What if Obama Was a Tough Guy?

I believe that President Obama is taking the right tack with Iran. You don't want to give Grand Ayatollah Khamenei any more rhetorical ammo with which he can bludgeon his people. They can use Obama's words of support to the protesters as evidence that the demonstrators are being used as agents of outside agitators and use it as a pretext to crack down on them.

I get all that. And I've been arguing that for over a week now on our show. On the other hand, the Iranian regime has already been using this pretext whether we gave them the fodder or not. Khamenei has basically declared he is a dictator and is not above any lie or ruse. The Iranian papers are already blaring about CIA plots against the government. And the government has already declared that the demonstrators are in league with foreign agents.

But that doesn't cure the ultimate problem with the "speak clearly in favor of freedom and democracy" argument. Yes, I'd like to beat my chest and say what a fraud the Grand Ayatollah is and how he has robbed his own people of a voice in their own government. But what are you going to back it up with?

As George Will pointed out over the weekend, in 1956 we did something similar with the Hungarians and then didn't support them at all when push came to shove. They all got killed and nothing got accomplished. So, I don't want to give the Iranian people false hope either. But what if it wasn't false hope, what if ...

What if we did back it up? What if President Obama came out tomorrow and gave this speech:

"I, Barack Hussein Obama, the duly elected leader of the United States of America extend my hand to the duly elected leader of the Iranian people -- Mir Hossein Mousavi. After careful examination, we have concluded that the elections in Iran were a sham and that the current government is engaged in wide-scale cover up. The ongoing crackdown on demonstrators is a ruthless act of violence perpetrated by the tyrant Ali Khamenei against his own citizens. The Iranian people have spoken and we are of the firm belief that their newly elected president is Mr. Mousavi. So, from one president to another, I'd like to extend my hand to Hossein Mousavi and offer any help we can provide, including the assistance of the full force and might of the United States Armed Forces. President Mousavi, the 82nd Airborne is at your service."

God, that would feel good. I don't think this has any chance of working in the real world. I am sure there are only a million complications to an offer like that. Who would command the troops? If it's us, it looks like we're invading. If it's Mousavi, we can't have a foreign leader giving orders to US troops.

And, of course, we would have to reassure the Iranians and the world that this is not some sort of pretense to bomb their nuclear facilities or to organize a coup by an American puppet. I'm sure many people wouldn't believe any of those assurances. I'm sure we would turn a lot of the Iranian people against us by doing this. I'm sure this wouldn't be quite legal under UN rules. I'm sure it would be a mess the minute we had American soldiers on the ground in Iran. I'm sure Mousavi wouldn't accept anyway.

I'm sure of all these things and it's just a fantasy. But what if there were a way ...

Watch The Young Turks Here

PS - What the US should really do is lead by example. How? We should accept international monitors in our elections so that they become the standard for how you hold a free and fair election. So, if a country does not have international monitors in their elections, then the elections are not legitimate.

That would go along way toward de-legitimizing sham elections like the one just held in Iran. Of course, this would send our black helicopter folks here into an uncontrollable tizzy, but the point of leadership isn't to be above the crowd (by saying the US doesn't need international monitors); it is to lead the crowd in the right direction by your example. Besides which, in 2000, we had the brother of one of the candidates appoint the person who decided the election. Who are we kidding about fair elections?

I know, I know, we're no Iran. Of course, not. But just because we're not as bad as the Grand Ayatollah in how we handle elections doesn't mean we couldn't benefit from neutral and fair observers of our elections, either. Let alone the great example we would set for the rest of the world.

Follow Cenk Uygur on Twitter: www.twitter.com/TheYoungTurks

Comments

[MajorKong]

I fear that the demonstrations may one day be used to justify military action against Iran.

I can just hear the cries from the usual suspects like the American Enterprise Institute - "The Iranian people will rise up and support us".

[audadvnc]

Just like they did in Iraq, right?

[TomTheAlmostUgly]

One other problem with your fantasy: Georgie has worn out and exhausted the US military; we are not up to fighting a third Middle East war. If Obama ordered it, he might well get mutinies and desertions.

[3fingerbrown]

An even bigger problem is that the U.S. has not a single shred of justification for sending in troops, or even threatening to do so.

An election was rigged? By that logic, Iran would've been justified in invading Dade County in 2000.

A tyrant violently cracks down on protesters? If that's justification for invading a sovereign nation, why didn't we invade China in 1989 and instead go after a pipsqueak like Saddam Hussein? Yeah, you're right: because we could beat Sadaam but couldn't possibly win a war with China. And therein lies the problem with so-called "tough guys": They're really just bullies, picking fights they know they can win and conveniently leaving the room when a bigger, tougher guy begins acting up.

[S1m0n]

Starting up a war with Iran is exactly what the neo-cons are trying to accomplish. They have ZERO interest in establishing democracy or fighting for freedom for the people of Iran.

[dsws]

"What if we did back it up? ..."

That's not backing it up. You can't bomb people into consent. Even bombing them into submission has a pretty poor track record.

The way to back it up would be by doing whatever it takes to get Russia and China on board, issuing a joint demand that Iranian power-brokers: "Come up with something (we don't care what) that all segments of Iranian society will accept as fully legitimate." That's even more of a fantasy than placing the 82nd Airborne under Mousavi's command, of course. But hey, if you're going to talk what-if, may as well go all the way.

[StillAmused]

Well said.

Moreover, were Obama "a tough guy" in the Republican mold (knuckles leaving parallel tracks in the sand on either side of his footprints), he'd have to skulk off into oblivion with the rest of them, trying to explain how he farked up the entire Middle East, provoked yet another militaristic standoff and finished off whatever is left of the U.S.' prestige in the world.

[PiscesPrincess]

I really like your idea about neutral observers of our elections. Why Not? indeed, we sure could have used a few of those folks in FL in nov of 2000. We all sure would have liked the voters of FL to have their votes enfranchised.
and again in Ohio in 2004
Way to Go.

[ihavenobias]

Excellent PS.

[ephoenix5]

I think Obama is a tough guy. Are you kidding me -- this is why he is a better man than all those reactionaries out there clamoring for him to make a misstep. I am certain Obama will condemn Iran's action in due course -- but it takes a lot to see things that make your blood boil and still maintain your composure. "Don't let your enemies see you sweat."

Obama has the temperament to be commander-in-chief. He keeps his cool and he keeps his calm. He knows there is nothing he can do on Iran short of speaking loudly or sending troops. Since we Americans do not have the stomach for a third war -- I think we are better off keeping quiet for now. There is no point in talking harshly only to put the Iranian opposition in danger while we lack the guts to put troops on the grounds to protect them. Since we are not going to do that -- let's not be hasty here -- a knee jerk reaction is only going to get more people killed.

[whitehawk]

Greatly said; you are right about everything, he is the new kind of 'tough'. Tough as steel, also with the sensitivity needed to feel humble with other nations problems but pragmatic enough to secure a winning agenda.

[Annoula]

Cenk:
As you say: "Besides which, in 2000, we had the brother of one of the candidates appoint the person who decided the election. Who are we kidding about fair elections?"
Not to mention all the "irregularities" observed during the 2004 election like phone jamming in New Hampshire, voter caging and five to six hours of waiting in line under the rain to cast votes in Ohio, etc. etc.
Not to mention the politically motivated smearing of Gov. Don Seigelman by Rove's friend and many other dirty tricks.
Stolen elections are not that rare among us. We are no better than Iran so we better stay away instead of giving them ammunition.
Even Ahjmadinejad said it. After Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo, the US showed that it is neither capable nor honest when they talk about 'respect for human rights".
Can anybody argue with that?

[Roozbeh]

@ Cenk Uygur ---- I am glad that I read your article. You are completly right not to give " ... Khamenei any more rhetorical ammo with which he can bludgeon his people." . What is going on Iran right now, to my opinion, has a lot to do with the long time presence of Britain in Iranian politics. It goes back to 1800s when Britain and to a lesser degree Russia had enormous influence on Iranian internal and external affairs upto Reza Shah Pahlavi after 1925. It is a long time. Over two hundred years. Britain from the beginning bought out some of the top clergy which continues to present time. The Qajar dynasty (1796 - 1925) was totaly at hands of Britain. After 1941 with Mohammad Reza Pahlavi Iran switched sides to the US. In 1979 Britain moved in again with some powerful friends in the ruling clergy, such as Mesbah Yazdi. He is the mentor of Ahmadinejad and the hard liners who seems to have Khamenei cornerd. This is all at a time there was a lot of talk about a new beginning in US-Iran relations. It is not too dificult to see who will win if Mesbah Yazdi's student gets another four years.

[pauld25]

I'm saddened by the lack of any perspective by the sources (like you) I generally count on for a little objectivity.
The theocracy in Iran is obviously repugnant. Even more repugnant however is the strong probability that this entire "green revolution" is in fact made in the CIA. Consider some facts.

- US covertly appropriates $400,000,000 for black ops in Iran.
- US funds, supports, and protects the anti-Iran MEK/MKO terrorist organization based in Iraq.
- US government keeps up a steady drumbeat of fear mongering about a nonexistant Iranian Nuclear weapons program (read the NIE)
- A US conducted pole (McCain and Frist are on the BOD of the pollers) finds A with a 2 to 1 lead over M
- Its fraud! How could millions of votes be counted in just a few hours? Iran has 46,000 polling places. That 's less than 900 votes per poll.
- Violence at rallies. Banks burned. Mysterious shots ring out. This screams MEK provocation aimed at provoking a government reaction.
- Professional election forensics are conducted. No evidence of fraud.
- One election analysis proports to show that the election results are impossibly consistent. Whoops, The same analysis applied to the US 2008 election "proves" it was a fraud..
All I ask is a little healthy skepticism. Take the "Neda" case. Too convenient, too beautiful, the media barrage too professional and fast. Somebody may have died ( or not) but the MEK is a better suspect than the government. Investigate!

[bbbear]

I tend to agree with you. That is, I'm very skeptical about the entire situation and possible US meddling. Further, I no longer totally trust any so-called "reporter," even on the alternative press.

[PiscesPrincess]

too Cynical by Far, Son.

[PiscesPrincess]

too cynical by Far,

[TomTheAlmostUgly]

It's too much to believe that if there was obvious election fraud and the Iranian government refused to admit it, people wouldn't be p*$$ed? They'd be rioting? Where are these CIA conspiracies coming from? And who (besides Iranian state television) is claiming that there even was a suicide bombing, or that the bomber was associated with MEK? IRANIAN STATE TELEVISION WON'T LET FOREIGN JOURNALISTS LEAVE THEIR OFFICES TO CONFIRM OR REFUTE STATE-MEDIA CLAIMS!

All the analysis that I've read (on Andrew Sullivan's "Daily Dish" blog) PROVES the election was fraudulent.)

The PTB in Iran thought they could pull some nonsense and people would go along if the government growled at them. Same thing happened in Russia in 1989 when some Communist hardliners kidnapped Gorbachev and told the Russian people, "Stay in your homes. Wait for instructions." The Russian people said, "Bleep that."

[allonfla]

You mean if Obama Were A Republican?

Sorry, that international monitoring of elections won't fly here buddy.

[ihavenobias]

Huh? Republicans would NEVER accept fair and real monitoring of elections. See 2000/2004.

The End

[davedave]

who the hell are we to judge? al gore, eight years of false government and empire building w lies for justification?

we ARE their role model...

d