am