Spectator of the Free World: Obama and Iran

Of all the sins for which a leader can be guilty, few are as egregious as the simple refusal to lead. Watching President Obama's at first deafening silence and then weak and hyper-cautious words on Iran has been disappointing and painful.

Our President must decide if he will serve as leader or spectator of the free world. This time no one is asking an American President to send in troops. No one is suggesting the deployment of laser-guided bombs. All it takes is a forthright statement from the leader of the free world: "The people of the United States support the people of Iran in their legitimate quest for democracy and freedom and will hold accountable any and all parties responsible for the bloodshed of non-violent demonstrators."

Pretty easy, right? Our President doesn't think so. As he put it, "It is not productive, given the history of U.S.-Iranian relations, to be seen as meddling." Wait a minute. Was our President seriously comparing the 1953 CIA-inspired coup of the democratically-elected government of Prime Minister Mohammed Mosaddeq to an organic uprising of the Iranian people against a sham election and a supreme 'religious' leader who threatened to kill them if they protest? And if the President is right and has no right to meddle, then why is he pressuring Iran not to develop nuclear weapons?

Of course we meddle. It's our job to meddle. That's what leadership of the world entails unless President Obama seriously believes that place America occupies on the global stage is akin to Denmark or Madagascar. Meddling is only wrong when it serves a country's selfish, imperial purposes. But when its purpose is to save life and uphold liberty it is not only permitted but obligatory. Plenty of countries rightly 'meddled' in the affairs of the United States when they saw black children being blown down by powerful water hoses and attacked by dogs at civil rights marches. Martin Luther King invited them to meddle, which is why he repeatedly said, "The world is watching," a phrase which President Obama is now using against Iran.

The United State ought to be meddling in Sudan to stop the Janjaweed militias from slaughtering innocent Africans. We ought to be meddling in Myanmar to free the courageous Aung Yun Suu Kwi. President Clinton has apologized numerous times that he did not meddle in Rwanda when 800,000 innocent people were hacked to death and we call the generation that meddled in Europe during the Second World War, 'the greatest generation.' For that matter, I am grateful to the France of the late eighteenth century for agreeing to meddle in Britain's internal affairs when they tried to brutally crush an uprising of colonists overseas. Without their meddling the United States might have been stillborn.

President Obama's advisers justify the President's silence saying that if the US President were to speak out it would be used by the Mullahs as evidence that the uprising in Iran was Western-inspired. Come on. They're going to scapegoat the Great Satan anyway. But how does that absolve us from doing the right thing?

Indeed, it was Dr. King who passionately rejected this argument of 'outside agitator' when it was used against him by eight white Alabama clergymen who accused him of fomenting hatred in their state when King lived in Georgia. In his memorable "Letter from Birmingham Jail" he said, "I am cognizant of the interrelatedness of all communities and states. I cannot sit idly by in Atlanta and not be concerned about what happens in Birmingham. Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly. Never again can we afford to live with the narrow, provincial "outside agitator" idea."

Forty-six years ago another young charismatic President went to the very symbol of Soviet Oppression in Berlin and directly inserted himself into Soviet affairs by identifying himself with the people who were risking their lives for liberty. "All free men, wherever they may live, are citizens of Berlin, and, therefore, as a free man, I take pride in the words "Ich bin ein Berliner."

With every passing day I grow more concerned about what might be termed 'The Obama Doctrine.' What is it? As best as I can discern, it is a preservation of the status quo. As Obama himself put it, "America does not presume to know what is best for everyone." Really? We don't presume to know that elections are better than dictatorships? We don't presume to know that women being beaten in the streets for showing an elbow is brutal and refusing to let them ride a bicycle is a form of gender apartheid? Rarely before has an American president spoken out so forcefully in favor of moral relativism. So much for the Declaration of Independence which was written by Thomas Jefferson as a universal proclamation of human liberty asserting that freedom is an 'inalienable' right possessed by each of G-d's children.

President Obama possesses the potential for greatness. He has the intelligence, charisma, and above all oratorical gifts to be an outstanding leader. But it will all hinge on moral courage. He seems too cautious, too afraid of upsetting people, too much a believer in his own popularity to ever risk being unpopular.

Moses was just another spoiled Egyptian prince until the day he chanced upon an Israelite slave being beaten. The Bible relates, "And he looked this way and that way and saw there was no man. Then he smote the Egyptian." When Moses saw there was none but him to address this moral outrage, he sacrificed his cushy position in Egyptian society and acted to right a wrong. At that moment he became instantly unpopular in Egyptian society but he also become an audacious leader. It should be noted that the great liberator and lawgiver could not give a public speech. He was a stutterer whose mouthpiece was his brother Aaron. But then, real leadership does not involve having the best mouth but rather the most courageous heart.

Rabbi Shmuley Boteach's newest book, The Blessing of Enough: Rejecting Material Greed, Embracing Spiritual Hunger will be out in July. He is the founder of This World: The Values Network."

*Follow Shmuley on TWITTER! http://www.twitter.com/RabbiShmuley
*Shmuley's on Facebook! http://tinyurl.com/facebook-shmuley
*Buy Rabbi Shmuley's newest book The Kosher Sutra at http://tinyurl.com/koshersutra
*Join the national "Turn Friday Night Into Family Night" initiative. Go to www.FridayisFamily.com .
*See Shmuley on the web at www.Shmuley.com

Comments

[TommyMcCarthy]

I suspect that Rabbi Boteach is sincire in his desire to see democracy and tolerance gain a foothold in Iran...as who is NOT?

I must say though,

A LECTURE.....

.A:) On the sacred nature of democratic elections....
from one who condones...even APPLAUDS Israeli policies in Gaza....because THEYelected folks not to his liking........

B:)On the Rights of Man, Jeffersonian democracy, and the necessity to stand upfor Civil Rights, life and liberty....
from one of the chief apologists for Israel's maintainence of GHETTOS in the West Bank and PARTICULARLY in Gaza
a mere 60years after the liberation of those created by the nazis

Well,,...It's .JUST..........A BIT.......­.........M­UCH.

That one of the most vociferous supporters of Israeli policies vis a vis the Palestinians would DARE use the word "Aparthied" in reference to others,....? Well if it weren't so trigic it would be comical.

Some folks are LITERALLY shameless..
tm

[alexa07]

again, very eloquent Mr. McCarthy!

[arvay]

Here's why the good rabbi wants the US to intervene.

Why Iran's Ahmadinejad is preferred in Israel
http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0621/p06s04-wome.html

He and those like him want the US to discredit the growing revolution because if Iran gets a more moderate government, free of Amenijad's irrational blatherings and with an economy better run -- it will still face a state that opposes Zionism and will carry its nuclear program forward.

Better to let the Iranian people suffer for the convenience of his little Prussia on the Jordan.

The good rabbi's collaborators are busy in our Congress pulling their strings to arouse opposition to Obama's very rational and clever approach -- don't stir up Iranian nationalism and undermine the revolution.

[dmcohen]

The rabbi may be tactically incorrect in calling for open US support of the demonstrators, but there is nothing in his article to suggest that he does not genuinely hope for the success of those demonstrators and the reform movement in Iran.

Many have come to the same tactical conclusion as him while stating strongly their own support for the demonstrators. Are they all secretly seeking to undermine them?

Or has your hatred of Israel and all who support her so twisted your reason that you must see nefarious plotting in everything they say and do?

[arvay]

If I do, then I share the same irrationality as the Christian Science Monitor

http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0621/p06s04-wome.html

This is Zionist tactic no. 22: Always blame criticism on hatred for Israel.

Hint: we're all bored reading the same stuff over and over.

[LeftLeanWing]

"Meddling is only wrong when it serves a country's selfish, imperial purposes. But when its purpose is to save life and uphold liberty it is not only permitted but obligatory. "

Wrong -

It's also wrong when the meddling itself is counter productive or undermines the very action you are trying to achieve.

Grandstanding is what is being requested of Obama so that a few who have no direct connection to what is happening can feel good - not about the protesters - but about their hate of the Iranian leadership that they fear.

[S1m0n]

Let me get this straight, Rabbi. You're FOR the Iranian intifada, but AGAINST the Palestinian intifada? What's the difference?

And for the record, what's your position on Mahmoud Abbas's coup against, Hamas, the winners of the last Palestinian election? As I recall, President Bush and Prime Minister Ohlmert were both strongly supportive. Why are Iranians entitled to democracy if Palestinians aren't?

[alexa07]

"Why are Iranians entitled to democracy if Palestinians aren't?" To Simon, thanks for posing the best question of the day. I also wonder at how our media is paying such close attention to the Iranian citizen journalists (good, in fact), but didn't have much to say about the citizen journalists in Gaza & Lebanon.

[dmcohen]

"You're FOR the Iranian intifada, but AGAINST the Palestinian intifada?"

Let me get this straight, George Washington. You're FOR the American Revolution, but AGAINST the French Revolution?

[Jacob Feuer]

I don't know about the state of the world any more. I don't which "party" I "belong" to. But, I'm sick of seeing people treating people like chess pieces or some characters in a play. People are dying as we speak, and anytime some one says something about helping out, they are labeled with agenda. Well, I don't have an agenda. I'm not an activist, I'm too much a pessimist too be. But, doesn't anyone want Obama to do something besides words. Words, Words, Words, it does not matter in the end what you say, people are dying.

[pragmaticdallasite]

If Obama doesn't act cautiously MORE people will die. What do you want him to do besides "words"? Send a 100,000 troops to Iran? Thousands, if not more, will die and the entire region will become unglued. Even his words of support for the Iranian people can cause a fiercer government crackdown. There is no easy way to handle this, peaceful protests with the world showing solidarity while keeping communications to the West open in Iran is the best route I think.

[batguano]

The actions of the Mad Mullahs their police and goons are despicable, but par for religious extremists and psychotics. I prefer to believe that Prez Obama is doing what he believes is right, both for the courageous Iranian protesters and US interests, and that he has more info input than you do; he may not be doing what Israel or Israeli supporters, would like him to do, however to foment an attack on Iran. The movement to reform in Iran may be irreversible at this point, but Obama has the wisdom to not make reform impossible by giving excuses to the rulers. It is hard to take this self-serving criticism of our President seriously when Israel is a defacto theocracy, possesses nuclear weapons and is an arms dealer to the world, disenfranchises Palestinian Israelis, routinely kills unarmed protesters, like Americans Rachel Corrie and Tristan Anderson and hundreds of Palestinian protesters, and refuses access to "outside agitators" who work for peace in Palestine and the press who might report the truth of the Occupation to the world; we should also mention the cowardly attacks on the civilians of Lebanon and Gaza using banned and indiscriminate weapons, as well; where is your moral criticism?

[burntbeans]

rabbi,

normally i am a big fan of your posts, but you are very wrong, and show a remarkable ignorance towards the situation and the culture of the people of iran. support from the leadership of the united states will be used against those protesting and lead to much worse violence and bloodshed than has already happened. the people protesting have not asked for the support of president obama. i am fairly certain when/IF they do, he will gladly give it.

[NathanSW]

It saddens me that a rabbi of such clear rhetorical skill does not seem to understand that sometimes the greatest rhetorical tool is no rhetoric at all - or at least a minimal amount of rhetoric. The more noise the US makes about Iran, the more the religious leaders can use us against the very people we want to help. The fact that they will use us anyway doesn't mean that we shouldn't be circumspect in our actions, in the same way that even if a fire is burning already, we shouldn't feel free to pour gasoline on it. Just as Rush Limbaugh and Dick Cheney can do harm to the Republican party by being as loud and bellicose as they have been, we can do damage to the very movement in Iran that we want to see grow by being loud and confrontational.

Some people - rabbis included, apparently - seem to believe that if you don't like something, your only option is to try to tear it down. Fortunately, our president is capable of a more nuanced approach, and has the strength of character to do what is best for America, and not just America's blowhards.

[hrc04]

Everybody's a critic.

[Erik Kolácek]

Rabbi...with all due respect:

What is the man supposed to do? Throw out more typically angry, knuckle-dragging, knee-jerk Christian American rhetoric...give the Iranian regime ammunition to call this a "US-led rebellion" and brand millions of innocent kids as traitors? They're practically daring us to do this.

Why should President Obama pull a stupid move to appease American chickenhawks and Persian tyrants and then be forced to live with the subsequent, inevitable bloody slaughter?

(And let's not live in dreamland, sir. There will be a ruthless, cruel, mass public execution if this becomes a "US-backed" event and we all know it.)

Let's see...the Bay of Pigs invasion, Hungary...the Persian Gulf War. Didn't we talk tough, rattle our swords, do a half-assed job and then drop the ball? Don't even get me started about the genocides we ignore. How many bad checks are we going to write with our mouths and then walk away?

Lets let the President do his job. Please. Biblical metaphors are for Shabbas. Clearly neither you or I are qualified to give advice to Mr. Obama and I'd like to hope that no one will ever let us.

[pragmaticdallasite]

Great post. As much as I take issue with Obama's "pragmatic" ways on domestic affairs, in the Iranian situation I believe it is the wise move.

[Dunelm]

I think your Moses' example is mis-placed. Moses was living in Egypt--along with the Israelites who were in exile (I know you understand all of this). Obama is not in exile--this is his country. Iran belongs to the Iranians. Obama is not Moses and this situation is entirely different. Are you implying that Obama should bomb bomb Iran ? Are you implying that Obama should lead the protesters in Iran out of their country? Are you implying that Obama should strike down the revolutionary guard? What does it really mean to demonstrate moral courage. In this instance it may mean demonstrating caution and patience. There is a time to speak and a time to be silent. Let's not promote hot-headedness. Sometimes a hot-head is needed; at other times, impatience is a hindrance. Some of us know what happened to Moses after he broke the tablets!

[gmt066]

Rabbi.... could you please reference the many Iranian protesters that you consulted prior to writing this?

I assume that since you speak so forcefully about what those protesting need from the United States that you are speaking directly for those people.

Since you are speaking for them, please let us know who they are.

[rageagainstmachine]

Exactly. The reports I've read from actual Iranians protesting and/or leading the protests in Iran just about universally requesting that the US do exactly the opposite of what the Rabbi (and McCain) are proposing. The Rabbi shows a stunning lack of understanding of history, particularly the history of US government intervention in Iran.