Obama is Doing Right by the Iranian People, So Far

As reports intensify of how the Iranian government continues to attack, arrest, and otherwise attempt to prevent the Iranian people from protesting, at least one good thing is happening in the midst: Obama.

Many Iranians, in the country and abroad, shudder to think of what might have been in these uncertain and violent days, if instead of Barack Obama, George W. Bush or John McCain were Commander-in-Chief of the United States -- if instant counter-productive threats of force were hurled at the Iranian government instead of measured and productive calls for support of peaceful protesters.

Already one can see the difference in trajectory: one route is focused on the aggressor, the other on the victim.

As this column has said in the past, one would sincerely hope that all governments -- certainly one with such a significant mandate for democratic change -- would care more for the innocent people who are giving their all for change, than the government which is breaching international standards to stop them from realizing their hopes.

These last few years have unequivocally demonstrated the direct relationship between Western, and particularly American, aggression toward Iran and the strengthening of the Iranian government and its image as an apparent voice for the world's oppressed.

As an exercise in history, simply look at exactly how much this Iranian government prospered under years of Bush threats and antagonizations. Just a short while ago -- before the presidential election in Iran -- Ahmadinejad was riding a wave of substantial international support from people worldwide who had suffered at the hands of Western imperialism. He had formed alliances with popularly elected -- oftentimes Western-rejected -- leaders as far away as South America. He had apparently united Sunni and Shiite people as a leader against oppression of all Muslims -- embracing his role as the leading voice for support of the Palestinian people.

In my own experience in the last year alone, ordinary people from Sri Lanka to Brazil and everything in between had cheered me for being Iranian, exclaiming the only Persian "word" they knew: Ahmadinejad. It's a simple but personally astonishing experience to see exactly how much his anti-imperialist rhetoric had resonated across the globe, in the hearts of people whose own governments have been as ruthless as the colonizers before and the imperialists after them.

In more concrete terms, the conflicts in Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon, and the Occupied Territories, which Bush et al either supported or outright committed, actually strengthened the Ahmadinejad government. Iraq is now run by an Iran-favorable majority Shiite government and anyone who's been in Eastern Iraq will tell you that that part of the country is reinforced and managed by a strong Iranian presence. The utter destabilization of Iran's neighbor to the East, Afghanistan, eliminated one of Iran's most significant enemies: the Taliban. The 2006, war against Lebanon further strengthened the Iran-backed Hezbollah party. And Iran's support for the people in the Occupied Territories has dwarfed Arab and Sunni support of the Palestinians with whom they have more in common than Iranians do.

Keep in mind that most Iranian people are opposed or indifferent to the Iranian government's international support for Palestinians, Lebanese Hezbollah and Chavez, to name a few of Ahmadinejad's causes, all of which have attempted to overshadow his government's growing suppression of the Iranian people. Many, if not most, Iranians will tell you that they don't care about these issues at all. Even former supporters of this regime have recently come to despise all of these causes. It's hard to feel sympathetic for others when in one's own streets, the number of Basij and paramilitaries now outnumber civilians.

Now look at today's post-election Iran: two weeks of protests and sacrifices by the Iranian people have -- on their own -- made massive headway toward reversing years of international glorification of the Ahmadinejad government. Now the world is looking through a different lens: that of the Iranian people who have shown Ahmadinejad and his government as despots who collaborated in manufacturing election results and are leading efforts to punish the people they are meant to protect.

Obama has so far wisely chosen not to reignite any semblance of the Iranian government's glorious pre-election days as the self-proclaimed voice of justice for world suffering at the hands of imperialism. He has resisted threatening the Iranian government with force and gifting it with American meddling in Iranian domestic affairs, all by doing the one thing he should do: support the Iranian people.

It is no wonder that during his pivotal Friday prayer speech last week, Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei could no longer pounce on the American threat -- as the Iranian government has successfully done for years -- and instead deemed the British as the biggest enemy of Iran. The diplomatic fallout has been seen by the world: recalling of ambassadors on both sides, and now arrests of British passport-holders in Iran.

What is happening in Iran today is not yet a revolution -- the 1979 Revolution in Iran actually began regularly manifesting itself on the streets in 1978 -- and is not Tienanmen Square. These early conclusions on the unrest prematurely encapsulate a movement that is still moving ahead. This is the beginning of something bigger in Iran and world governments should, as Obama has said, be patient and see "how this thing is going to play out". In this way, they can situate themselves in a better position to help the Iranian people, without risking the success of the people's movement for change, or risking their own chances at negotiating with Iran on issues of mutual necessity.

There is enough blood being spilled on the streets of Iran without useless threats which can be used to further justify the Iranian government's suppression of the people. Obama is smart - he will find other ways to assist the Iranian people -- ways that do not involve more violence.

 

Comments

[ajcfalcon]

Unfathomable. It is simply breathtaking to watch otherwise intelligent people (such as the author of this piece), simply fawn and give credit to Obama for things he had nothing to do with. What we just witnessed in Iran was the seizing of power by a dictator and the persecution of protesters. These are two actions that are fundamentally against American values and the values of free people worldwide. The only response our president could muster was: "we shouldn't meddle".

You can agree with him and call this a wise choice if you like. I'm not even disputing his action (ahem, inaction) at the moment. You can call it for what it was though, a punt. He chose not to be involved in the unfortunate events in Iran. The president did nothing, and thus he ought to receive neither blame nor credit for the situation.

Wake up readers. We ought to hold journalists and media to a level of critical integrity and professionalism. They do not work for the president, they are supposed to be unbiased reporters on the facts. We should expect the media to be the critical watchdog of government, not the allied communicators of government.

Nothing good comes from the media being to closely tied with government. Look at any nation-state in history. When media was ruled by the sovereign, freedom was lost by the people.

~

[WilliamL]

Your posts are very much appreciated. Thank you.

At this point, more and more have come to understand the inabillity of force to solve all problems, all the time. There is a time and place but def. not an act of first resort.

The rhetoric of the some calling for stronger action is a joke. What happened after the events in Tianamen sq.? Nothing. The US sent more companies to China to drive their cost of labor down and spread trade. The US as a country went through plenty of internal conflicts, struggles, civil war and countries such as Iran are going to have to go through their own. Short of all out slaughter, it does seem best for countries to stay in their own yards.

I have a tremendous respect for the Iranian people who are resisting the life, and lack of it, that has been handed to them. The region will be better off if those who are resisting continue to grind it into the street and do what they feel is nec.

Although the US, needs to stay out, and do not advocate force as a first option, tough to see a regime such as the one in Iran "changing" without the use of force.

Power respects power. Considering the regime's disregard for world opinion, the use of force is not a pleasant reality but fear it will be one that is going to have to be faced sooner or later.

[PNG]

Obama's comments and approach have demonstrated his understanding as to the need for normalized relations with Iran that can be cemented by diplomacy rather than duplicity. The U.S. policy with Iran has been lass-than-stellar; the 'Opus Magnum' being the support of Suddam Hussein's need to annex Iran as part of his Empirical Vision at the time by engaging in a war that left both countries destitute, and left the U.S. being the arbiter/ aggressor by proxy.

The people of Iran have to sort this out, and any military action by Western forces could actually cause greater detriment rather than administer assistance. For whatever might culminate, this is the right approach. Good article

[fishX2]

I think many Iranians are torn on which way they think the US should react to the protests, but that ultimately they all make this conclusion, that supporting the people rather than attacking Ahmadinejad is the best route. This is the only way to empower the peope to have a grassroots revolution. Thank you for this article.