The Redhunter

There is absolutely no evidence that Obama supports the long time U.S. policy encouraging regime change in Iran. In his Cairo speech the only references to Iran were in regard to working with the current regime "without preconditions" and saying they had a right to develop nuclear power.

Nothing to support the democratic reform movement. Not a word.

And thus far, he's been totally silent on that point at the same moments thousands of Iranians are in the street demanding their rights. Not one word of support from Obama or any Administration official.

The White House did release a statement by the Press Secretary. This is the statement in it's entirety:

Like the rest of the world, we were impressed by the vigorous debate and enthusiasm that this election generated, particularly among young Iranians. We continue to monitor the entire situation closely, including reports of irregularities.

Is Obama so afraid of offending the Mad Mullahs that he couldn't even say he supports the efforts the aspirations of those who long for a free Iran?

Last week was the 22nd anniversary of the speech President Reagan gave in Berlin where he told Gorbachev: if you want peace "TEAR DOWN THIS WALL."

Obama can't even hint at a better, more peaceful world that would come into being if only we could get rid of the Mad Mullahs!

The very best thing about the Iran election demonstrations is that America is not involved in them. Ahmadinejad's trump card has always been his ability to whip up nationalist sentiment, usually directed against the USA. But in this story, the USA is nowhere to be seen. Ahmadinejad can't play the populist.

But once the US starts meddling (or being seen to meddle), all that changes. Patriotism and democracy can mix in confusing ways. Remember when the UK Guardian tried to influence the course of the 2004 US election by getting its readers to write to American swing state voters? The backlash was incredible. And did you know that even North Korean emigres living in Seoul - dissidents who fled from Kim Jong-Il's gulags - get teary-eyed and patriotic whenever the Dear Leader manages to pull off a missile test?

Turning a domestic issue into an international one could be counter-productive. The smart thing to do is to keep a low profile.

I understand your argument, Mylne, and it has merits. If the U.S. gets involved, the regime will use that as a rallying cry against the protesters. They'll use it as an excuse to crack heads.

But your argument assumes that either 1) the counterrevolution can succeed on its own, or 2) the counterrevolution cannot succeed even with the help of outside forces (i.e. the U.S.). If we could know with certainty that these were the only possible outcomes, then it is reasonable to argue that involvement would be a mistake.

But I don't believe they are the only possible outcomes. Based on what I see, I think that it's equally possible that the counterrevolutionaries can succeed in effecting changes in the government but only if they receive outside help.

Recall the crackdown on the trade union Solidarity and declaration of martial law in Poland in 1981. The West did not stand idly by and "monitor" the situation. Reagan, Thatcher, Kohl, and John Paul II did not simply proclaim themselves "troubled" by developments. No, they and most other people in the West took firm action.

If the West could act so decisively then, why the equivocation now? Is it the result of years of post-modern relativism? Is it simply that Iran is "over there," whereas Poland was next door? I'm not sure if it's these or something else.

Then there's the argument of the moral imperative. There's a selective moral indignation with regard to human rights abuses, and we all know it. Both left and right are guilty. Well, I try to be consistent and go after it everywhere. Tell me, if you oppose US "meddling" in this case, do you oppose it everywhere?

...which brings up the case of South Africa under apartheid. Are you prepared to say that it was a mistake for the United States and other countries to have "meddled" in the affairs of apartheid South Africa?

You make some strong points, Tom.

Yes, in a sense there could be a moral imperative to get involved. Liberal Interventionism and all that. But for every Poland or South Africa there is a Burma or a Tibet - where "meddling" has if anything only entrenched the existing regime, heightened its sense of paranoia. Which is to say that we should pick our battles. And I don't think wading into the Iranian election crisis would make sense right now, for the following reasons:

1. We're not even sure if the election was fixed or not. Polls conducted before the election predicted a substantial win for Ahmadinejad - which is what the government says happened. See here:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/14/AR2009061401757.html

What would the West base its right to intervention on? Is it not much more than that we don't like Ahmadinejad very much? We may find it implausible that he was elected by a popular vote. But he was elected before, so why not? Protests in the street don't necessarily mean that the election was rigged. In Thailand several democratically elected governments have been toppled by street protesters. The fact that the Iranian "street" is out protesting could simply reflect that poor, rural voters find it harder to organise demonstrations.

2. I suspect that the West doesn't have enough "soft power" in Iran to gain public support for regime change at the moment. The Poles hated the Russians enough to welcome the West on their side - in the case of Solidarity there wasn't the issue of nationalism that I touched upon before. But Americas's track record in installing democracy in the Middle East is spotty to say the least. Iranians saw what happened next door. I wonder if they hate Ahmadinejad enough to welcome the Great Satan onboard quite so quickly - or if they'd rather not just do it on their own.