Voices From the Tehran Streets: "Obama, Are You With Us Or For The Other Guys?"

What's mealy-mouthed about "Iran must choose" -- the key phrase in the statement? As statements go, it was restrained, concise, and appropriate, imo.

I thought it was whiny...kind of on the lines of "We call, we send you flowers, we're trying to kiss and make up, but you never call back, you never write, what's the matter, don't you love us?" No mention of nukes, no mention of sponsoring terrorism, no mention of dealing in bad faith, and continued silence in the face of a rigged election, an illegitimate Holocaust denying annihilationist government, and to the pointed and focused question in today's protests

"...At one point, one crowd of protesters turned its message toward the American President Barack Obama, chanting, "Obama, Obama, you are either with us or with them."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125732912728227709.html?mod=WSJ_hps_MIDD...

Give the Obama another peace prize, why don't you!

Luis, congratulations on your published work.

Was that your dissertation?

Damn straight, Jackson! PS - I very much enjoyed reading your comments on the Heidegger threat.

luispc,

Congratulations on publishing your dissertation. Now if I only read Portuguese...

"No mention of nukes, no mention of sponsoring terrorism, no mention of dealing in bad faith, and continued silence in the face of a rigged election, an illegitimate Holocaust denying annihilationist government, and to the pointed and focused question in today's protests"

The most recent news:

"The Israeli navy intercepted a ship heading for Syria and seized an unprecedented 500-ton haul of weapons from Iran intended for the Shiite Muslim Hezbollah militia in Lebanon, the army said."

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601082&sid=aGpKirues6c8

Obama is puzzled:

"We have heard for thirty years what the Iranian government is against; the question, now, is what kind of future it is for."

Eli Khoury, "one of the smartest regional political analysts" in Lebanon answers:

" The Gulf and the Levant. They want to dominate the Gulf and the Levant."

"Iran means to dominate the Levant and the Gulf. And once that's done, there will be a very different discussion about Israel. So, really, all the options lead to the same thing at the end of the day."

http://www.michaeltotten.com/archives/2009/10/in-the-crosshai.php

When folks are out on "the streets" condemning Israel for one thing or another they are a refuge for the unwashed scumbag terrorist sympathizers.

But when they are out on them doing Marty's bidding [and we know they are in Tehran] "the streets" are paradise.

It would be interesting though to poll the street protesters in Tehran about Israel. About America. About Palestine.

Really, just how enlightened can they be? For christ sakes Marty, they're Muslims!!!

gw

Maybe it is time to get tougher with Iran, although I would like Marty and his friends on The Spine to explain precisely how (i) the US can get Europeans to impose harsh sanctions on the Iranians, (ii) the US can get Russia and China from canceling out any Western sanctions by increasing their trade and aid with Iran and (iii) the US can successfully launch sustained air strikes to destroy or severely degrade Iran's nuclear and ballistic missile capabilities while having hundreds of thousands of soldiers vulnerable to Iranian-backed attacks in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere. For it definitely helps to now have actual Iranians in the streets of Tehran asking for help from the US. Unlike this past May, for example, when Marty and Leon were clamoring for the US to punish Iran for the sake of preserving our own virtue.

Another beside the point post by the Jew hating Walton.

Another beside the point post by the Jew hating Walton.

Luis--my favourite hooker--congrats on your thesis getting finished and published.

Jack I echo bl462 your comments on the Heidegger thread were impressive.

At the moment when we have Iran boxed in more effectively than for a decade or more, when there is a complicated dance of reformis push, regime paranoia, and diffuse nationalist feeling going on in Iran, and when we have begun to shift the global diplomatic furniture in our favor, how on earth is it either intelligent or constructive to come out with some belligerent "bring-it-on!" rhetoric from the White House. That kind of bs has already gotten us in trouble, not so long ago.

The statement imo did three things: 1. it recognized the crime against the embassy and remembered the sacrifice our people made; 2. it underlined that we are willing to turn onto a new path with Iran, if they want it; 3. it said clearly that the choices of whether to go and where to go lie with the regime.

I don't hear the whine. I hear a non-aggressive but crisp outlining of the situation.

wildboy
"Maybe it is time to get tougher with Iran, although I would like Marty and his friends on The Spine to explain precisely how (i) the US can get Europeans to impose harsh sanctions on the Iranians,"

You seem to think that it is impossible and the way you framed the questions shows it.

"Unlike this past May, for example, when Marty and Leon were clamoring for the US to punish Iran for the sake of preserving our own virtue."

This is irrelevant.

bl462 and Basman, glad you enjoyed the thread.

Has either of you seen the latest John McWhorter aticle?

"Dying Languages Should Be Saved: But Will They Be Spoken?"

http://www.tnr.com/blogs/john-mcwhorter

Take a look it's enlightening. Blackton's comments on Chinese were very interesting.

irony, "...how on earth is it either intelligent or constructive to come out with some belligerent "bring-it-on!" rhetoric from the White House"

Who said anything about belligerent "bring it on rhetoric"?

OK, b, no "bring it on" stuff. Fair enough criticism. But the WH statement does appear to me to be quite clear in its implications. There comes a point when less is more, and to pile on with all the controversial issues you list (that everyone knows about anyhow) begins to look like diplomacy by megaphone, where the object is to sound good to oneself and one's supporters, rather than get things done.

irony, "...There comes a point when less is more, and to pile on with all the controversial issues you list (that everyone knows about anyhow) begins to look like diplomacy by megaphone, where the object is to sound good to oneself and one's supporters, rather than get things done."

Less is indeed sometimes more, but nothing is still nothing, and to ignore the context strikes me as a form of appeasement.

You see ignoring a context -- I see not mentioning a difficult context in detail in a public statement when reticence might be the better option.

It's not a position paper, it was a brief statement by the president meant essentially to take note of the anniversary of the U.S. embassy siege.

And I'm getting sick of this word "appeasement" being thrown around like confetti at a wedding. Appleasement was what the Brits and the French did to Hitler in 1938, selling out Czechoslovakia and allowing him to illegally invade half of that country (and the rest of it later). If the president making a brief and restrained statement on Iran to recall the sacrifice of our embassy people and pointing out that there is, potentially, a way forward for us and the Iranians is "appeasement," we're all in big trouble.

Or possibly "appleasement"!! (sorry)

I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this one, Irony. In its last paragraph, today's statement more than takes note of the anniversary of the US embassy siege.

Contrast it with Obama's comments towards Iran in the Cairo Speech , which mentions Iran's "role in acts of hostage-taking and violence against US troops and civilians", and that "it is clear to all concerned that when it comes to nuclear weapons, we have reached a decisive point".

Re: "appleasement", that would strike me as a stronger form of "appeasement" (I'm joking here!).

I know -- that was my first thought too . . .

How does Ironyroad envision the future with Iran going nuclear while Obama is playing around with "restrained statements" "pointing out that there is, potentially, a way forward for us and the Iranians"?

Is it not quite clear by now that there is not going to be any rapprochement, any understanding, any deals with the Iranian regime? I mean, what else do they have to say, or do, to bring that message home, until it is accepted as a message and not as a ploy?

I can't help but recall this scene from Life of Brian with Obama in the role Stan/Loretta and Reg being Marty, or (b1462):

LORETTA: I want to have babies.
REG: You want to have babies?!
LORETTA: It's every man's right to have babies if he wants them.
REG: But... you can't have babies.
LORETTA: Don't you oppress me.
REG: I'm not oppressing you, Stan. You haven't got a womb! Where's the foetus going to gestate?! You going to keep it in a box?!
LORETTA: [crying]
JUDITH: Here! I-- I've got an idea. Suppose you agree that he can't actually have babies, not having a womb, which is nobody's fault, not even the Romans', but that he can have the right to have babies.
FRANCIS: Good idea, Judith. We shall fight the oppressors for your right to have babies, brother. Sister. Sorry.
REG: What's the point?
FRANCIS: What?
REG: What's the point of fighting for his right to have babies when he can't have babies?!
FRANCIS: It is symbolic of our struggle against oppression.
REG: Symbolic of his struggle against reality.

jackson,

Thanks for the McWhorter link. I hadn't seen it. Thought the essay was fascinating, as was the discussion between you and blackton.

For those interested in the reason Russia seems to be taking an anti-Western position, I suggest an insightful study by Walter Laqueur on Russia’s Muslim strategy:

http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/mesh/files/2009/10/russia_islam_laqueur.pdf

there is also a follow up comment on that paper here:

http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/mesh/2009/11/russias-muslim-strategy/commen...

Good question

. . . but why does Noga address ironyroad in the third person when he's present here on the thread in (so to speak) his own right?

Or, as John Lennon once put it, in his own write

JD: both extremely interesting links, the Laquer and the response. They suggest among other things that we still need those legendary Russian/Soviet experts of yore, even if they've been since put out to grass.

Jackson, Thanks very much for the Laqueur and Katz links. Explains what I had thought was inexplicable.

Even though I only managed to skim Laquer's detailed essay, I got the gist and appreciated Katz's precis and speculations what a successful Taliban in Afghanistan holds for Russia's Muslim problem.

And thanks for the intro to MESH.

".. but why does Noga address ironyroad in the third person "

Addressing someone in the third person singular is a mark of respect and deference.

To try to answer the original question, it seems the POTUS is voting present yet again. We don't seem to be on either side, which is a shame, and will lead to more charges of appeasement.

After the latest Iranian rejection of the transfer of its HEU to Russia (we were only kidding in Vienna), what can be gained by not supporting the protestors? What "negotiation" does the POTUS think he will have with this regime? It's baffling to me. I'd like to support him, but his weakness makes it very difficult.

ironyroad
"JD: both extremely interesting links, the Laquer and the response. They suggest among other things that we still need those legendary Russian/Soviet experts of yore, even if they've been since put out to grass."

Yes.

What I found most troubling was the conclusion that even Medvedev and Putin, or Putin and Medvedev couldn't change policy towards the West even if they wanted to.

Here is the respondent’s conclusion:

“A logical consequence of acknowledging the seriousness of the threat in the North Caucasus would also require Moscow to acknowledge that it needs help from America and other nations—badly—in order to counter it. While doing this might actually enhance Russian security, it would also deeply undercut the image of Russia as a great power that the Kremlin has sought to project abroad, at home, and—not least—to itself. This something that the Putin/Medvedev “leadership” may not just be unwilling, but actually unable to do. Mark N. Katz

http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/mesh/2009/11/russias-muslim-strategy/

Seems like Russia is on a suicidal trajectory!

ironyroad would like to suggest that perhaps Noga had her fingers crossed behind her back as she said that.

But anyhow, deferential or no, you asked a good question earlier, to wit

Is it not quite clear by now that there is not going to be any rapprochement, any understanding, any deals with the Iranian regime? I mean, what else do they have to say, or do, to bring that message home, until it is accepted as a message and not as a ploy?

I don't think it's quite clear at all. I'd suggest the following considerations, all of which can be weighted differently but hopefully not ignored:

1. The Iranian regime is now clearly in a state of confusion -- the combination of the new American approach, the civic protest movement, the divisions between hardline/pragmatic and nationalist/islamist forces within the establishment, and the embarrassment of the Qom site revelations, is clearly taking its toll. Indeed Achmadinnerjacket's recent attempt to paint himself as the new pragmatist is a turn than nobody predicted and I think confirms that we have little idea where this is going.

2. It's not simply a matter of openly supporting the protest movement, for two reasons, (a) any solution to the nuclear challenge still has to be struck with the government of Iran and that will continue to be the regime, for some time at least, and (b) there is absolutely no guarantee that a new Iranian government would not see a nuclear capability as a national asset that can't be rejected. Indeed, a new government might well feel itself constrained to prove its nationalist credentials more energetically.

3. And, from a different perspective, are we sure that Iran will ever reach weaponizing capability? Recent revelations (e.g. David Ignatius in the WaPo a couple of weeks ago) point to significant flaws and glitches in their centrifuges and related technology that seem to have delayed their processing considerably. Whatever the causes for this -- and it does spark the imagination -- their whole nuclear project may be in a weaker condition than we believe.

...To try to answer the original question, it seems the POTUS is voting present yet again. We don't seem to be on either side, which is a shame, and will lead to more charges of appeasement.

After the latest Iranian rejection of the transfer of its HEU to Russia (we were only kidding in Vienna), what can be gained by not supporting the protestors? What "negotiation" does the POTUS think he will have with this regime? It's baffling to me. I'd like to support him, but his weakness makes it very difficult....

Typical of butchie b, who puts the issue straightforwardly and well.

butchie, "...What "negotiation" does the POTUS think he will have with this regime? "

Exactly so. Because there is no good-faith Iranian partner to negotiate with, Obama is negotiating with himself, which means the Iranians don't have to do anything but rag the puck, and run out the atomic clock.

Thank you Irony for adding some perspective to the issue. Indeed, I think the issue of how the US should proceed with regard to Iran's nuclear ambitions is, at best, only tangentially related to how the US should respond to the internal opposition to the current Iranian regime. The US Admin did speak out against the violent oppression of the opposition, but what reason is there for the US to substantively take the side of the opposition? Do we have evidence that the replacement government would be more amenable to US interests?

And if there is a reason to take the side of the opposition, what would that entail? Rhetoric that publicly supports the opposition? The supply of arms to foment a violent revolution? Military action by the US to topple the current regime? What exactly is it that the US is supposed to be shamed into doing?

Noga, if we are going to take counsel from a movie script, how about this portion of your quote:

"Or maybe the happy ending is this, knowing after all the unreturned phone calls, broken-hearts, through the blunders and misread signals, through all the pain and embarrassment you never gave up hope."

So, just speculating, but maybe the happy ending between Obama and the ayatollahs is to endure the rebuffs until a case has been built for concerted action.

Noga asks Irony, "Why do you assume that nationalist pride will override their more immediate concerns about safety, freedom, food, etc?"

I do not read Irony as assuming anything. He says, "there is absolutely no guarantee that a new Iranian government would not see a nuclear capability as a national asset that can't be rejected. Indeed, a new government might well feel itself constrained to prove its nationalist credentials more energetically." So the question could be turned around: Why do you assume that a new Iranian government would abandon any nuclear ambition?

"there is absolutely no guarantee that a new Iranian government would not see a nuclear capability as a national asset that can't be rejected. Indeed, a new government might well feel itself constrained to prove its nationalist credentials more energetically."

It may, but the issue isn't merely nuclear capability. The issue is the tyrannical nature of the regime in charge of a nuclear program.

An Iranian government pledged to genuine democracy, (the rule of law and an independent judiciary, etc.) will not pose the same problem as do the Mullahs even if they sought a nuclear program.

For those of you interested in the Goldstone Report, there will be a debate between its author and Dore Gold at 5 pm, est here:

http://blog.z-word.com/2009/11/a-correspondence-with-richard-goldstone/

I'll try to catch it also.

Ripe for ' rope-a-dope'. One can only hope.

Right you are Jackson. India's nuclear arms bother me very little, as India is a democratic state not given to threats to exterminate its neighbors (no, not even Pakistan).

Iran, OTOH, will have to be strongly deterred when they get their nukes, as they most assuredly will.

Hurtado, we should support the Iranian opposition as we supported Solidarity in Poland in the 80s. America is ALWAYS right when it is on the side of people who favor freedom over tyranny, even if those people are not perfect democrats.

OK, a few quickies (if I may be so bold):

Noga: if you're going to reply to my carefully reasoned point with a movie reference, then can you please please at least make it a classic or something not totally groanworthy?

As it happens, my own reference would be not a movie but Dashiell Hammett's novel Red Harvest. The protagonist gets the job of cleaning up a city run by criminal mobs. The job is impossible, for a face-on confrontation at any event. So he pretends he's just hanging out, cozies up to some of the gang leaders, and begins to let drop that so-and-so doesn't like so-and-so. As the story progresses, the criminals become ever more paranoid about each other, and end up by taking each other out while our guy looks on. Eventually he's able to hand over the city, cleaned up and job done.

dhurt: You put it more succinctly than I did. I don't think we should assume stuff. A case in point: nobody around here, back in late spring, foresaw the appearance and scale of the protest movement after the Iranian elections.

JD: I agree that in an ideal sense it's the nature of the regime rather than the mere possession of weapons that's at the core of the problem. But I still think a nuclear Iran would be an unpredictable and destabilizing force in the region, even if its government were friendlier to us. We have to proceed on the assumption that the government in place will continue to maintain power.

butchie: I agree we should support the opposition. But it's not so easy to say how. Despite the apparent attractiveness of the U.S. at the moment, there is a wide range of opinion and a lot of historical memory in Iran, and some of it is not especially edifying when it comes to American involvement in their country. We could easily make a big misstep that will come back to bite us (and indeed the opposition).

Again, assumptions . . .

One final point, yes India is not a threat etc. But it can't be just a matter of nice versus nasty countries. Nuclear proliferation IS a clear and present danger and we have lost some of our grasp on how to deal with it.

"JD: I agree that in an ideal sense it's the nature of the regime rather than the mere possession of weapons that's at the core of the problem. But I still think a nuclear Iran would be an unpredictable and destabilizing force in the region, even if its government were friendlier to us."

The point isn't the friendliness or unfriendliness of the government.

What I am looking for is a government that believes in democratic and secular principles as does the Indian government.

India, hasn't always been friendly to us and neither was France.

"We have to proceed on the assumption that the government in place will continue to maintain power.

For now, yes.

IronyRoad: I may have suspected you shared some less salutary characteristics with the average academic but snobbery was not one of them. I had considered throwing at you a bit of Conrad ("rivets") but then thought you could be trusted to appreciate the wit in this quote as it seemed to reflect your argument in an unthreatening context. Never did I imagine the lightness of the movie would incur such maidenish outrage. I stand corrected. I will then promise never to bother you with anything less lofty than .. I don't know... you must let know what is your bottom line for quotable sources, because I have none.

____________

You prognosticate: " The Iranian regime is now clearly in a state of confusion"

I don't think so. The Iranian Regime is consistent and clear in its goals and means:

"... ideology is a driving force in the Iranian regime’s decision making and makes American-style carrot-and-stick diplomacy unlikely to succeed. The nature of the regime in Tehran is important because it explains why the Iranian leadership perpetually seeks to confront Israel and the United States despite deterrent threats from both and offers to cooperate from Washington. Threats and promises have little effect on a regime whose leaders perceive the very existence of those two nations as a danger to continuation of their theocratic regime. Our study finds that the Islamic Republic perceives itself as engaged in two struggles: one for leadership of the Islamic world and the other a clash of civilizations with Western values of democratization, secularization, and globalization as embodied by Israel and the United States.

In addition to considering Israel as part of the West and thus a regime threat, quest for leadership in the Islamic world may be responsible for vitriolic rhetoric toward the Jewish State. There is no historical reason why Persians should engage in antagonistic behavior toward Jews, such as President Ahmadinejad’s appointment of a leading holocaust denier as deputy culture minister for media affairs in the Iranian cabinet. And because of the perceived ideological confrontation with the West, it is not surprising that Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei spoke so harshly about the United States in a speech in which he characterized as “arrogant” the American attitude toward nuclear talks."

http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/mesh/2009/11/obamas-missive-to-iran/comment...