On Iran, Mr. President, You're Doing Just Fine

by Taylor Marsh

Have you noticed it? Pres. Obama is being called "weak" on Iran. John McCain started it; all that was missing was "bomb, bomb, bomb Iran" in the background. Turn on Fox News. Hear the Republicans squawk. Seeing an opportunity, a "senior Israeli official" told CNN that Obama's response is "not strong." Add to it yesterday's political theater, driven by Republicans in Congress, who pushed an Iran resolution that was passed in both chambers, butting in where we don't belong. So, as usual, Republicans aren't listening to experts. They also aren't listening to Iranians, all of whom have warned that the U.S. getting involved would only play into the Iranians regime's hands. Iranians are doing this on their own:

"Clearly, things have changed. The country will never be the same. ... So long as the people are willing to go out, we are going to see a shift in the political landscape. ... It's really important to realize that this is a generational conflict going on." - Prag Khanna on CNN (senior fellow at the New America Foundation)

British Foreign Minister David Milliband, who isn't exactly prone to jumping in on these things, supports Obama's position. In the forum I attended where he was the speaker, he refused to weigh in on domestic issues in the U.S., particularly concerning Dick Cheney. Weighing in on Iran has far wider consequences, but weigh in he did.

The fact is that those on the streets have not asked for us to be their spokesmen. We need to stand for our deeply held commitment that it is for the Iranian people to decide on their government, and we will continue to call for peaceful respect for media and protesters. The fact is that many Iranians have severe doubts about the outcome announced on Friday. They deserve to have their doubts addressed. These are fine lines but we know the cost of crossing them. The memory of foreign intervention throughout their history is deep within all Iranians. A proud people wants to decide its own future. We should defend that.

In contrast, the U.S. State Dept.'s "official" blog remains silent on all things Iran; not even offering Obama's statements on the subject, which have been broadcast across the world. A back and forth I got into on the subject is telling. That State's "official" blog continues an Iran blackout is stunning. They should take a lesson from Foreign Minister Brad Milliband.

But as for Republicans arguing Obama is "weak" on his response, Henry Kissinger, whom I have intense disagreements with on many foreign policy decisions of which he was a main part, speaks plainly. Transcript by Think Progress:

KISSINGER: Well, you know, I was a McCain supporter and -- but I think the president has handled this well. Anything that the United States says that puts us totally behind one of the contenders, behind Mousavi, would be a handicap for that person. And I think it's the proper position to take that the people of Iran have to make that decision.

Of course, we have to state our fundamental convictions of freedom of speech, free elections, and I don't see how President Obama could say less than he has, and even that is considered intolerable meddling. He has, after all, carefully stayed away from saying things that seem to support one side or the other. And I think it was the right thing to do because public support for the opposition would only be used by the -- by Ahmadinejad -- if I can ever learn his name properly -- against Mousavi.

Trying to outdo John McCain, Mike Pence pontificated about his Iranian resolution that would would express support for the dissidents in Iran, fair and free elections and condemn the violence against protesters in Tehran. Republicans never too shy to capitalize with a little grandstanding, their eyes always on the next general election.

This will be the talking point tomorrow morning on the Sunday shows, no doubt. Obama's "weak." Obama's not doing enough. Stephen Hayes, Cheney's chief propagandist, asks if Obama can "afford to stay neutral." Evidently Mr. Hayes needs to brush up on his history. I'd suggest starting at the period around 1953, say, August.

The last Republican president put Iran in the "axis of evil" right after they'd helped us in Afghanistan immediately after we were attacked on 9/11. Where did George W. Bush get us with that move?

Zbigniew Brzezinski weighed in this week too, on the side of letting Iranians decide their own future, but staying far away from trying to intercede in any way.

John Kerry added his voice as well.

However, Obama has been taken to task for saying there's no difference between Ahmadinejad and Mousavi, which, frankly, sounded to me like talking points from one of his aides. Mohsen Makhmalbaf, a spokesperson for Mousavi, was quick to correct Obama in an interview with FP:

MM: Obama has said that there is no difference between Ahmadinejad and Mousavi. Does he like it himself [when someone is] saying that there is no difference between Obama and [George W.] Bush? Ahmadinejad is the Bush of Iran. And Mousavi is the Obama of Iran.

Whatever the comparisons, there is no doubt a difference between Mousavi and Ahmadinejad, if only in perception, which is not a small point. Ahmadinejad the face of the holocaust denying Iran, with Mousavi representing someone who does not fear nuclear inspectors, even as he stands up with Iranians on nuclear energy rights. But this isn't where Republicans are waging their political war.

Now we've also got not only Charles Krauthammer bloviating on Iran, talking about all the things Obama is doing wrong on Iran; we're also treated to Paul Wolfowitz, a man who hasn't been right on anything in the region since he began offering advice on what to do there. Krauthammer, first:

Moreover, this incipient revolution is no longer about the election. Obama totally misses the point. The election allowed the political space and provided the spark for the eruption of anti-regime fervor that has been simmering for years and awaiting its moment. But people aren't dying in the street because they want a recount of hanging chads in suburban Isfahan. They want to bring down the tyrannical, misogynist, corrupt theocracy that has imposed itself with the very baton-wielding goons that today attack the demonstrators.

This started out about election fraud. But like all revolutions, it has far outgrown its origins. What's at stake now is the very legitimacy of this regime -- and the future of the entire Middle East.

Okay, and Obama is supposed to do what? Invade? Yell "charge!" from here and watch the blood flow there? Krauthammer never says, just that he judges Obama "afraid to take sides." Krauthammer actually believes the president controls whether Khamenei is "deciding whether to do a Tiananmen" or not.

Paul Wolfowitz simply illustrates once again how everything went so wrong in Iraq by arguing Iran is the Philippines. Then rambles on that Pres. Obama needs to change course. And. Do. What?

Neither man answers the question.

Never fear, the House of Representatives is here, Pence finally getting a vote on a resolution that, according to Glenn Thush's reporting, the White House actually helped craft, toning down Pence's rhetorical belligerency.

During day-long wrangling, White House officials worked with Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Howard Berman (D-Calif.) to convince Pence that a harsh bill would provide Tehran with an excuse to drag America into their internal debate, according to people familiar with the situation.

"We made it clear that we didn't want to make the U.S. a foil in a debate that has nothing to do with us," a senior administration told me this morning. "This is a debate among Iranians."

Frankly, Pence and McCain, who drove the charade in Congress, should have stayed out of it, following Pres. Obama's lead, but that's not the way politics works, especially in the U.S. Congress. (Israel not missing the moment either.) But at least Dems were able to do some language damage control.

But amidst the entire debate, no Republican has yet stated what their end game would be if Obama inserted himself and made the Iranian revolution about us. Isn't this exactly what Khamanei and Ahmadinejad want?

As usual, Republicans never think about the answers to these questions, because they never ask the questions. On foreign policy, they shoot first, aim later.

Taylor Marsh reports from Washington, D.C., with podcasts, "TM-DC".

Follow Taylor Marsh on Twitter: www.twitter.com/taylormarsh

Comments

[stpmdn]

I think the US should lead the UN in a new round of sanctions against Iran regime. I'm an iranian and a big obama fan. I don't think he is doing enough. He needs to say that he will NOT recognize Ahmadinejad as the president of Iran.

[davidm2902]

What am I?
The desired result of what I am, is the creation of economic instability and crisis.
Over time, this desired resulting economic instability and crisis, will cause the masses to question its Nationals leaders, and the desired political direction they’ve embarked upon.
Over time, due to the resulting economic instability and crisis, in a mass protest against the chosen political direction embarked upon, by its Nationals leaders, kaos will erupt upon the streets of its Nations major cities and Capital, escalating into mass rioting.
This mass rioting will result in a decision to be made, by the National leaders, where upon the streets of its own Capital city, through its brutal and tyrannical use of force and violence against its citizens, their responsibility for the spilling of its own peoples blood, will occur.
What am I?
I am the best case scenario, an exhibition of the effectiveness of U.N. Resolutions imposing economic sanctions.
Be under no illusions, that which we see occurring today on the streets of Iran, is directly attributable
to a dictatorial regime, which has long been holding its peoples and their financial prosperity hostage, by a desire, to obtain nuclear weapons.

[roshni]

President Obama is 100% correct in his dealing with the Iranian situation. Neo cons are just itching for another war and an opportunity to discredit our president. They could not care less about the Iranian people.

[Olmecvision]

I was motivated to send the below questions to an article I saw on the supreme court posted on Swamp politics.
http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2009/06/supreme_court_voting_rights_ac.html

My questions:
Do white men have the legal ability to determine if minorities and women have or can keep the right to vote? Could the supreme court rule the voting rights act illegal, therefore eliminating the right to vote for the majority of Americans? If the court ruled against the right to vote for minorities would it mean our president could not vote in the next election? When the country is half minorities in 25 yrs will 25% of the population (white males) technically have the right to strip them of their right to vote? How can minorities say it is their country if their right to vote is conditional? Would white males fight and die for the country if their votes were conditional based on some minorities and how they felt?

Why should women and minorities care about Iranian's democracy problems if 70% of Americans cannot vote in the USA if a minority votes to repeal the voting rights act?

[GHARDY]

To all the neo-cons out there what, I ask you is the end game after the President condems the Iranian goverment and does alot of big talk. Are we going to fight another war in the middle east? Are we going to overthrow the government and replace the leadership? What is the plan? If you have answers for any of these question, Please call John McCain and his boom, boom, boom Iran crew. If you, do not have answers, stop being a buttdisky let the Iranians do this on their own, they seem to know what they want and how to go about getting it.

[psfurlong356]

I think Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) was the chef that iced the cake on this one

"He's not our first Black President, He's are first Pink Squishy President:

despicable.

great post Taylor.

[kimleehan]

Republicans are always ready to take credit for anything good. Its only a matter of time before they try to take credit for whats going on in Iran. I believe their talking point tomorrow is going to be " The Iraq war made this possible, Iran sees Iraq has democracy and they want it too. They'll start claiming the domino effect in the middle East. Democrats need to have their talking points ready, President Obama's middle East trip made whats happening in Iran possible. President Obama needs to take credit for Iran.

[hoosier96]

Republicans really could not take credit because the reason for attacking Iraq was not to spread democracy throughout the region. That being said, isn't it at least somewhat plausible that the regime change in Iraq and its push for a democratic government had an impact on politics in Iran?

In a serious argument you have to at least acknowledge the fact that such a domino effect can occur. Look at Eastern Europe and the Baltic States in the late 1980's. One after another pushed for independence from the USSR.

[IDisgoodfittingjeans]

I was moved to send Senator Graham this letter:

Do you not get it, that President Obama's position on Iran must remain as neutral as possible, that as Head of State, Obama will have to interact w whomever is declared the winner in Iran's election?

Instead of reactionary rhetoric, which i fully understand is you & your party's ongoing attempt to undermine our President in any- and everything he & his administration does, Pres Obama is allowing a free-will, internal process in Iran to be carried out by its people. True evolution of ANY society must come from within.

Are you & your party so blind to this truth, or are you simply willing to present yourself as a primitively driven bunch of politicians who will stop at nothing to contradict a President who may well have diplomatic skills that will even exceed your beloved Reagen?

Top political minds ALL side w Pres Obama. The more educated & enlightened cross-section of your constituency are on his side too. If you seek to expand your constituency by looking under rocks & stirring hate & dissent, you are on the right track.

It's time to quit acting like a bunch of boys on the playground who need to be able to feel they can whoop anyone's ass. Get over the fake cowboy era that is George W's stamp on diplomacy. Quiet strength, CAREFULLY chosen words & a non-offensive defense strategy will keep us ABOVE those countries whose policies & attitudes we do

[SeymourButz]

You're wasting your time. They already know they're wrong. It's all politics. Go against anything Obama does.

[breakingpoint]

Honestly, leave Iran alone!
Just tell the Republicans Democracy is Messy, they'll hush up.

If the GOP really wants to spread soem real democracy boycott Saudi oil, unlike Iran they don't even allow women to vote. Obama's got enough on his plate.

The Iranian People are smart they'll work it out.
http://jischinger.wordpress.com

[criquet]

I totally agree that Pres Obama is doing what is required. What I also believe is he is a few steps ahead of everyone.
His comment that there is not that much difference between Ahmadinajad and Mousavi ( he did not say there is no difference) was a master move. If Mousavi manages to win, he is forced to show he is different or face real backlash in his own country and if Ahmadinajad survives, the US can still try ro negotiate citing they took no sides.
A master stroke.

[lcdbsez]

Ms. M. --

Dead on straight! The weepublicans want the administration to fail (is it a secret?) and they'd love nothing more than to point to Iran in 2010 and say, "we told you so!" if Obama blows it -- which they're working very hard to make sure happens.

The weepublican Party is the political arm of the Big Biz Mafia and they're not even trying to hide it anymore! They'd sell their grandmothers if it would get them back in power. Forget the patriotic jibberish -- that's just for show.

Disgusting.

[BeulahBell]

President Obama is doing a SPLENDID job! For once, let's keep our noses out of other people's business. And I'm a dyed-in-the-wool Republican..

[roshni]

Agree.

[Cameleon]

"Oh Dahling, I speed read very well, and i just loved it , the part about Pres Insering himself, he should try it more often. Then he could rid himself of the first lady.

[Crissy Patters]

It's easy to talk when your voice has no relevance. The republicans can say whatever they want, but the Iranians and the world don't care about their opinion any more than they care about mine.

However, anything President Obama says will have a huge affect in some form or another. PO as he's done everything is handling this situation with calm and well thought out ideas.

[PulSamsara]

This week John McCain lost what respect I did have for him. What opportunistic traitorous nonsense. His right-wing boys would just assume put another nail in the Tehran protester's coffin. This was proven by his approach this week and reinforced his previous right-wing 'Just Nuke 'Em' stance. Don't pretend to give a damn for the freedom of these people John McCain - We're NOT buying.