The overseas voting for the Iranian elections has been covered by the Los Angeles Times. Los Angeles has a large number of Iranian expatriates. The LA Times says,
As scores of expatriates showed up at a designated West Los Angeles polling station Friday to cast ballots in Iran’s presidential election, a small group of demonstrators protested outside and denounced them for helping to legitimize “a fascist regime.” Maryam Ariannejad, 35, who was among those who voted at the Westin Los Angeles Airport hotel polling station on Century Boulevard, said she cast her vote in support of the people of Iran, who were being given a chance to exercise their civil rights and possibly choose a new leader. …
After initial reports said that Ahmadinejad had won re-election with 69% of the vote, demonstrator Roozbeh Farahanipour, 37, said: “We told you the elections didn’t mean a thing.”
Another demonstrator, Nasrin Mohammadi, 32, said her brother Akbar, a student, had been jailed for seven years in Iran before being executed for speaking out against the government. She said she did not trust the country’s political leaders.
The elections highlight the dilemma of engagement with Iran. “Engagement” is an all purpose word whose meaning crucially depends on a modifier. If engagement with an oppressive regime is ultimately directed at facilitating “regime change” it means one thing. If on the other hand engagement is merely directed at “behavior change”, then it means another, because engagement in that case tacitly implies a recognition of the status quo and a willingness to deal, without any set limit, with the devils in power.
The events in Iran have tenuous and distant parallels to those surrounding the fall of Ferdinand Marcos in 1986. The question facing Ronald Reagan in 1986 was whether his policy towards Marcos could contemplate ‘regime change’. Jimmy Carter earlier attempted to modify Marcos’ human rights behavior, to no effect. As the unpopularity of Philippine President rose in the Philippines the question of the ends to which ‘engagement’ should work arose anew. The same debate was being replayed on the ground. In an effort to shore up the appearance of legitimacy, Marcos called a ’snap election’ in late 1985. When Corazon Aquino agreed to run against him, her decision was criticized by many on the left as conceding the stamp of legitimacy to a rotten dictatorship. The debate on the ground revolved around whether or not to participate in the electoral exercise. What the Left failed to realize was that her participation was clearly engagement with the objective of ‘regime change’ not participation with the goal of ‘behavior change’. Wikipedia relates:
in the last week of November 1985, Marcos unexpectedly announced a snap presidential election to be held in February 1986. Initially, Senator Salvador Laurel of Batangas, the son of a former president, was seen as the favorite presidential candidate of the opposition, under the United Nationalists Democratic Organizations. However, business tycoon Don Joaquin “Chino” Roces was not convinced that Laurel could defeat Marcos in the polls. Roces initiated the Cory Aquino for President Movement to gather one million signatures in one week for Cory to run as president. …
The elections held on February 7, 1986 were marred by the intimidation and mass disenfranchisement of voters. Election day itself and the days immediately after were marred by violence, including the murder of one of Aquino’s top allies, Antique governor Evelio Javier. While the official tally of the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) consistently showed Marcos in the lead, the unofficial tally of the National Movement for Free Elections indicated that Aquino was leading. Despite the job walkout of 30 COMELEC computer technicians alleging election-rigging in favor of Marcos, the Batasang Pambansa, controlled by Marcos allies, ratified the official count and proclaimed Marcos the winner on February 15, 1986. The country’s Catholic bishops and the United States Senate condemned the election, and Aquino called for a general strike and a boycott of business enterprises controlled by Marcos allies. She also rejected a power-sharing agreement proposed by the American diplomat Philip Habib, who had been sent as an emissary by U.S. President Ronald Reagan to help defuse the tension. …
On 22 February 1986, the People Power Revolution was triggered after two key Marcos allies, Defense Minister Juan Ponce Enrile and Armed Forces Vice-Chief of Staff Fidel Ramos called on Marcos to resign and holed up in two military camps in Quezon City. Aquino, who was in Cebu City when the revolt broke out, returned to Manila and insisted on joining the swelling crowd that had gathered outside the camps as a human barricade to protect the defectors. On the morning of 25 February 1986, at the Club Filipino in San Juan, Aquino took the presidential oath of office administered by Supreme Court Associate Justice Claudio Teehankee. Marcos himself was sworn into office at Malacañang Palace on that same day, but fled into exile later that night.
To his everlasting credit, Ronald Reagan was decisive enough to understand that ‘regime change’ was not off the table. And the rest is history. I think the real dynamic in the Iranian elections — which Ahmadinejad, like Marcos, appears to have won — isn’t driven by policy differences of the two candidates so much as the underlying resentment of the Iranian people for the current regime. There is a large protest component to the vote. A large number of Iranians, as the LA Times reports, want ‘regime change’, peacefully if possible. The Obama administration might reflect on whether their policy to effect ‘behavior change’ and provide assurances to Teheran are in fact working at cross purposes not only with the aspirations of the Iranian people, but against — to use a word much beloved by the Left — the tides of history. It would be tragic, not to speak of comical, if President Obama succeeded in diplomatically engaging a regime only to see their partners kicked off the stage by the Iranians themselves. Just ten hours ago, the administration pledged to work with whoever wins.
“Whoever ends up winning the election in Iran, the fact that there’s been a robust debate hopefully will help advance our ability to engage them in new ways,” Obama said in response to a reporter’s question at the White House today. “We think there’s a possibility of change.”
Yes. But which side of change were you on?
Tip Jar or Subscribe for $5
PJM Home
Pajamas Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:
1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.
2. Stay on topic.
3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.
4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.
5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.
The clause regarding "hate speech" has been deleted because readers criticized it as being too loosely defined. We agreed.
These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that Pajamas Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pajamasmedia.com.
45 Comments
1. bits:quoth the Raven
” i won “
Jun 12, 2009 - 10:13 pm 2. Lifeofthemind:An illegitimate regime elected on a basis of theatrics, subterfuge, corruption and fraud in Iran and dedicated to Messianic fantasies that promote poverty and violence will now ratchet up its challenges to the thousand year long developed, at the cost of great blood and treasure, Western system of individual liberty and dignity and scientific rationality. It does this at the same time that the bulwark of Western civilization is itself crumbling having fallen under the sway of a regime elected on a basis of theatrics, subterfuge, corruption and fraud in America and dedicated to Messianic fantasies that promote poverty and violence.
Marcos was less dangerous because he was less pretentious. He was a straight forward old fashioned thief.
Jun 12, 2009 - 10:16 pm 3. wretchard:Marcos was a nothing; not to be spoken of in the same league as Ahmadinejad. But returning to the subject of engagement, it’s useful to note that most of the hard work involved in overthrowing a dictator will be done by the locals. Only on occasion will the ‘international community’ arrive deus ex machina. But for those on the inside it’s important to know that someone is on your side. Even if you never see or hear a thing, the idea that somewhere there are people on your side counts for much.
For me at least, the difference in atmospherics between the conservative movement and the Left in the last twenty years can be summed up in their attitudes toward what they say. Conservatives are often far less sophisticated in their argumentation and more simple-minded in their thinking than the Left. This has made many conservatives child-like in their sincerity, something which people in the arts never cease to parody. No subtlety, they say; people living in a world of black and white. The kind of people who say grace at a Burger King. But sometimes that kind of clarity is necessary. After decades of listening to the Left I have yet to hear them say the word “freedom” with sincerity. It has always been spelled P-O-W-E-R. Consequently their servings of freedom come in the form of huge, eyeless institutional bureaucracies; a vast list of do’s and don’ts; and the proliferation of a commissariate. I know it isn’t ‘cool’ to listen to people who believe things because the Bible told them so; but for my part that’s infinitely cooler than listening to people so practiced in sophistry that their Bible tells them so and not so at one and the same time.
And in the particular case of Iran, my own emotional curiosity is drawn toward one question alone. Does the current President in his most private moments truly and sincerely wish for the downfall of the regime in Teheran? Because even if he were only to wish it, without acting on it; without initiating a single program to overthrow the Ayatollahs, I believe the message would shine through.
Over at Ann Althouse’s there’s a poll on who is the bigger partisan hack: Glenn Reynolds or Andrew Sullivan. Last I looked Sullivan was winning the hack race by 94 % to 6%. And the reason apparently, is largely Sullivan’s credulity of Obama’s position on gay marriage and his contorted attempts to reconcile his belief in President Obama in despite of the plain facts. Sullivan’s problem was that he was listening to Obama’s words. Other people were clever enough to listen in on the second channel — the one that sends signals about who he is. Clever enough to deduce the truth from coded signals because in certain circles, engagement always means being able to say all things to all men. People learn to read the tea leaves eventually. I think that some Iranians actually know how to listen in on the second channel and they are. They want to know if the current administration is “on their side”. Maybe that’s all the help they want; all the help they need. But are they going to get it?
Jun 12, 2009 - 10:39 pm 4. Unsk:This rigging of this Iranian election is certainly similar to that of Marcos. The difference is the US had tremendous influence in the pro-western Philippines in 1986, and has almost no influence in authoritarian Iran now. So we shouldn’t expect a similarly favorable outcome.
Ominously, there are reports of club wielding thugs threatening Moussavi and his supporters on the streets of Tehran. (Gateway Pundit) Seems the mullahs weren’t too happy about Iranians yearning for freedom.
Since Buraq took credit today for the heightened debate before the election, maybe now he should take the blame for the rigging of the election and its violent aftermath. All hail our Messiah! Obama is great!
Jun 12, 2009 - 10:55 pm 5. RaviT:I think, humbly, that the West is paying way too much attention to these “elections” in Lebanon and Iran. These “elections” don’t dictate who is really in charge. Look at Turkey–it is the least backward of these Islamic countries, but even there you have the “deep state” which steps in to counter “too much” democracy.
You will know there’s been regime change in Lebanon or Iran when blood is running, thick, in the streets. . . . My fear is that in Lebanon it will be Hezbollah drawing the blood.
Jun 12, 2009 - 11:09 pm 6. Rob:You draw an interesting parallel, but the obvious difference is that we had a great deal of influence in the Philippines, and very little in Iran.
As to your other question, it’s hard to know what Obama wants; it’s maddening. He seems to be all about treating the worst regimes with ‘respect’. On the other hand, he seems like such a narcissist that if Iran were to somehow flip and he could take credit, he’d undoubtedly love it. But, actually taking a stand and staking out a position on it?
Jun 12, 2009 - 11:13 pm 7. RaviT:Of course, given the Leb gangs beating up Indian students in Oz these days, my concern for Lebanon has reached something of a nadir!
Jun 12, 2009 - 11:14 pm 8. Kinuachdrach:A long forgotten saying from my student days — it does not matter who votes; what matters is who counts the votes.
Wonder if ACORN has the contract for counting votes in the Iranian election? They surely seem to have the contract for the next US election.
Jun 12, 2009 - 11:45 pm 9. Dave the Kapampangan:I’d be surprised if Kim Jong, er, Ahmadinejad doesn’t “officially win” this kangaroo election– like the official cult savior always does. Unfortunately, the Iranian electorate deliberately embarrassed the bum by voting for the other kangaroo, so the axis of evil must soon break out their can of whoopass to silence public dissent. Obama’s pledge to work with “whoever wins” this farce means that he considers the kangaroo election to be legitimate. Since Rod Blagojevich and Obama et al believe all cultural values are relative, a leader who rules by abject fear, ruthless torture, media control and brainwashing is no different than any freely elected leader — and vice verse.
Jun 13, 2009 - 1:22 am 10. blogstrop:I don’t yet see the fighting spirit of the Poles, Phillipinos, or the Romanians, abroad on the streets of Teheran. Waiting for regime change in Iran will be about as rewarding as waiting for it in Iraq was.
Jun 13, 2009 - 1:31 am 11. whiskey:Marcos fell because he was an embarrassment to the Military men who wanted him gone.
Ahmedinejad stays because he is the creature of the military men who put him there.
Whatever the people of Iran want (and most probably WANT Ahmadhinejad) is irrelevant, the men with guns and willingness to use them at a the drop of a hat, to quote Al Pacino, rule.
As for Obama, he’s a Muslim. Of course he wants Ahamedinejad to win. He wants Iran to nuke Israel off the map (something most Muslims want, even if it’s un-PC to say it). Something most Blacks want (even if it’s un-PC to say it). Something most Gays want (even if it’s un-PC to say it). Something most Women want (even if it’s un-PC to say it).
Only Evangelicals, Mormons, married women, and few religious Jews want Israel not to get wiped off the map in a “Final Solution Part Two” by Iran. Obama’s definitely with most of America and the World on that one.
But Obama’s dream has been to surrender to someone, anyone, who can attack America, defeat it with massive casualties, and so usher in his dream of Vichy America, ruthlessly pursuing domestic enemies (mostly Straight White Men) and constructing Bill Ayer’s and Jeremiah Wright’s promised concentration camps.
Obama MUST HAVE IRAN or … someone nuking us. So he can surrender. He wants it so bad he can taste it. Same with his followers. Who want a massive defeat so they can become Vichy collaborators. Sharia and Islam will do as well as any force, and and the whole point is to destroy the Hated White Guy and make sure he never exists again.
Jun 13, 2009 - 1:36 am 12. whiskey:Let me add, most Iranians are rural, poor, nearly illiterate at best, subject to the most appalling superstitions and bigotries, and their more educated urban cousins are no better in that regard.
If every Iranian were convinced they could wipe out the world’s Jews at the cost of half their family dying, they’d go for it in a heartbeat. They’d vote for doing the same to America too, at the same cost.
Muslims simply are not like us. It’s the polygamy and tribalism which are mutually re-inforcing. They are indeed human, but little else in common remains. I’m sure the thin educated elite and young women hate Ahmadinejad. But most everyone else loves the guy and would probably die for him. He is after all the prototype for Obama.
Jun 13, 2009 - 1:39 am 13. Highlander:Re: Whiskey @ 12
It is readily apparent that “the most appalling superstitions and bigotries” are not limited to the rural poor of the Middle East that you speak of, sir.
Appalling superstitions and bigotries of any kind, from any quarter, only serve to get a lot of innocent people killed, and leave the survivors devastated and destitute. This is not a future worth standing for, so I will stand against it.
Know your enemy, yes…but also know your friends who may be among those you would so blithely consign to the collective destruction that is implicit in your line of agrument.
Salaam aleikum, y’all…. (with apologies to Marzouk!)
Jun 13, 2009 - 2:01 am 14. Salt Lick:After decades of listening to the Left I have yet to hear them say the word “freedom” with sincerity. It has always been spelled P-O-W-E-R.
That right there is one of those statements that shines a brighter light on something that’s been right in front of me.
In almost 20 years of working in academia, I heard few people speak of bringing “freedom” to anyone, at least in the traditional Enlightenment sense. Instead, they focused on controlling “The Narrative,” in order to advance particular political agendas. And to control, you need P-O-W-E-R. The kind that limits who speaks on campus. The kind that makes certain conversation “hate speech.” The kind that inserts “Support for Diversity” into job evaluations, even for staff.
Jun 13, 2009 - 2:13 am 15. Lifeofthemind:Women and anti-militarists are in charge everywhere leading to bad results, except in Iran where the women and anti-militarists are not in charge, leading to bad results. Right, sure.
Jun 13, 2009 - 4:25 am 16. buddy larsen:…but Achmadinijad is right –if there weren’t any Jews, he wouldn’t have to kill them. So it’s not HIS fault he preaches genocide, it’s THEIR fault.
Jun 13, 2009 - 5:31 am 17. Barry 0351:If you are an American citizen living in America but of Iranian ethnic background you are an American and have NO reason to vote in an Iranian election.
Jun 13, 2009 - 5:32 am 18. buckets:If you are an Iranian go home and vote for the Iranian version of “Hope and Change”.
Wretchard and Salt Lick,
Hayek put it best in The Road to Serfdom (paraphrasing):
While the hard-core collectivists understood that only through the brute exercise of power would most people ever acquiesce to their “planning,” they needed to convince moderates and classic liberals to get on board. So the concept of “economic freedom” was developed; without economic freedom and social justice, the political freedoms of the French and American revolutions were without value. Thus, socialists naively took up the “economic freedom” cry, relegating true political liberties to a background role.
Reading Hayek even 75 years later is still astonishing – we owe him a great deal.
Jun 13, 2009 - 6:23 am 19. buddy larsen:A case in point, buckets.
Yes, rather than allow an evolving reform government to cut off the tax-and-waste gravy train in an organic, humane manner, let’s get there firstest with the mostest; that is on government bulldozers, befittingly & literally, to change the game, again literally, from the ground up (ground up?), and nationalize every neighborhood any local crony realtor-cum-pol might want to add to um, where’s the term, oh, say, “the people’s inventory”?
–like Fannie, Freddie, AIG, GM, Chrysler, and Citibank/Merril Lynch (all, for some mysterious reason, losers of nearly 100% of their market value) ?
Jun 13, 2009 - 7:02 am 20. Doug:Barry,
Jun 13, 2009 - 7:05 am 21. buddy larsen:The Iranian community in LA has a more informed and enlightened perspective than most folks living in Iran.
I’m glad they’re here, and glad they can vote.
Re buckets’ ref, something for the kiddies –and, better hurry.
Jun 13, 2009 - 7:22 am 22. hdgreene:Obviously, the regime chose to retain President Ahmadinejad of the Islamic Republic of Iran, as President Obama would refer to him. Why? A few conjectures. I will try to sound like I know what I am talking about.
I had recommended a “fake engagement” with the US to the Persians, combined with “flattery” of Obama while dissing the US. I think if they took that path the other guy would have won (his name is unimportant). Obviously, they had kept that option open but in the end ignored my advice (probably the Cairo Speech sealed it — The One would have claimed a victory).
Also, the Hostage Crisis when Carter was president helped the Mullahs take over from their “secular left” allies (or dupes, if you prefer). But as a result of the Iraq war, they may not have consolidated power to their satisfaction. They never quite had their “cultural revolution.” I wonder if this might be the starting gun for such an effort. Look for purges. A cultural revolution might even conjure “The Mahdi,” in their belief. Could not Obama’s election (at least as inexplicable in electoral terms as Ahmadinejad’s), combined with the President’s behavior in office, be taken as a favorable sign?
Lately I have heard the Obama Media speaking of an economic “recovery” even though unemployment is still on the way up (talk about “a jobless recovery”). Obviously, they need a new way of measuring unemployment. However, if the economy re-tanks — which I think is a definite possibility — then the Left Democrats will need a foreign demon, one that is not Israel. The Persians just drew the short straw. If both sides need conflict, and are too weak at home to either back down or go to the mat, times could get interesting in a “fate of the world hanging by a string” sort of way.
Cheers.
Jun 13, 2009 - 8:04 am 23. Highlander:Re: Doug @ 20
I must agree. I have a friend from Iran who is attending college here in the United States. I usually try to avoid overtly discussing religion or politics with her and, instead, try to understand her perspective and her mindset and through her, the that of her home country. She comes from a family of professionals, and is working towards becoming either a research scientist or a physician, both deeply admirable goals. But occasionally, the conversation has turned towards politics.
While we may have very different views and opinions regarding, say, American foreign policy, she has an appreciation for who we are as Americans, and values the things that this nation has stood for since its founding. And she talks to people at home about it. Take that, and multiply that effect by the many thousands of Persian students, businessmen, and emigres living in our country. They are able to see past the lies of their state-run media and send that message back home. And it is having an effect. And if each of them is able to influence the process further by casting a ballot, so much the better!
Rhetoric aside, if one observes the actions of the Iranian regime over the years, a pattern of careful analysis, precisely calculated action, and savvy pragmatism on the part of the Iranian leadership takes form.
Far from all being deranged “Death-Cult” worshippers, the “Traditionalists” (Ayatollah Khameni, etc.) that actually run things in the country are very shrewd, intelligent players and we in the West need to recognize that fact and take it seriously, or bad things will follow. “Modernists” representing a fusion of educated technocrats with eschatology have been ascendant, but the people are becoming very uneasy about the direction they are taking the country in. Up until now this faction has served the Imams’ interests by acting as an ugly little “hand puppet” every time they want to divert the world’s attention from something else that they are executing. However, as powerful and repressive as the Imams are, they realize that the same conditions that swept them into power during the 1979 Revolution can just as easily sweep them out. This concern has led to elections as we are seeing now. The challenge for them is to give the people a semblance of freedom while regultating the process to prevent any real influence on the levers of power. This, as always, becomes an increasingly challenging excercise that demands more and more attention.
I think that the Imams in Tehran must be very nervous right now, and I wonder if they are beginning to think that they may have miscalculated, and that Mr. Ahmadinejad may have outlived his usefulness. Or if not, what else is coming while our attetnion is focused on the “Mad Puppet”? Anyway, just some musings….
Bottom line: Democracy on the part of educated world who have seen something of real life outside of the borders of their country is always a beautiful thing. Giving the Persians in America or anyone else living here the opportunity to cast their vote to try to change things at home is a good thing. That is what America stands for. I just hope that, in the end, their voices are heard and justly acted upon. Beats the hell out of having to fight them someday….
Jun 13, 2009 - 9:42 am 24. buddy larsen:Just for grins, i typed into google, [ is obama the mahdi? ] –and got 568,000 hits.
Jun 13, 2009 - 9:56 am 25. Highlander:We expect a full analysis of all 568,000 hits and a finished report in the morning….
Jun 13, 2009 - 10:05 am 26. Fat Man:Not an unclenched fist, an upraised middle finger.
Jun 13, 2009 - 11:10 am 27. RWE:While there is a strong current of discord in Iran, and a large segment of populace yearns to breath free – or at least be able to view Baywatch in safety – I also think there is is a significant segment of fanatics, young ones, as well as the imams, whether motivated by religious fevor or nationalism.
For freedom to bloom in Iran the blood will have to flow, and in large quantities.
Now would be the time. If we had elected at least a “W” if not an “RR”, coming on the heels of our victory in Iraq and a new appreciation of the dangers from North Korea, a decapitation strike would ensure a revolution in Iran.
But no, we have a man who looks at that extended middle finger from Iran and says “Hey! Look! They think I am No.1, too!”
Elections have consequences. Sometimes. And because of the one we had in Nov 2008, the one they just had in Iran won’t.
Jun 13, 2009 - 1:34 pm 28. Cadmus:The opposition to the Mullahs has been steadily growing. The Mullahs are particularly nervous that the young are mostly opposed to them. That is a ticking bomb they cannot stop. The young will always become the majority as the old die out. The Mullahs have gradually ceded ground as they try to placate the opposition and retain power. They hope that allowing people some freedoms will at least delay their move against the Government.
But, it is only a matter of time, before the Mullahs loose power and Iran transforms into a more modern society. Contrary to what many believe, Iranian/Persian culture is not that backwards and ignorant. They are not all illiterate farmers. Not today.
The election results were no doubt rigged. But, the fact that it took rigging, intimidation, threats, etc, to reduce the opposition vote to only 37% means the opposition probably would have won.
The opposition has already taken to the streets claiming they won and engaging the Government forces in street fights. The Government’s cutting of all communications and shutting down media and internet channels is a clear indication of how serious their challenge is.
Change in Iran will turn the whole region on its head. It will change the whole game, not just the rules of the existing game. It will bring a whole new dynamic to regional politics.
The mere thought of open opposition to theocracy and autocracy really scares the pants off of the Arab rulers. The fever may spill over to heir fiefdoms.
The possibility of this happening has reflected on the actions of many in the region. The Saudis went from total opposition to Iran to holding summits with the Iranian leaders hoping to keep the status quo. The Syrians fell back into the Saudi lap, as a liberated Iran cannot be counted upon to provide the same support for Assad. And, Hizbullah started altering its behavior to insure it will not face the same fate from its own people. It re-established its relations with the Saudis as the best hedge against “People’s will”.
In Lebanon the Christians and free thinking Moslems make up the overwhelming majority. The only way to keep power is to seek the help of authoritarians outside and squash any opposition. The Saudis and Syrians are best positioned for this.
The Arabs do not have much clout in Iran, but they can indirectly affect the outcome. They can push the US to start calling the opposition “pro-Western” and sing of how great this change will be for Israel, and doom this revolution before it starts. It will shift the fight from one of freedoms and liberty to one of Western and Israeli interference in Iran.
It is critical that the world approach it from that perspective and support the rights of the Iranian people only. Future relations should be left until, well, the future.
Cadmus
Jun 13, 2009 - 1:34 pm 29. MarkJ:“Whoever ends up winning the election in Iran, the fact that there’s been a robust debate hopefully will help advance our ability to engage them in new ways,” Obama said in response to a reporter’s question at the White House today. “We think there’s a possibility of change.”
Gee, change a couple of words in Obama’s quote and one would think he was actually talking about…CONGRESS.
Question: What’s the difference between the Iranian parliament and the U.S. Congress?
Answer: In Iran, representatives actually read legislation and debate it before voting.
Jun 13, 2009 - 1:46 pm 30. Elroy Jetson:At least the Won hasn’t called for the end of protests. Sometimes in foreign policy it is better to shut up about events. I hope Obama takes that into consideration before making inane statements like, “The cycle of violence must end.”
Jun 13, 2009 - 2:02 pm 31. Tcobb:The real question is whether, if the election had been fair, and if Ahmadinejad had lost, would the reins of power been turned over to the victor? I tend to doubt it. The Iranian elections are a sop to those who value the outward form over the inner reality, much like the people of the cargo cults. If you paint a box to look like a refrigerator, then it should be cold inside when you open it. But it doesn’t work that way in the real world. Its what’s inside that counts.
The idea that elections are going to change the nature of the Iranian political structure is, in my opinion, absurd. It is only George Orwell’s description of the man with his boot in your face, the only difference being that the man with the boot shouts that it is made of chocolate while he insists that his victim licks it.
Jun 13, 2009 - 3:56 pm 32. geoffgo:Cadmus,
Well, how useful will your approach prove to be, if Israel is forced to bomb Iran’s
Jun 13, 2009 - 5:45 pm 33. Cadmus:nuclear facilities (and perhaps their political leadership) in the meantime; because the US is too self-absorbed to do it?
Geoffgo:
All I am saying is the popular support for reformists stems from what that change can do to the people, and not what it can do for others. None will be risking their lives today in Iran for the benefit of another country.
As such, supportive language will do best to focus on that issue and not confuse the issue with talk of how this serves other countries interests, even though everyone knows it will.
War between Iran and Israel is a whole different subject.
If war comes from an Israeli initiated strike, it will save the Mullah from the reformists as they rally under the mantra of self-defense. Who can sincerely talk of Government reforms in the midst of war? The Mullahs will proclaim any such arguments as treasonous diversions serving the enemy. Conflicts always bring fanatics and radicals to the front and silence moderates.
Also, if Israel decides to bomb Iran, they had better be absolutely sure they know where every missile, chemical and biological weapon is and have the ability to take them all out within minutes. If they fail to do take them all out, the surviving munitions will be coming their way very quickly, with devastating results.
Most of the world will hold Israel responsible if it initiates a strike unprovoked and treat Iran as the victim. I doubt that even the Obama administration can vindicate such an act. And, even if it does, the options for the US are very limited. Any military action will have to be taken from Islamic land that will be boiling with anger.
Any animosity these guys have against Iran will vanish instantly when war with Israel comes. They curse Hizbullah five times a day, but when Israel struck in 2006, Hizbullah became an Islamic icon revered by all.
The US will end up having to go to war with the entire Moslem world including Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, shutting down the Persian Gulf and more than half the world’s supply of oil.
The rest of the world will hold us responsible and hoard their oil for themselves. What little gas you will be able to find will sell for $20 a gallon or more.
I know many want blood to flow knee deep. But, whose blood? It would include blood in America’s streets as people fight over Gas and other necessities. Our economy is in bad enough shape, cutting off the oil supply will send the country into absolute turmoil.
It is much less costly to let the Iranians change their own Government and give hem tacit quite support. It may not be as much of a boost for the macho ego, but it will be the best thing we can do for ourselves.
If the US must flex its muscle, it should do that in North Korea. The economic effect will be negligible, even if it disrupts South Korea temporarily. It will send a message to Iran that nuclear weapons do not protect it or save it from retribution. That will give a much needed boost to reformists who want to change the way Iran deals with the world.
Cadmus
Jun 13, 2009 - 8:46 pm 34. Mad Fiddler:Golly, Cadmus, you shouldn’t sugar-coat your predictions. Just tell it stark and plain.
Jun 13, 2009 - 9:44 pm 35. Cadmus:Mad Fiddler:
Simply put. We have two choices here.
1 – Help the Iranian people overturn the Government on their own and look good as the supporters of people’s rights. We all get what we want without going to war with Iran.
2 – Israel charges in and we risk a massive regional conflagration with potentially dire consequences for everyone. Worse yet, it will kill the chances for reform if there are any.
I vote for the first option. If that fails we can always consider other options. We do not need to wait long.
Which would you prefer?
Cadmus
Jun 13, 2009 - 10:25 pm 36. blogstrop:Cadmus: if the Iranians are going to do Option 1, they better hurry up, and burning a few vehicles is not going to do it. So far they do not appear to have what it takes. Israel would hardly be “charging in”, given the extended period that Iran has been allowed to continue belligerent talk and widespread disruptive actions across several nations, plus nuclear developments.
Jun 14, 2009 - 12:45 am 37. geoffgo:Buddy Larsen@20,
You said: We’re in the midst of a major coup, and the message making it work is that the Democrats are done with the two-party system, are done because they can be, because they’ve proved they can and will make the nation ungovernable otherwise.
I ask: Doesn’t this mean the end of the two-party system either way? I mean that what they’re doing is clearly criminal, and if we are fortunate enough to overthrow this regime against their adament and vociferous objections, then how can we ever allow them to be re-elected? The ones we don’t hang that is.
Jun 14, 2009 - 3:29 am 38. Barry 0351:DOUG,
Jun 14, 2009 - 5:48 am 39. joe buzz:Fat lot of good it did for the enlightened and progressive Iranians here in America to vote wasn’t it?
Anyone who watched this crap unfold could have told you who was going to win the Iranian elections, you could bet money on amadidinejad and won.
Why?
Because a leopard doesn’t change it’s spots and we are still talking about Iran.
what next, Mexican’s voting in Mexico in American elections?
“Liberty” is another word we do not hear much from the mouth of liberals.
Jun 14, 2009 - 7:06 am 40. The Count:I attended a little ceremony at a small rural church Friday night. The coordinator asked that we all stand to recite the Pledge of Allegiance. As we stood and recited, I felt as though we were participating in something strangely neo-revolutionary as opposed to respectfully dutiful in the not so distant past.
Strange feeling.
#3 Wretchard- You often save the best stuff for comments!
Jun 14, 2009 - 9:12 am 41. Unsk:Cadmus- the problem with your options is the Buraq will never help overthrow the mullahs in Iran, nor will he take on the norks.
Thus, realistically in the near term if we follow your view, we are left with nukes sprouting everywhere from the hands of Dinnerjacket and the Norks, unless Israel takes out Iran’s nukes. As good as it would be to free Iran, as long as Buraq and the Dems are in power, it is not going to happen. And the threat to the free world of Iranian nukes takes precedence over waiting out Buraq to free Iran.
Buraq’s principle goal is cramming Marxism, with more than a touch of Islam, down the throats of the American people. Defending America and the free world from the likes of Iran and North Korea is nowhere on his agenda.
People can come up with all sorts of great scenarios where America would not only defend it’s interests, but could make the world a better place. But America under Buraq is not that country that fights for freedom anymore.
Jun 14, 2009 - 12:39 pm 42. Cadmus:Unsk:
You may be right. This whole thing in Iran could fizzle out without any support from anyone. But, that would become apparent in a few days. If the opposition has any legs, they will show. If they do, then support should have an effect in a relatively short time.
If the opposition does not have any legs, that will also become apparent in a few days. We are not talking about waiting years for this to happen. If they fail now, and the Mullahs crack down on them, it will be a very long time before they rise again. In which case you will be right in your assessment of the nukes, etc.
Then again, why does it all have to come down to Obama? Maybe someone else will help the opposition. There are many countries with the ability and the interest to see Iran change.
Many of the countries we accuse of helping or appeasing Iran may step in. Remember they work with the Iranians out of their own national interests, and not because they like the Mullahs. If they help change the Government, they will have a better partner to deal with. Russia, France, other Europeans and even China come to mind.
This may not be a great thing for the US, since they would show us off and take credit for doing what we could not. But, it would still rid us of the radical mullahs, which is a good thing in its own rite.
I never expected Obama to go after North Korea. I just said if we must flex our muscles, it would be better place to do it. Obama does not have muscles to flex.
Hey, the Saudis being so ardent to make the Iranians “feel the heat” and spending $715 million in last week’s Lebanese elections can help. That amount will buy a whole lot of weapons needed in this conflict. Nah! There are no Sunnis to support. Nix the thought.
Obama must be pissed. That is a lot more than they funneled to him, and per capita comes down to over 100 times more. Eat his heart out Obama!
I guess he will not be kissing the Saudi king’s hand again! Well, we can always hope.
Cadmus
Jun 14, 2009 - 1:28 pm 43. buddy larsen:geoffgo/37; David Horowitz (on the Glenn Beck show recently) was asked a similar question, and he sort of laughed, saying something along the lines of the problem being the players in the game rather than the game itself. I took that to mean that the new rule-set being the ruin of the game, they can’t possibly be part of the game, and thus amount to a whole different game. IOW, restoration is sufficient, revolution not needed; the old system can easily be made right if we can get the right repairmen in position to fend off the invading wolfpack.
Jun 14, 2009 - 3:18 pm 44. Typos_R_us:It isn’t possible for the Mobs to throw the Mad Dog Mullahs out. If one side has guns and the will to use them and the other side doesn’t, the side with guns will win. Various European nations have proven that fact many times over the centuries.
Jun 16, 2009 - 4:56 am 45. The Anchoress — A First Things Blog:Wasn’t it Cortez that defeated over a million Aztecs with less then 200 men, 3 horses and a dog? And the Aztecs had a god on their side, just as the Japs did in WW2.
Remember, after the Hostages went back home, Ahamadamnutjob went to work in the local prison as a torturer. So he doesn’t mind getting his hands wet. He will order killed as many as he needs to have killed to secure his power.
He is another Saddam, only with Nuclear weapons. I wonder if the Mad Dog Mullahs know what sort of adder they are clasping to their breast?
It will be interesting to see if his bully boys stop killing when they run out of protesters. Historically, once the revolution gets a taste for blood, it doesn’t stop. Just the groups change.
[...] Ticked off Vanderleun: writing here, here, and here. Brutally Honest: also ticked Belmont Club: “people so practiced in sophistry” Nile Gardiner: Wondering about Neville Chamberlain? Insty: links to pics NRO Snark: Obama Wins the [...]
Jun 16, 2009 - 8:41 pmSorry, comments for this entry are closed at this time.