President Obama: Iran -- How Cautious Is Too Cautious?

President Obama can be applauded on the one hand for taking a more cautious approach on the deteriorating situation in Iran. And, Republican leaders can also be applauded for speaking out against the violence and against the obvious rigged elections.

However, the situation in Iran is looking grim and ominous now that the Supreme Leader in Iran has spoken saying that the election was fair and the results will stand. Ayatollah Khamenei said there will be no new election; therefore protests will not be tolerated from now on and dissenters will face the consequences from the state.

With the government of Iran trying to block all Internet and outside media traffic it is becoming ominously similar to the situation in China at Tiananmen Square in 1989 when they threw out the foreign media. Luckily with Twitter and Facebook and other new advances in technology the protesters message is getting out much louder and clearer than in China several decades ago.

The talks between the United States, the European Union and Iran over the building of nuclear plants for weapons production have really gone nowhere over the past few years. They have been a charade and obviously not taken seriously by the Iranian government.

So there should be no saying we need to be cautious in our approach by the president because he fears a breakdown in these talks. That is not a good reason to be cautious as the talks have already broken down or more realistically they haven't even advanced to the stage where they could breakdown.

Also, saying that the United States should not get involved in the internal affairs of another nation sounds correct but in reality over our nation's history we have always advanced our ideas of democracy, free elections and the people's right to peacefully protest.

Spreading these values of America abroad should not become a Republican or Democratic issue. Let's not turn this into a political issue with the GOP leaders saying we need to speak out more and the Democrats saying we need to take a more cautious approach so we don't look like we are siding with one side or the other.

Our values put us on the side of the protesters and the Iranian government has already accused the United States of "meddling" so being too cautious and not speaking out against certain of their atrocities really does not help.

With events looking like they will be getting bloodier and more violent in Iran it is not a time to hold back. The administration needs to speak out against violence by the government against legal and peaceful protests in cities across Iran -- the protests are happening all across the country not just in Tehran.

The Obama Administration is correct to be somewhat cautious but should not go overboard in that direction. The president and his foreign policy team need to go overboard in the direction of promoting our values. We need to stand up and speak out on the bravery and tenacity of the protestors all across Iran. We need to stand up and speak out against violence and the threat of violence by the Iranian government.

Let's not make this a political issue between the GOP and Democrats. It is too important at this point with the threat of an Iranian Tiananmen Square in the near future to be squabbling among ourselves.

The United States should be speaking with one voice for the rights of the protesters and the right to have free elections and the right to democracy across the globe and not only in Iran.

Mr. President, if you bend over backwards to not tilt toward one side or the other in Iran it will not have any effect on the stalled and basically failed nuclear talks so stand up for our American values and speak out against the upcoming increased violence that could be happening any minute now in Iran.

Mr. President, one Tiananmen Square in our lifetime is enough. Let's speak out forcefully now and let the Iranian government know that the world is watching and that we will not be cautious in the face of blatant abuses of human rights!

Comments

[billw8017]

President Nixon did the "crazy President" thing during a crisis in Jordan when he warned Syria not to get involved. The United States had no effective forces for the crisis, so he threatened the Syrians (and the Soviets) with a "crazy President" doing ... what? Let them guess, that's why he wanted them to suppose he was crazy. Committing ourselves where we have nothing to back up what we say is a recipe for embarrassment.

Besides, both sides are Iranian nationalists and neither looks for our intervention. Republican Jingo patriotism and bombast are for domestic consumption. They were entirely willing to play along with China after Tiananmen Square demonstration. Nothing was said about mass killings in Guatemala and Plan Columbia is a murderous farce. Republicans were willing to deal with Iran in the Iran Contra affair. Bush might have invaded if Iraq and Afghanistan had turned out more favorably for us, but even the invasions of those two countries looks more dubious now.

[chlai88]

It is amazing the concept of patience is missing in the western world. Rome is not made in a day and the Berlin wall also did not come down in a minute. Till now, there are atrocities committed but they have temporarily died now. Obama has also unambiguously warned the Iranian regime the world is watching and any unjust actions will not go unnoticed. What else do you want ? You want airborne troopers to parachute down Tehran and take over ? This is not helping the Iranians. Iran must be changed by Iranians, period. For it to be remotely seen as a western orchestrated event will backfire with even more disastrous consequences. You potentially can have a civil war the lights of Iraq in Iran and it'll even be worse as god knows who may be running a country purportedly with nuke technology. Chaos in Iran is the very last thing everyone wants, from the Iran dictators to the reformists to Americans. I believe Obama's NS team is now evaluating the changing situation and coming out with plans to meet any contingency. Let our president do his job, for god's sakes !

[AspenFreePress]

If subverting the will of the people in an election is so all-fired bad, why wasn't it bad, too, in Mexico when a fraudulent presidential election put Calderon in office. I didn't hear anyone in Congress wailing about that. There were riots in the streets in Mexico and a U.S. journalist was killed, but nary a word from President Bush. Of course Calderon was Bush's candidate. I guess it's okay to steal political elections if the U.S. candidate prevails. Sterling Greenwood/Aspen Free Press

[clevelandchick]

If Obama inserts himself and the US into this matter, especially unilaterally, that would surely be the end of this revolution and the chance of another coming along for a very long time. The protestors and opposition leaders would be attacked as puppets of the US, the West.

If the China, Russia and the other Middle-Eastern state were to stand up and say something...that would be different. It wouldn't be The West telling the Ayatollahs to stop their assault on protestors and allow a new election. But that would never happen, they're dictatorial governments themselves.

That's been one major issue with the US - we pick and choose the dictators we like based on our own self-interest and we spread democracy to the unlucky countries we don't favor with bombs.

No, the US has to stay out of this. It's not weak or timid or cautious...it's the smart thing to do.

[Arlin Carlson]

I agree that "the revolution" such as it is may go down the tubes if Obama comments too much. But I wonder where its really whose hand is on the shovel to bury the West more than a new dawn. The opposition is just as adamant about Isreal as the current guy is, but not given to grand excesses. Moreover he is still commited as is the current guy to Iranian nuclear power, and as long as Isreal already has nuclear power, no Arab regime can simply concede the point to Obama with out jeprodizing it self. This is really what linkage means, not the Netanyahu kind of linkage where "progress" means standing down on nuclear power. And this realy is the riske Netanyahu takes in his insistent demands. Obama could force Irsrel to give up its nuclear armes as a visa -vive accord. This won't happen, because Obama would be hit with "leaving Isreal defensless" charge. No Iranian regime, current or future can afford to simply allow Isreal to be the sole nuclear power in the region. Obama has yet to say publicly that he would require Isreal to join the Nuclear Profiation Treaty, and declare its weapons. He passed up a question in his first press conference to do so. So when we think of the street demonstrations we are seeing only the tip of the iceberg of underlying forces no now apparent.

[billw8017]

If President Obama intervenes, all sides will have the satisfaction of having a good laugh at our expense even if their side loses. As the President has pointed out, all sides are Iranian nationalists and have opposed our interventions.

The controversy is a tragedy for the Islamic Republic. It begins to look like an old fashioned dictatorship with the familiar gloss of phony elections.

[Skepticat]

Unlike previous decades it's becoming harder to isolate a country from the outside world. 14th century theocrats are no match for young people with camera phones, twitter, and the net - and certainly can't win on appeal of oppressive dogma. Keep the communication links open and Iranian discontent should eventually prevail.

[AspenFreePress]

Why didn't members of Congress speak out against the rigged presidential election in Mexico that put Calderon in office? Sterling Greenwood/Aspen Free Press

[clevelandchick]

No doubt. The US has kept Mexico from going left like South America, which also happens to keep the people poor and easy to exploit.

[joycehelene]

The Iran Government knows the world is watching and it seems they don't care a bit, the problem is how is the world the can get through to them, you can condemn all you want and it seems that it doesn't bother them. Grandstanding is not the answer, Obama is playing it just the correct way. There could be a civil war in Iran and I don't think we would want to take sides.

[shoutingatmytv]

After what I've heard is going on over there, I'd like nothing better than to take sides, but not if it will cost someone else's life, and not if it will provide ammunition to the people I want to see lose the fight..

[KSMullins]

This nonsensical desire to let the world know we support Democracy is getting tired. They know us by now and they also know that we haven't walked the talk for decades.

So get it off your chest...speak your mind and then sit down. YOU are not the President. Obama is the President and let's let him steer the ship.

[nellpost]

Thank God john (bomb, bomb, bomb Iran songfest fame) mccain isn't our President! Or whiney ericcantor.

Perhaps things will be well thought out and history won't be repeated as the Iran crisis continues -- no CIA supporting the shah, gwbush "backing" Iraqi dissidents, then letting saddam kill the folks who stood up to him, at bush's own suggestion while the US did NOTHING ...

Thank God for President Obama and his team of bright, thinking people. We are blessed.

[Jazzier]

Isn't it time to discuss the subject matter at hand not inject your partisan rhetoric?

Apparently McCain's attempt at humor ..."bomb bomb" offended you, but you fail to mention Obama's comment...".I will bomb Pakistan". HMM???

Please supply date, time and link on your statement "gwbush backing Iraqi dissidents, then letting Saddam kill the folks who stood up to him, at bush's own suggestion while the US did nothing".

[clevelandchick]

Nellpost is kind of right, she/he just had the wrong Bush.

The Shia Uprising in Iraq back in 1991, which the US instigated.

GHWB, POTUS 41 told them the Shia we'd help them if they tried to take out Sadaam and thousands perished because we didn't.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1991_uprisings_in_Iraq

[anniegirl9]

I have to wonder if those who think US and Obama should take a harder stance on this have thought about 2 things.
1) what would the Iranian protesters want? Much like the Rupublicans during the RNC last year wanted nothing less than Cheney to show up and give a speach, the Iranian protestesters want nothing less than the American name attached to their protests. Or an even more apt metaphore whould be if Limbaugh was to put his seal of aproval on one of two liberal candidates during a primary. It would be the kiss of death for that candidate. Shouldn't what they want matter?

2) If we bang our chest in support of the protesters, what then should we do if they take to the streets only to be gunned down? We do not have any ability to stop such violence. Are we really so caulous as to beat the drum of revolution and then stand on the sidelines of a massacre without the prospect of taking any responsibility for the outcome?

[shoutingatmytv]

The arguments in these comments on both sides of this question mostly seem to miss the point. The issue isn't whether we should support the growth of freedom of speech around the world in general or in Iran in particular, it's whether we should beat our chests about that support in ways that make us a foil for the reactionary elements in Iranian society and damage those we support..

Our sabre-rattling has been the single greatest source of political power for the hard-liners in Iran for the last eight years, and we have a history of interfering with Iran's politics that every Iranian deeply resents (just as we would if the situations were reversed). Moreover, the overwhelming majority of Iranian analysts who have commented on this question have said that the US government must not be seen to be taking sides in this election, and that our official support must be limited to support for a fair, open, and peaceful process.

The Iranians in the streets of Teheran are demonstrating incredible courage, and may yet bring their country to a newly democratic (and friendlier to the US) state. Their protest is not about us, and we owe it to them to refrain from pointless posturing (that would have the effect of making it about us) for long enough to give them that chance.

[Szin]

I don't see any difference between your post and any of the others on the same side of the issue so how did those that you agree with 'miss the point'?

[scottpot]

Since 1,806 American protesters were arrested in peaceful demonstrations at the 2004 RNC in New York , how are we in a position to interfere or criticize Iran? Since we have become a torture state and
wiretap our own citizens where do we get off lecturing on human rights and democracy?

[KSMullins]

Spot on...

[Solex]

Spot off, actually. We are not talking about domestic problems right now, but international ones, and scottpot's comments aren't helping one bit. And may I say it again, if you truly wanted change in America, you should have voted for Ralph Nader or Dennis Kucinnich to be President. You did not, so I suggest that you put up or shut up.

[Jazzier]

"Peaceful demonstration"???? I guess you've forgotten the violence, windows shattered, businesses destroyed, ...........Are you saying the the police aren't allowed to arrest those that are caught in acts of violence?? This happens not just in political demonstrations but quite often with overzealous sport fans when their team wins a championship!

We are NOT a "torture" state, not matter how often you repeat that statement, and wiretapping during wartime on "citizens" conversing with foreign terrorists will always be allowed. Check with our new president who is continuing the practice plus adding his new program of spying....­"cyberspac­e" where he will have the ability to hack anyone's personal email, etc. whenever he chooses.

[scottpot]

Jazzier--I was in New York at the 2004 RNC and the protesters did not destroy businesses­.Shattered windows{ which I didn*t see, BTW ] are a small price to pay for democracy. You probably be outraged to learn that some protesters littered ! Out of the 1,806 arrests , there were a handful of convictions.The arrests and police -state mentality were an unnecessary repression of our freedom ,virtually uncovered or analyzed by the media.
The same media that is now so concerned about freedom of expression in Iran.
America IS a torture state.It has all been well documented.

[Margaretpoa]

That's the problem! Believing that we can and should "spread our values" to other people, whether they want them or not. "Our" values are exactly what they sound like: Ours. Not the Iranians, not the Afghans and not the Saudis. Ours. Though I find their values repugnant and backwards, it's not up to us to force our values down their throats. This is the same reason they hate us. We tried it your way. Now it's somebody else's turn. Somebody who hasn't failed miserably.

[KSMullins]

Nicely stated.

[Jazzier]

"Somebody who hasn't failed miserably"???? Don't you mean somebody who hasn't yet been tested?

[userw014]

Our values are to give a collective shrug when an election (2000) is stolen.

[CactusTom]

President Obama has played this issue with near perfect finesse. Obama's talking nice to the Muslim world has already done more to destabilize Iran than 8 years of Bush Cheney's saber rattling. Now he must play it very carefully. We don't want to see a repeat of Bush1 where that president acted as though the US was going to support an uprising in Iraq, only to stand by and watch hundreds of thousands slaughtered. Republican support for the Iranian people was nothing more than political grandstanding. Sure there may soon come a time in this fast developing situation when the Iranian people ask for verbal support, and we must act. But until then, there is a fine line between support and perceived interference.