• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Has the President said and done enough with regards to the Iranian protesters?

Has the President said and done enough?

  • Total voters
    19
C

celticlord

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 10, 2009
Messages
6,344
Reaction score
3,794
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Last edited:
While you type in poll options(I assume that is what you are doing), let me say that I think I would have liked to see him be a bit more vocal in condemning false elections, but I don't think he wants to say too much. It's a no-win situation for us, and I suspect no matter what happens, Iran will end up with a government hostile to us and Israel.

I wonder if covert aide might not bad a good thing to do, but of course, we might very well be doing that...not like we would know.

edit: see what I get for assuming....

With just a yes or no option, I would go with yes, as that is closer to my views than no.
 
Last edited:
Definitely yes.
 
Seeing how both sides in the dispute have people in the streets chanting "Allah Akbar", saying nothing & taking no action may be the best route.
 
Redress said:
While you type in poll options(I assume that is what you are doing), let me say that I think I would have liked to see him be a bit more vocal in condemning false elections, but I don't think he wants to say too much. It's a no-win situation for us, and I suspect no matter what happens, Iran will end up with a government hostile to us and Israel.
Click to expand...
I don't believe the situation is a "no win" situation.

What matters most of all is that the Iranian people have a fair and honest election, free from taint. If the United States stands for nothing else, it should stand for the primacy of the electoral process.

Talking up a clear, forceful, unequivocal stand would have a beneficial effect on events in Iran.

Externally, it would move other nations to line up either in favor of essentially a stolen election and a corrupt regime or in favor of a protest movement that at the surface asks for nothing more than a free and fair election. With democratic traditions deeply ingrained in most of the world's leading nations, such a stance would give a common international cause around which international opinion can coalesce without explicitly endorsing either Ahamenijad or Mousavi.

Internally, such a stance would let the protesters know that their cries have merit, and that their cause is seen favorably by the world. Such a stance would put pressure on Khamenei to have an accurate and honest ballot count or a new election.Khamenei cannot ignore the wider world, because Iran has ambitions in the wider world. It is within the power of the international community to grant or withhold that which Khamenei and Ahamenijad desire above all: validation as a main power-broker in the Middle East; they seek a wider sphere of influence, and the goodwill of nations is necessary for them to get it.

Direct support and intervention would be a mistake, because Iranians must be able to choose Iran's destiny; we should not choose it for them.

By giving moral support to the protesters now, with preparation to recognize and aid them later, we have a chance to turn an enemy, if not into a friend, at least into a neutral party.

There is not a lot we can do. There is much more that we can say; there is much more we should say.
 
celticlord said:
(Crap, browser cratered and wouldn't let me add the poll....Mods, can you help a fella out and put a "Yes"/"No" poll here?)
Click to expand...

If you, as the author, click "Thread Tools" and then "Add a poll"....
 
Yes, for now. If the situation changes, and the Iranians start mass slaughter, then this should be re-evaluated.
 
The Iranians do appreciate the world's moral support, but they would heavily condemn and resist any direct outside meddling in their internal affairs.

Obama is playing this close to the vest and I think, correctly. Say what you need to say, but initiate no clumsy half-assed initiatives that can be politically exploited by the hardliners. Down the road, the US will have to interact with an Iranian government. Exactly what government that may be is an unknown quantity atm. This is yet another political handicap that must be considered in framing a cogent yet elastic response to events.
 
a little more international support would definitely help.
 
Last edited:
I think he's said enough. The last thing the US needs is a similar diplomatic nightmare as the UK and Iran and embroiled in right now. And you know that if the US president's statements become any more forceful that's exactly what's going to happen. It will serve the interests of no one. Not the US and most certainly not the people of Iran.

Iran and Britain in diplomatic stand-off as protest death toll rises - Times Online

Britain and Iran moved towards a full-blown diplomatic crisis today as David Miliband rejected claims that the Government was stirring protests against the disputed re-election of president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Within hours of confirmation that the BBC correspondent Jon Leyn had been ordered to leave Tehran, Iran’s foreign minister rebuked Britain for raising questions about voting irregularities.

As the death toll from clashes between demonstrators and security forces continued to rise, Manouchehr Mottaki told diplomats: “Great Britain has plotted against the presidential election for more than two years. We witnessed an influx of people before the election. Elements linked to the British secret service were flying in in droves.”

His comments come after Iran’s supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei accused “the evil British government” on Friday of interfering last weekend's election.

But Mr Miliband suggested that Mr Mottaki was seeking to distract attention from the country’s internal difficulties.
Click to expand...
 
Arcana XV said:
Is there not a very real possibility that the US getting more involved in this could backfire in a major way?
Click to expand...

Iran cannot threaten international community now, since in any war people would not support the government and government cannot afford to go to war. Iran is now full scale oppressing inside voices, and I can't imagine how this can be worst. the fact is if regime could survive this situation, we will face a dirty totalitarian regime which is going after atomic bomb as fast as they can (and IMO that's why ahmadinejad needed to remain in power by coup) and Iran would be hell for her people and a big threat to the world. it is very important that people win this time, otherwise, I believe it's gonna be a nightmare upon us.
 
youknowwho said:
a little more international support would definitely help.
Click to expand...
As Arcana XV correctly pointed out, there is a fine line between productive support and counterproductive support. The regime is looking for any flimsy excuse to paint the protests as a subversive plot initiated by the wicked West to humiliate Iran and her people.
 
youknowwho said:
Iran cannot threaten international community now, since in any war people would not support the government and government cannot afford to go to war. Iran is now full scale oppressing inside voices, and I can't imagine how this can be worst. the fact is if regime could survive this situation, we will face a dirty totalitarian regime which is going after atomic bomb as fast as they can (and IMO that's why ahmadinejad needed to remain in power by coup) and Iran would be hell for her people and a big threat to the world. it is very important that people win this time, otherwise, I believe it's gonna be a nightmare upon us.
Click to expand...

Actually my concern is more for the Iranian people. I fear that if the US' role becomes more prominent the people of Iran will be the first ones to suffer the consequences. I fear the crackdown would get much worse.
 
Another tangential item needs to be considered in the mix.

As the Iraq Gulf War was approaching its epilogue, Bush the Elder encouraged the people of Iraq to rise up and topple Saddam. They took his words to heart. The Ba'ath regime then methodically slaughtered untold thousands of Iraqi civilians as US forces looked on, forbidden to intervene.

The people of the Middle East have not forgotten this episode.

The upshot is that Obama cannot raise his rhetoric to Bushian levels without risking potentially catastrophic political and material blowback in this region.
 
Arrests of Rafsanjani kin show Iran clerics split - Yahoo! News

Iran's government said Sunday it arrested the daughter and four other relatives of former President Hashemi Rafsanjani, one of the country's most powerful men, in a move that exposed a rift among the ruling Islamic clerics over the disputed presidential election.
Click to expand...
This is why I believe the US should be speaking out more forcefully.

What these protests signify is not a straightforward rejection of Ahamenijad, Khamenei, or even the Islamic Republic. Mousavi and the elections are the current flashpoint, but I don't see the cohesion of the protest movement being anything close to what toppled the Shah 30 years ago.

While the protest movement has the potential to topple Khamenei, whether Mousavi would ascend to lead Iran is far from certain. Whether Rasfanjani would rise up instead is equally uncertain. Chaos is the most likely outcome of a Khamenei ouster. One aspect of the 1979 revolution that the Ayatollah Khomeini got absolutely correct is he swiftly brought order and structure to the new government. Neither Rasfanjani nor Mousavi strike me as well positioned to ensure a swift transition to a new government.

Even if Rasfanjani succeeds in ousting Khamenei, being as he is chairman of the Assembly of Experts, he does so at the expense of the core credentials of the Islamic Republic. The Islamic Republic is built upon Khomeini's re-interpretation of velayat-e faqih ("guardianship of the jurist"), which calls for ultimate authority to reside in a faqih (jurist/cleric) with a surpassing knowledge of Islamic law; presumablly such an individual would already be acknowledged as a Grand Ayatollah before being tapped to be the Supreme Leader.

Only problem with this is that Khamenei is not such a cleric, and was only elevated to the status of Ayatollah after succeeding Khomeini as the Supreme Leader. If Khamenei is outsed by the Assembly of Experts, the cynical manipulations of religious status that allowed him to succeed Khomeini back in 1989 are fully exposed; the Assembly of Experts cannot stand on the premise of Islamic law now to oust Khamenei without acknowledging the violations of Islamic law used to install Khamenei.

Rasfanjani's relatives are being arrested; it is highly unlikely that Khamenei and Rasfanjani are going to find common ground at this point. Too many lines have been drawn. One or the other must lose, but regardless of who loses, the Islamic Republic shows itself to have abandoned the principles the Republic is built.

No matter the outcome of these protests, theocracy's days in Iran are numbered. The Islamic Republic will fall....if not today than when next elections are due to be held. When it falls, it is definitely in the best interests of the United States that someone have an idea of what manner of government can take its place--and that is the issue to which the United States should be speaking.

Dear Leader needs to turn up the heat a notch.
 
celticlord said:
No matter the outcome of these protests, theocracy's days in Iran are numbered. The Islamic Republic will fall....if not today than when next elections are due to be held.
Click to expand...
If this is the inescapable reality, then it makes little sense to act rashly and put the proverbial cart before the horse. Patience in this is a much more intelligent and savvy approach than paroxysm.
 
From Pence's speech on the floor:

Today I'm introducing a resolution that will do just that. It will express its concern regarding the reported irregularities of the presidential election of 12 June, 2009. It will condemn the violence against demonstrators by pro-government militia in Tehran in the wake of the elections. It will affirm our belief in the universality of individual rights and the importance of democratic and fair elections. And lastly, and most importantly, it will express the support of the American people for all Iranian citizens who struggle for freedom, civil liberties and the protection of the rule of law.

Believe it or not in my small town of Columbus, IN, I grew up next door to a Hungarian immigrant who fled Hungary in the wake of the Soviet repression of the Hungarian revolution in 1956. I sat often with Julius Perr, now passed away, and heard of the way the Hungarian people, inspired by our calls for freedom, stood up for their own freedom. And as Brett Stephens recounts in today's Wall Street Journal we stood by idly. We didn't want to interfere. And the Soviet tanks rolled.

We cannot stand idly by, speak of Iran's sovereignty, speak of her own right to choose her own leadership at a time when hundreds of thousands of Iranians are risking their lives to stand up for free elections and democracy.

Ronald Reagan said, ‘No arsenal, or no weapon in the arsenals of the world, is so formidable as the will and moral courage of free men and women.’ All of us desire a fresh start with Iran and it seems from news reports and the extraordinary images coming from the streets of Iran that millions of Iranians long for a new start in their government. There is a reformist movement afoot in Iran.

Today I’ll introduce a resolution. I urge all my colleagues in both parties to join me in expressing their support for these brave and courageous men and women.

GOP gets behind Iran protesters - Ben Smith - POLITICO.com
Click to expand...

McCain: U.S. Must Be On "Right Side Of History" In Iran

McCain quoted Daniel Webster, who argued that rhetorical support could help those involved in the Greek Revolution of 1823. "I hope it may, it may give them courage and spirit," Webster said according to McCain, "teach them that they are not wholly forgotten by the civilized world."

"The fact is, America has been and will be the beacon of hope and freedom," McCain said. "We are on their side as they seek freedom," he said of the protestors. He also spoke proudly of how American technologies such as Facebook and Twitter have been influential in allowing protestors to communicate.

McCain: U.S. Must Be On "Right Side Of History" In Iran - Political Hotsheet - CBS News
Click to expand...

Statement from the President on Iran:

The Iranian government must understand that the world is watching. We mourn each and every innocent life that is lost. We call on the Iranian government to stop all violent and unjust actions against its own people. The universal rights to assembly and free speech must be respected, and the United States stands with all who seek to exercise those rights.

As I said in Cairo, suppressing ideas never succeeds in making them go away. The Iranian people will ultimately judge the actions of their own government. If the Iranian government seeks the respect of the international community, it must respect the dignity of its own people and govern through consent, not coercion.

Martin Luther King once said - “The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.” I believe that. The international community believes that. And right now, we are bearing witness to the Iranian peoples’ belief in that truth, and we will continue to bear witness.

The Weekly Standard
Click to expand...

I would like to see a stronger call against the theocratic closed circle of power and an explanation of why the elections were illegitimate regardless of the winner, but thems the breaks.
 
Last edited:
Tashah said:
If this is the inescapable reality, then it makes little sense to act rashly and put the proverbial cart before the horse. Patience in this is a much more intelligent and savvy approach than paroxysm.
Click to expand...
Agreed, but being as Iran is situated between Iraq and Afghanistan, is one side of the Straits of Hormuz, with advanced and advancing nuclear technology, it is in no one's best interests to allow the theocracy to just collapse into complete chaos.

Direct intervention is not a viable option, that much is certain. Smuggling arms to the protesters is and should remain off the table.

However, the diplomatic forms of pressure (championing the rights to free speech, free assembly and free and fair elections, pushing for international media to have access to report on the protests) can help shape the protest movement so that when the theocracy does fall, something besides chaos can take its place. By articulating the same values the protesters have--about elections particularly--when the theocracy does fall, the US has an opportunity to be positioned to re-establish relations with Iran for the first time in 30 years.

Not taking a firm stand on the principles now wastes that opportunity. Allowing events to shape the rhetoric coming from the Oval Office wastes this vanishing opportunity to influence even slightly the direction of the protest movement.

It is not meddling to champion free elections, it is not making the protesters a tool of the US to champion the rights of free speech and free assembly. The support from the White House for these core democratic ideals--these core American ideals--has been muddled and anemic at best; it needs to be robust, clear, and forthright.

Small pressures applied today can yield significant benefits tomorrow.
 
Tashah said:
The Iranians do appreciate the world's moral support, but they would heavily condemn and resist any direct outside meddling in their internal affairs.
Click to expand...

There are numerous Iranian organizations which (if not arms) would welcome U.S. vocal support (Marze Por Gohar) and of course there are Iranian organizations who would welcome logistical, financial, and armament support (Mujahadeen-e-Khalq). And quite frankly I could get behind the MEK sooner than I would ever get behind Mousavi who as PM was partially responsible for the democide of 30 thousand political dissidents buried in the mass grave of Khavaran. Iran has the most pro-U.S. populace in the Middle East outside of Israel. The "death to America" rallies are staged by the state.
 
celticlord said:
Not taking a firm stand on the principles now wastes that opportunity. Allowing events to shape the rhetoric coming from the Oval Office wastes this vanishing opportunity to influence even slightly the direction of the protest movement.

It is not meddling to champion free elections, it is not making the protesters a tool of the US to champion the rights of free speech and free assembly. The support from the White House for these core democratic ideals--these core American ideals--has been muddled and anemic at best; it needs to be robust, clear, and forthright.
Click to expand...
Muddled and anemic?

Obama to Iran’s leaders: Stop ‘unjust’ actions
Sat., June 20, 2009

WASHINGTON - President Barack Obama on Saturday challenged Iran's government to halt a "violent and unjust" crackdown on dissenters, using his bluntest language yet to condemn Tehran's post-election response.

"We call on the Iranian government to stop all violent and unjust actions against its own people," Obama said in a written statement. "The universal rights to assembly and free speech must be respected, and the United States stands with all who seek to exercise those rights."

"Suppressing ideas never succeeds in making them go away," the president said, recalling a theme from the speech he gave in Cairo, Egypt, this month. "The Iranian people will ultimately judge the actions of their own government," Obama said. "If the Iranian government seeks the respect of the international community, it must respect the dignity of its own people and govern through consent, not coercion."

Obama cited Martin Luther King's statement that "the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice." "I believe that," the president said. "The international community believes that. And right now, we are bearing witness to the Iranian people's belief in that truth, and we will continue to bear witness."
Click to expand...
Source: MSNBC.com

Unless my language skills are suddenly falling by the wayside, Obama's words above are excellent exemplars of robust, clear, and forthright sentiment.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom