At this point I'd like to open up the floor for some questions.Anyone?
Anyone?
Alright then, I'll continue my "not all together thought out" opinion on the Iran situation.
Should the US be a more powerful voice in supporting the opposition in Iran? I don't think so. And not because everything Obama does is right. And not because everything Obama does is wrong. And not because it would appear that we're meddling. Sometimes American foreign policy should be silent because there is no good position to be vocal about. "We're concerned about violence and fair elections." Nuff said.
Mousavi is better on the surface than Ahmedinejad (I think I spelled that right!) but he is no democratic reformer. The protests, as I understand from accounts from Iranians in Iran, are more about a fair election, not fundamental change - not that Mousavi is going to overthrow the current system for a western style democracy. He was a hardliner - pro-hostage, pro-nuke, anti-US, anti-Coca-Cola, anti-etc. Also, as I understand it, the Supreme leader and his cronies select the nominees for president from 200 possibilities. Not likely that one would slip through the cracks that would turn on them as completely as we might like to think.
So they rigged the election (I say it was rigged from the start) with an unlikely margin of victory. That's the mistake. If they came out and said... "OK, Ahmedinejad got 53% of the vote." I'd buy that. Probably the streets would be quiet in Tehran today if that was the story. At least give the appearance of truth and fairness. Saddam Hussein and Joseph Stalin usually won 100% of the vote. Their minority was not so vocal as the people in the streets of Tehran. I also heard that it is life as usual for most of the day in the capital, but late in the afternoon everybody assembles to continue the protest. It seems they've all got day jobs... that is a protest I can get behind. Do they have a choice? If only the midwest of the US voted and Barack Obama won 85% of the vote, you'd have to take to the streets and ask "How?" If Bush had taken Massachusetts by 30 points in 2004, you'd have to take to the streets and ask "Huh?" The more liberal Iranian cities had large voter turnout making a 60%+ vote for Ahmedinejad nearly impossible. I wouldn't be surprised if he did legitimately win the election, but it's the slap in the face of the voter (of the public) that is at issue.
Dear Supreme Leader:
When (not if) you cheat, don't make it so obvious as to be an insult.
Your BFF,
Doug
Iran has a fairly progressive (relatively speaking) youth population and I think this was bubbling below the surface waiting for an obvious justification to question the system. I don't personally think that Obama's speech in Cairo had an impact here. If it did, then I think the protesters are mighty unhappy at the distance the White House is trying to maintain.
A couple lessons for the middle east: 1. When the US says it will interject, it doesn't always do so... and the results can be disappointing (see: Kurdish uprising, Bush 41. see also: Kurds, Turkey, Clinton). 2. When the US says it will interject, and it does so... the results can be disappointing (see: Iraq war 2005-2006-ish, Bush 43). I think the last twenty years are reason enough for the present administration to stay quiet. If North Korea shoots a bunch of missiles toward Hawaii in a few weeks it will make the Iranian situation look no more important than a student body election. It is more important than that, but incoming long range missiles seem more pressing, somehow.
Speaking of North Korea and golf, did you know that Kim Jong Il hit a bunch of holes-in-one the first time he played and is better than Tiger Woods? Sounds like something a crazy man bent on the destruction of his own people and others in the region would say. I'm just saying.
In a couple related stories.
1. I'm very happy to have big oceans on either side of us.
2. I like this hemisphere very very much.
No comments:
Post a Comment