Yes, we can-except in Iran

Now that it seems the Iranian “revolution” has been put down by force and it doesn’t appear, to me, to have any chance of resurrection in the near future, I would be curious to hear how Obama supporters and opponents feel the President did in the crisis.  Was he measured and Presidential?  Was he a coward?  Was he the ideal mixture of reason and calm calculation? 

To set the boundaries of the questions, here are the facts as I know them and the possible outcomes. 

The major issue was if the Islamic theocracy was going to fall or not.  There was precious little difference between the politics of Mir Hossein Mousavi and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad; the real power was going to lie with the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, regardless of who won the election--assuming the people thought it was a fair result.  The significant issue the election brought up, and sent the people into the streets, was the fact that clearly Ahmadinejad was selected by Khamenei, not elected by the people.  Thus the people were actually protesting the Islamic Republic, not the election results.  It was a huge difference that I believe Obama missed when he publicly stated there was no difference between the two candidates and thus signaling it was not worthy of US comment.  That was a terrible mistake in my opinion. 

Had the President offered even moral support to the protestors, there could have been several outcomes.  His stated fear that Ahmadinejad would have blamed the US was ridiculous on the surface as he was going to (and did) do that regardless.  Thus Obama chose to be impotent in the face of potential monumental change.  As clearly he was not going to offer military assistance of any form, probably the most aggressive thing he could have done is jawbone or try to funnel some money and communications gear to the protesters via the CIA; pretty tame stuff, but it could have sent a clear signal that the US was interested in the future of millions of Muslims. 

Of course, if Obama had encouraged them, it could have turned out like Iraq after Bush the Elder tried to incite the people to rise up against Hussein; Hussein killed a bunch of people in the bloodbath that followed.  Analogously in Hungary after the US encouraged revolution against the Soviets, a lot of blood was shed.  That was clearly a possible result.  Of course, a blood bath may be in the works still, we will have to wait and see.  Pure speculation, but had Khamenei thought Obama was tougher and might have used military force to help the protesters, he may have yielded a bit.

The success of the regime staying in power was not a guaranteed result though.  Had Obama pressed the basic concept of American democracy that people should be able to live free and choose their own government, perhaps the result would have been different.  Had the only result been Mousavi’s election as opposed to Ahmadinejad, it would scarcely have been worth the effort.  But, had the Islamic Republic fallen, it is possible, not likely, but possible, that many of our (and the world’s) problems in the Middle East would have been ameliorated or even eliminated.  For example, perhaps the new regime would have stopped funding Hamas; perhaps they would have gone to peaceful nuke development rather than the weapons manufacturing business; perhaps women could have ascended to their rightful place in society; etc.  Perhaps none of the changes would have occurred and it is possible there would still have been a violent bloodbath and a Taliban type regime could have arisen.  It is all second guessing now.

The arguments in the MSM now seem to settle on party lines.  The Republicans say Obama was a chicken not to express America’s support for freedom loving people and the Democrats say he was rational and didn’t get us involved in the Middle East and Muslim affairs even more deeply.  I’d like to think thoughtful people may have some ideas on what he should have done differently, if anything, and what the possible outcomes might have been.

I do not believe there has been a long term reduction in the Supreme Leader’s power.  As long as he has the guns and the military, the people don’t stand a chance.  While obviously not exactly the same situation, this proves the value of the 2nd Amendment; people need guns to protect themselves from the bad guys as well as an overreaching government. 

Comments

[T. Moe Iztuztuped]

Obama should have stridently encouraged the Iranians to rise up, and if he had any guts that's what he would have done. You know, like George Bush and the Kurds. That worked out well, didn't it? Yeah, all right, they got gassed and shot and burned out of their homes. But at least a president got to spout a bunch of tough-sounding crap in public. After all, that's what America's all about, right?

Look at me, trying to argue, via sarcasm, against bloviating speechifying in response to a Timo Kokko speech. Talk about spitting into the wind.

[Timo Kokko]

Dave,
Still waiting for a thoughtful comment on what he should have done.

I did notice Obama had another measured moment when he said "I am deeply concerned" when asked about the Honduras coup.

[Timo Kokko]

Just heard the Obama Administration is really putting it to the Iranian diplomats. They were "disinvited" to the 4th of July hot dog celebrations around the world. Wow, that showed them.

[EmersonsZen]

The Messiah is fast becoming the poster president for weakness. Although, if Iran's protesters were fighting for global warming, then Obama would have strapped on a flack jacket himself and stormed the streets of Tehran. Pelosi and Reid on point, of course.

The hot dog disinvite was a visciously strong statement--Patton would have been proud. I've heard through the grapevine that Westpoint is considering teaching the "Hot Dog Disinvite Action" as cutting egde military strategy.

Cadets will be stationed at primary observation points near and around the grill, and if any Iranians attempt to gain access to said dogs, former Secretary of State Madeline Notsobright will issue a stern warning. If that doesn't work, basketballs signed by Michael Jordan will be distributed to the hot dog craving Iranians. If that still fails, all blame will be placed on GW Bush.

I was told again and again by the Dems and the MSM that once St. Obama took the throne, all would be right with the world. We'd all have a Coke and smile and all the evil in the world (that GWB was the cause of) would lay down their arms and we would coelese into one big, happy, fat version of "Kumbaya."

Still waitin'. Still waitin'...

[Jerry Scarborough]

Before anyone is supportive or critcal of Obama on Iran, they should look back to Hungary in 1957, and Czechoslovakia in 1968. It's easy for us to say what we'd do. It's a lot harder for the Leader of the Free World.

One of my problems with W's style of diplomacy was his tendencey to say in public that which should have been said in prvate. And, then apparently to say very little in private. Let's hope we do that a little better these days. But, I'll admit, the jury is still out.

[EmersonsZen]

"It's a lot harder for the Leader of the Free World."

...and even harder for the lead apologizer of the free world.