Seems as though everyone has an opinion about Iran's election.
Most likely, the election was not exactly honest. No question that the election is largely irrelevant, as the Mullah Council runs the country no matter what the hoi polloi do. So in the case at hand, the Mullahs allowed a few candidates to run. One of them was backed by a Mullah who is also a corrupt-o-crat: Rafsanjani. The other was backed (more or less) by the current Maximum Mullah, Khameni.
The loser wanted to reform Iran to a "purer Mohammedan model," not exactly the liberte, egalite, fraternite sorta system that we have here. The winner is a twit. Both of them intend to continue their quest for nukes, and both use the US as the rhetorical punching bag.
Obama has stated that the US doesn't like repressive tactics, or repression of free speech. He's also stated that the US will continue talks with Iran no matter who actually emerges as the winner.
A bunch of other politicians in the US have demanded that Obama say or do "more." Of course, they don't have any suggestions as to what that might be. While Obama may be clueless, at least he's operating from his plan, which is to 'talk' with the Iranians. (That is the 'clueless' part--the Iranian government doesn't really want to talk productively with the US about nukes, period.)
If "regime change" is the objective of the pols who object to Obama's method, they have an uphill climb. A military intervention is out of the question and the CIA is not particularly useful at this time in Iran. Besides all that, it is valid to question whether the typical Iranian really wants the US messing in their sandbox.
As to economic sanctions--maybe. But that requires the US to marshall allies, few of which seem to have interest in cutting off Iran's purchases from their own domestic industries.
We await a suggestion........
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
"Besides all that, it is valid to question whether the typical Iranian really wants the US messing in their sandbox."
Understatement of the century considering we've heard exactly ZERO reports out of Iran asking for American invention in this matter. This is something Neocon hawks continue to ignore when they attempt to blast the President over his "hands-off" approach to regime change. Nevermind that these are the same hacks that botched everything to hell for the better part of 8 years.
As Americans, we tend to believe that we have the power and responsibility to intervene in affairs such as the recent turmoil in Iran. Yet these interventions almost always end up being ineffective at best, counterproductive and destructive at worst. As I've stated before, the Obama Administration has taken the most effective approach to this crisis: Support the rights of peaceful protest by the people of Iran without making direct threats targeted at the regime itself. Iran (and the world) knows where we stand on this issue and the Iranian regime in general. No need to re-state the obvious for the sake of political postering and grandstanding.
Hell, even George Will seems to grasp this concept.
I believe this to be a "Mr. Gorbachev, Tear Down This Wall" moment. No threatening, no taking sides, just a call for a free Iran. And TCO, the Dalai Obama should do it in Prime Time in front of the entire country.
But the emperor has no clothes.
Ok, he could ramp up the rhetoric--I agree with that. But I doubt, seriously, if that's what VDHanson and Krauthammer have in mind.
Belling, always ready to start a few wars, links to a Krauthammer essay which (after dithering) calls for "regime change" in Iran.
He's not real clear, of course, on exactly how the US might accomplish that. Parachute-drop several million M-16's and ammo?
Krauthammer's a freaking doctor for pete's sake. And a piss poor commentator when it comes to geopolitics. Whatever he says, let's do the opposite.
Belling's point was that Obama's words could result in regime change from within. He clearly made the point that there is little the US can do outside of rhetoric. The point is, Obama owns the Human Rights card here. I'd estimate he also has cred with the rank and file in the Mideast. His words would have meaning. The lack of vigor in his rhetoric speaks volumes to them.
Post a Comment