It seems that the mullahs in Tehran are taking Obama’s Nowruz video seriously enough to issue statements about how irrelevant it is. If it were really irrelevant, you’d think they would ignore it. As it happens, though, it’s a perfect example of the kind of “smart power” foreign policy that Sec. Clinton spoke of at her confirmation hearing, and it will have a definite impact on the upcoming elections.
Well played, Mr. President. Still, he did screw up the region coding on those DVDs to the UK, so it’s all a wash, really.
{ 18 comments }
“If it were really irrelevant, you’d think they would ignore it.”
I do not find any rational basis for this statement. In fact, if it were truly irrelevant, I expect they would point out how ridiculous a ploy the “statement” actually proved. I do not know if it will have any impact on the elections, certainly do not see any immediate and serious harm in making the statement since we are already at odds with Iran; there is a distinct possiblity that the Arab world will see this as pandering — but since it is….
Actually, this statement really shows Obama to be not so different from Bush in that he assumes a common ground that may or may not have a basis in reality.
if you dont think a common ground exists between ordinary Iranians and American values, then you’re on teh far pessimistic side of the issue. i for one think that theres real potential for Iran to be a strong ally of the US someday.
So far, “smart power” has meant mistranslating “reset” and giving a tacky collection of DVDs that don’t even work. Maybe they should rename it “Special Olympics power.”
And what exactly are the mullahs supposed to be afraid of? Barack seems to be the one who’s afraid: afraid to criticize their human rights violations, afraid to confront their nuclear weapons program, afraid the Iranians won’t like him.
If the mullahs are worried the reformists will win the elections, they can just kick them off the ballot (presumably then Obama can ignore that, too, since he’s afraid to criticize them). It’s hard to imagine how any of this helps the U.S. or the Iranian people, but I guess we can get a nice warm fuzzy feeling from knowing the mullahs are prepared to negotiate if we let them build nukes and carry out terrorist attacks with no criticism or sanctions.
This is the same fuzzy-headed logic the left pitched for 50 years in the Cold War: hey, if we’re nice to the Soviets, maybe they’ll stop being an evil empire. Now the delusion is: hey, maybe if we’re nice to the Iranians, they’ll stop being a terrorist-sponsoring WMD-pursuing theocracy. It’s no less naive today than it was then.
I agree with Aziz, and am a little surprised by the negativity from Mike and Dave. He’s right; if it were truly irrelevant, the Supreme Leader of Iran, the Ayatollah Khamenei, would not have felt compelled to take to the airwaves (a thing he almost never does) just to rebut it.
And the message was, in fact, quite in keeping with the philosophy expressed by most hawks (including the likes of Ronald Reagan) during the Cold War. Every President from Harry Truman to George H.W. Bush said that we had no quarrel with the people of Russia, we only had a quarrel with their government, but we still sought constructive negotiations with that government (Reagan gave us the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces treaty, remember?).
I presume you guys also think that the Voice of America project is based on nothing but fuzzy-headed lefty logic?
It’s not clear to me what impact this will have on Iran’s elections, because Iran doesn’t have free or fair elections. Although I suppose it will give us some insight into the thinking of Khamenei and his cronies.
actually I think it was smart not to have raised human rights issues or be directly confrontational. The Iranians are as patriotic and nationalistic as we are and given the poor image of the US has abroad, any lecturing by us on democracy or freedom is seen as hypocritical. It is essential that Obama not perpetuate that appearance and instead approach them from a position of mutual respect rather than arrogant posturing.
I am sometimes surprised Dave at how vehement you are in your knee jerk critiques of Obama. Especially since we both share much of our perspectives towards freedom. It sseems that you are determined to find fault.
Dean, one point here to note, that Irans elections are not fully free and fair, but neither are they completely rigged. Theres a continuum there and Obama’s appeal to Iranians helps push it towards the correct side of the axis. No, not as clean as our democracy by any means, but still, probably better than it woudl have been. It is fully likely that a reform-mided president can be elected; how much actual power they wield is another matter, but thats kind of the point – since actual political power resides in the theocracy, theres less reason to meddle with the election too ham-handedly. the election becomes more symbolic as an outlet for the people’s frustration – the mullahs think that it releases the pressure, but the people of Iran arent blind to it. If anything, the pressure builds.
I don’t think any election they’ve ever held has been ratified as free and fair by any significant international body. The only people allowed to run for office are those approved by the theocrats. And I don’t mean that in a cynical/conspiratorial manner, I mean it quite literally. It’s clearly spelled out by law. The un-elected Guardian Council decides who is allowed to run for office and who is not. Most people who apply to run for office are rejected long before the elections are held. They would have to amend their Constitution, or throw it out entirely, for it to be any other way. And despite all that, there’s evidence that they rig the results anyway.
By the way, for anyone who’s interested, here’s the video to the President’s speech to the people of Iran. I can’t find much of anything objectionable in it. Indeed, I could easily see George W. Bush giving the exact same speech, minus the overture to having negotiations.
Thought experiment:
Replace Obama with Bush, the stuff about the Nowruz video with the “Axis of Evil” speech, and “screw up the region coding on those DVDs to the UK” with “sit around reading My Pet Goat on 9/11″, and see if this doesn’t look familiar.
Point being, I think people are increasingly seeing that just about any President, no matter how well-spoken and heavily armored against criticism of their choices of personal conduct and vocabulary, will be subject to the kind of scrutiny over his gaffes that will turn him into a complete imbecile if the one telling the story wishes to paint it thus; and no matter how clumsy and feckless the team with which he surrounds himself, will be able to come up with flashes of timeless brilliance that will appear in retrospect to be grand milestones in our history.
If only we could look at every Presidency in remote hindsight while it’s still happening.
“Indeed, I could easily see George W. Bush giving the exact same speech, minus the overture to having negotiations.” One MAJOR difference, if Bush had made such a statement it would have been universally panned because HE doesn’t understand mid Easterners, whereas it’s a great statement from Obama because HE does.
I think this was a transparent and blatant attempt to influence the Iranian elections, and that in and of itself would be enough for me to be angry if I were Iranian; remember Chinese contributions to US campaigns?
Also got to wonder why the big O didn’t direct his comments to the Shah.
if you dont think a common ground exists between ordinary Iranians and American values, then you’re on teh far pessimistic side of the issue.
I think there is a lotta common ground between ordinary Iranians and American values. How do we help these ordinary Iranians undermine the Mullahs in power?
–HankB
Top ten thought experiments on Iran:
The mullahs are starting to recognize political life is transitory.
What fills the void beside nukes and threats ?
Obama-speech equals opening gambit, but Mideast uses different parchesi board.
Diplomacy is the art of psychological warfare.
Obama is really irish american. Huh ?.
Who’s in charge of the Hillary/Bill/Obama/Teleprompter psychodrama ?
If Hillary is great as the Sec of State, can we assume Pelosi is not a nightmare ?
Has Mahmoud Ahmadinejad used up his international, microphone air miles ?
Sorry, there’s only nine top ten thought experiments.
Oops,
How do we help these ordinary Iranians undermine the Mullahs in power?
Answer,
Send their blood samples to the CDC
Dean, one point here to note, that Irans elections are not fully free and fair, but neither are they completely rigged.
They’re as rigged as the mullahs need them to be. Last time out, the reformers gave up and just boycotted them.
This video accomplishes absolutely nothing useful. It’s not objectionable, it’s just a bunch of meaningless fluff that totally ignores the major issues in Iran.
The message here is clear: the Iranian gov’t should feel they can now arrest, torture, and murder dissidents while building nuclear weapons and sponsoring terrorism, and Washington will be much less likely to criticize them for it.
Speaking of Iran and videos: Iran during the Shah. I know the shah wasn’t that much of a good guy, probably mostly bad (and I really don’t remember much as I was just a HS senior in Podunk, ID, when they took over the American Embassy), but based on this video Iran was definitely a lot better then than it is now.
It’s just so sad to think what could have been…
(via Gateway Pundit)
The message here is clear: the Iranian gov’t should feel they can now arrest, torture, and murder dissidents while building nuclear weapons and sponsoring terrorism, and Washington will be much less likely to criticize them for it.
Considering that in the speech the President DID in fact criticize them for such things, what is your basis for saying this?
And what makes you think they’re afraid of being criticized by the Americans? Do you honestly think they were afraid to jail dissidents when Bush was in office? Come on, Dave, you’re smarter than that.
Brian: I agree.
Considering that in the speech the President DID in fact criticize them for such things, what is your basis for saying this?
Where?
And what makes you think they’re afraid of being criticized by the Americans?
Because they demanded we stop as a condition of negotiations? Because our criticism leads to things like sanctions? Do you think the Soviets liked being called an evil empire? The appearance of morality matters a lot.
Do you honestly think they were afraid to jail dissidents when Bush was in office?
I think they found our criticism very inconvenient. How nice for them that’s apparently going to stop now.
Come on, Dave, you’re smarter than that.
Come on Dean, think about this for a second. Let’s say your neighbor has been sexually molesting his kids, and you’ve been complaining about it loudly and publicly. You two have been fighting over other things too (say, trees he’s been cutting down that are on your property). He says “OK, well we can talk about the trees, but first you have to stop criticizing what I do with my kids.” You think he’s bothered?
Comments on this entry are closed.