Check out Charles Krauthammer’s most recent column on the Obama administration’s stance on the Iranian elections and subsequent protests. Here’s an excerpt:
Even from the narrow perspective of the nuclear issue, the administration’s geopolitical calculus is absurd. There is zero chance that any such talks will denuclearize Iran. On Monday, President Ahmadinejad declared yet again that the nuclear “file is shut, forever.” The only hope for a resolution of the nuclear question is regime change, which (if the successor regime were as moderate as pre-Khomeini Iran) might either stop the program, or make it manageable and nonthreatening.
That’s our fundamental interest. And our fundamental values demand that America stand with demonstrators opposing a regime that is the antithesis of all we believe.
And where is our president? Afraid of “meddling.” Afraid to take sides between the head-breaking, women-shackling exporters of terror — and the people in the street yearning to breathe free. This from a president who fancies himself the restorer of America’s moral standing in the world.
A regime change in Iran is definitely in the interest of America, and it seems the interest of many if not most Iranians. Unfortunately, the policies of the current opposition are not significantly different, especially on the desire to continue the nuclear program.
More important, though, is the fact that American endorsement of any candidate provides enough fuel for rhetoric to crush the opponent. The people of Iran may be more westernized than their leaders, but they are certainly not pro-American. So Obama has good reason to avoid meddling with the protests for the opposition.
I’m going to have to disagree with Mr. Krauthammer a bit on this one. While regime change would certainly make meaningful dialogue easier with Iran, it would stop short of changing Iran’s nuclear ambitions. Being an Islamic theocracy, that kind of major foreign policy decision is in the hands of the clerics and the Ayatollah himself, and they obviously cannot be elected. In order to really change the regime, therefore, you would essentially have to rid the religious elements of the Islamic Republic. For now, though, I think it wouldn’t hurt to at the very least show that America doubts the validity of the past election, if not total support for the supporters of Mousavi.
I’m going to have to disagree with Mr. Krauthammer a bit on this one. While regime change would certainly make meaningful dialogue easier with Iran, it would stop short of changing Iran’s nuclear ambitions. Being an Islamic theocracy, that kind of major foreign policy decision is in the hands of the clerics and the Ayatollah himself, and they obviously cannot be elected. In order to really change the regime, therefore, you would essentially have to rid the religious elements of the Islamic Republic. For now, though, I think it wouldn’t hurt to at the very least show that America doubts the validity of the past election, if not total support for the supporters of Mousavi.
Good point, Bonica. Although I was previously critical of his reticence, Obama’s statement this afternoon was a good strategic move. He called for the allowance of peaceful and legal protests without openly endorsing the Mousavi supporters and demonstrators. Just two quick points that I think we need to keep in mind here:
1) Ahmadinejad may have won in a fraudulent election, but he Does have a significant base of real constituents who support him.
2) A move to openly support Mousavi supporters could be detrimental to U.S. interests. As soon as the Iranian opposition is identified with U.S. support, the dynamics of their own popular support change significantly. We cannot assume that anti-Ahmadinejad = pro-U.S.
Dennis, both of your points are excellent. We seem to be on the same wavelength, that open support for Mousavi right now could be extraordinarily risky for our interests in the long run. The last point is particularly poignant: It would be unfair to assume that anti-Ahmadinejad means they are with the U.S. Still, it probably won’t be terribly detrimental to express support for protest, which the Obama administrations seems to have done.
Dennis, both of your points are excellent. We seem to be on the same wavelength, that open support for Mousavi right now could be extraordinarily risky for our interests in the long run. The last point is particularly poignant: It would be unfair to assume that anti-Ahmadinejad means they are with the U.S. Still, it probably won’t be terribly detrimental to express support for protest, which the Obama administrations seems to have done.
I expect all of you to condemn the president after today’s press conference, in which he did lend his support to the protesters.
There was some excellent commentary on HotAir I stumbled across today. All of this administration posturing is very similar to what Obama did during the Pastor Jerry Wright debacle: “First he issues some weak, heavily qualified half-denunciation in hopes that the crisis will go away, then it doesn’t go away and everyone gets angry, then he comes back and covers his ass by saying how appalled or outraged he is or whatever — assuring us all the while that he’s been ‘perfectly consistent’ throughout.”