Why do I keep agreeing with the president? Take this commentary on Iran from the same CNBC interview in which Obama proved there were no flies on him (hat tip: Sullivan):
Well, I think first of all, it's important to understand that although there is amazing ferment taking place in Iran, that the difference between Ahmadinejad and Mousavi in terms of their actual policies may not be as great as has been advertised. Either way, we were going to be dealing with an Iranian regime that has historically been hostile to the United States, that has caused some problems in the neighborhood and is pursuing nuclear weapons. And so we've got long-term interests in having them not weaponize nuclear power and stop funding organizations like Hezbollah and Hamas. And that would be true whoever came out on top in this election.
Still, let's be clear about what Obama's saying here, so there are no illusions if it comes to another Tienanmen. "Nuclear weapons, funding of terrorism," not democracy, is the government priority in Iran right now, whatever the American people might be wishing for.
The second thing that I think's important to recognize is that the easiest way for reactionary forces inside Iran to crush reformers is to say it's the US that is encouraging those reformers. So what I've said is, "Look, it's up to the Iranian people to make a decision. We are not meddling." And, you know, ultimately the question that the leadership in Iran has to answer is their own credibility in the eyes of the Iranian people. And when you've got 100,000 people who are out on the streets peacefully protesting, and they're having to be scattered through violence and gunshots, what that tells me is the Iranian people are not convinced of the legitimacy of the election. And my hope is that the regime responds not with violence, but with a recognition that the universal principles of peaceful expression and democracy are ones that should be affirmed. Am I optimistic that that will happen? You know, I take a wait-and-see approach. Either way, it's important for the United States to engage in the tough diplomacy around those permanent security concerns that we have—nuclear weapons, funding of terrorism. That's not going to go away, and I think it's important for us to make sure that we've reached out.
2 comments:
I must say that this is an impressive website. I love how your posts tie in with current politics so well. You seem to really love your site. Aside from my medical practice, I have a deep interest for all things related to politics. Keep up the great work and please visit by my blog sometime. The url is http://healthy-nutrition-facts.blogspot.com
Alex,
Ok, you hit it on Hezbollah, the Taliban and other terrorists groups, but you left out (surprisingly) N. Korea with Ill and company; you omitted Pakistan, India, Russia and a number of her secessionists states; and, damn, what about the U.S. which hasn't done crap about downsizing her nuclear muscle.
Hey, I can't stand Iran either, but I know one thing: we destroyed any and all relations with her when we overtly took part in the overthrow of Mossadegh. It seems that even the uneducated Iranians could smell it when the Shah had his nose up British Petroleum's ass. An the U.S. and Britain went out of their way to paint the Shah as some sort of underdog.
It's a given that Mossedagh didn't sing in the Mosque, but the Shah's history with his own people was that of indifference and intolerance.
It may be a stretch, but I can almost see a similar story panning out all over again.
Post a Comment