On Iran, the Power of Obama's Silence

[babylonsister]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/patrick-disney/on-iran-the-power-of-obam_b_215407.html


Patrick Disney
Posted: June 14, 2009 06:16 PM
On Iran, the Power of Obama's Silence


"Help us." That was a comment, translated from Farsi, that was posted on the blog that I manage for the National Iranian American Council yesterday. It came from a reader in Tehran, imploring that someone in the West do something to stop what he or she calls "a military government" being set up in Iran.

For those watching intently for any bit of information they can grasp, it is a painful waiting game. Even for those of us who are relatively well connected to Iranians--either through friends or family--it is difficult to find out any really conclusive news. The mainstream media has largely taken the weekend off from this story--due in part to the government's suppression and intimidation of journalists--leaving the heavy lifting to new media and the blogosphere (which has performed amazingly well over the past 48 hours). And it is most likely that our government doesn't have much more information that the rest of us, as illustrated by the relative silence coming from the White House and the State Department on the events of the weekend.

Though Obama, Biden, Clinton and Gibbs have all gone on record with brief statements about the election, they have been extremely prudent, preferring to "monitor the situation" and "wait and see"--a stark contrast to some of their predecessors, who jumped on every opportunity to call for uprisings in the Middle East. In a remarkable display of message restraint, public pronouncements coming out of the White House have made no mention of anything that could even remotely be seen as trying to influence the outcome of the weekend's events.

Given Iran's well-known allergy to foreign meddling--and the hardliners' adept ability to justify their harsh repression by blaming alleged foreign plots--the Obama administration is doing exactly the right thing. Just as the absolute worst thing the US government could have done in the days leading up to the elections was impose new sanctions to "cripple" Iran's economy, the worst thing the administration could do now is take sides in the political infighting before knowing that its help would actually be welcome.

Of course, there are some who view this weekend's events as an opportunity for the US to support a particular Iranian faction loudly and clearly; Indiana Republican Mike Pence said that he hopes President Obama will throw his support behind Mousavi by the end of the day. But these people are playing with dynamite. At the moment, lectures on democracy and Jeffersonian diatribes against tyranny are the last thing the Iranian people need. At best, such grandstanding would give the hardliners in Iran a reason to paint the reformist camp as a stooge of the West; at worst, it could incite the crowds even more and risk blowing the top off an already tumultuous situation.

Before we Americans come rushing onto the scene with an offer of help for the process of democratization in Iran, we need to be certain that the parties on the ground actually welcome our involvement, and that it won't in fact do more harm than good.

Human rights defenders in Iran are always the first to speak up in support of greater transparency and political openness in the Iranian system. Their commitment to their cause is beyond measure, and the events over the next few days will determine just how much progress they have been able to make. But these brave activists have also made it abundantly clear to policymakers in the West that we have to be very careful about how we get involved in the affairs of their country.

For now, the Obama administration is just taking a step back and assessing the situation, and rightly so--at the moment, the only certainty in this entire ordeal is that the more accurate information everyone has, the better. But the Obama administration is also making it perfectly clear that, regardless of the outcome of the next few days, they are committed to engage in direct diplomacy with the Iranian government.

At this point, that's the best we, as Americans, can do.

[timeforpeace]

1. Bizarre. If Bush had done this, we would be all over him

for squandering an opportunity. And what's with Obama and Hillary and Co. having no more info than us? Our intelligence services out of business now? Hillary has said a snippet, "oh my oh gosh" but the President hasn't said a thing. Public support of the people, or silent implied support of Dinnerjacket's coup? They need to grow a pair. Lead the world for a change. Silence legitimizes the tyrant.

[Drunken Irishman]

2. Who's the we you speak of?

I certainly wouldn't have.

Bush spent his entire presidency interjecting his influence into every international situation.

:eyes:

[choie]

3. bullshit

it's quite refreshing to have a President who actually waits to hear what's really going on before he comes out with pronouncements.

[MADem]

4. Who is this "we" of which you speak? Are you MAD?

Any President that "takes action" based on a fucking TWITTER should be impeached.

What do you want Obama to do? Nuke Teheran?

The situation is not at all clear, and even if it were, we are not The Dictators of the World. The way to piss off the Guardian Council permanently is to get up in their shit right now.

It's up to Iran to sort out their mess. Anything else is called "meddling." We didn't like it when Bush "meddled" in Iraq, now, did we?

Sheesh.

[babylonsister]

5. You're not thinking. Do we really want to insert ourselves in this?

Doncha think we have enough problems? And might you consider that many Iranians wouldn't appreciate our getting involved in their internal political problems? And our silence doesn't imply support of Ahmadinejad, despite what you might think. Maybe it's time we didn't interfere for a change.

I think the restraint exhibited by this admin now is welcome.

[rvablue]

6. Oh please, I'm sure there is a lot of intelligence gathering going on and it would be royally stupid

to go broadcasting that on cable to satisfy you thinking you need to know everything the second they know it.

Ever heard about "protecting assets?"

And do you really believe for a nano-second that President Obama (don't know what this Hillary and Co. bullshit is) is interested in propping up a hard-liner in lieu of a more moderate candidate.

Because that is just silly as have all of your comments on this matter today.

[phleshdef]

10. No, we wouldn't have. Anyone that has followed history would know where meddling in Irans government

...has got us.

[timeforpeace]

11. Silence, doing nothing. How did that work out for Jimmy Carter

vis-a-vis Iran? Point is, praising silence is truly Orwellian. This is a potential turning point in Iran's history. If we really don't want to legitimize the tyrant, we speak out. Obama speaks out. Could tip the balance.

[Drunken Irishman]

15. You might want to get the facts before you make a total fool of yourself.

The administration has already cast doubt on the Iranian elections.

What do you want Pres. Obama to do? Bomb them? Support a coup? What, exactly? :eyes:

[jberryhill]

17. Could tip the balance in the wrong direction....

As it is A-jad will be claiming US interference to rally the Iranian nutjobs - who are very much like our own nutjobs.

[FrenchieCat]

18. You, Joe Lieberman and the Republicans agree!

How about that?

[asphalt.jungle]

14. so we'd be all over him for doing the opposite of what a neo-con would do?

What Mike Pence said is the neo-con/bush style position: "hopes President Obama will throw his support behind Mousavi by the end of the day."

So are you a neo-con? and your username is ironic isn't it?

[Teaser]

21. wrong. FAIL. error

Do you seriously think American's endorsing a movement in Iran helps that movement at all? It doesn't. It undermines that movements credibility.

Did you even think before you decided to post?

[Stephanie]

22. Bush would have been on vacation. Obama is in DC this weekend

He's not in Crawford riding his bicycle like Widdle Bush was during every crisis.

[opihimoimoi]

7. About 5 years ago...spent an evening dinner with a whole family of Iranians living in Calif

Very series...they told me of the Peoples desire to be free and friends with America..

Many are tired of the Mullahs grip and wish the Freedom us Westerners have....

I wish them well...but..suspect, they are flummoxed...that is until they gain the courage of the ultimate sacrifice...

[glitch]

8. I agree with this. K & R nt

[pinto]

9. I agree with this take. Things are obviously in flux, info is sketchy.

Overt saber rattling from thousands of miles away would do little in reality other than complicate a complicated situation. And do nothing in real world terms on the ground there.

I would assume our government is working to get as much reliable info as possible before making any large scale announcements. I'm fine with statements of concern for the Iranian people and the safety of all involved in their electoral process. Much more than that and it's counter productive, imo.

[EFerrari]

12. NIAC gets NED funds. Offered without comment. n/t

[Are_grits_groceries]

13. Iranian human rights groups have said

that the US should stay out of it for now. If we enter the fray, it will be used to say that the US is behind the revolt and the voting. Without us now, the vote stands on its own about Iranian matters.

[SpartanDem]

16. Bush would've already screwed this up

by saying something belligerent and further hurting the reformist cause.

[jeanpalmer]

19. It would be hypocritical to support the reform faction

when our own govrnment is not much different from Iran's. They have their mullahs, we have our corporate mullahs who control our government. Their politicians get kickbacks, so do ours. Their military is bankrupting their country, so is ours. Their government spies on them, so does ours. Their economy is bad because of bad political decisions, so is ours. Although at least their government subsidizes gasoline at 30 cents a gallon, and potatoes also. Our government subsidizes the oil speculators who impoverish the average person. They're stuck with a large segment of their population being radcal religious right wingers, just like we are. The only thing you can say in favor of their government is they're not waging offensive war on the world. We can't say that.

[Douglas Carpenter]

20. Agreed!! Absolutely nothing would weaken pro-democracy more than for them to be seen as stooges for

the U.S.

Given that even the strongest critics of American policy in the Middle East believe that the election was filled with massive fraud, I tend to suspect that to be the case.

Still, for America to come out with rhetoric and threats would do nothing but weaken the pro-democracy/pro-reform movement and strengthen the hands of the most reactionary hardliners.