Monday, June 15, 2009
The Unexpected Iran Problem
This weekend, the closest the Obama administration got to calling a spade a spade -- the obvious stealing of the Iranian election by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad -- was Vice President Joe Biden expressing "doubts" as to the legitimate outcome.
Perhaps that's fitting: It was Biden who said famously -- during the general election campaign -- that the world would "test" a new President Obama. Of course, most people anticipated that this would take the shape of some international crisis that would potentially put American lives at risk -- such as Iran's getting closer to a nuclear bomb.
Well, the reality might not be quite what some people were thinking, but Iran is the test. But who could guess that "democracy" might a more difficult proposition now. Third-party observers who know both Iran and the region well have concluded that the declared election result is a fraud. If the protests continue being brutally put down, what does Barack Obama do? The question is all the more poignant in that this election comes just a couple weeks shy of China's Tiannamen Square crackdown.
Does the president have the luxury of doing as George H.W. Bush and James Bakerdid ten years ago? Basically verbally condemn what was occurring but then collectively shrug the nation's shoulders in a "move along, folks, nothing to see here" manner?
But, since that time, there have been more freedom movements across the former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, as well as the introduction of a democracy (fragile as it might be) in neighboring Iraq.
To its embarrassment, the European Union has apparently decided to adopt that tactic -- announcing that it had recognized Ahmadinejad's victory, even as reports started coming in of Iranian police bashing protesters and invading college dorm rooms.
A little more than a week ago, when Lebanon went to the polls just hours after Obama's Cairo speech -- the pro-West/pro-US ticket won -- the administration was happy to tout (off the record, though it may be) a clear case of an "Obama Effect" inspiring Lebanese to reject the idea of an Hezbollah de facto government. In fact, some reports assert that the mullahs fixed the vote was because of fear an Obama effect would be enough to sweep Mir Hossein Mousavi into power.
Now, rather than deal with just Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons, President Obama has to deal with a regime that isn't just crushing an election, but also clamping down on all media -- both Iran's own organizations as well as that of Western outlets. So, the regime is now not merely belligerent, but also arguably, illegitimate and willing to strangle what little civil liberties the country had.
How does a United States president -- who gave a speech little more than a week ago urging more openness from the Muslim World -- not reject this officially tally and offer global condemnation of Ahmadinejad's "victory?" But what can Obama say? What will he say -- eventually? Is there fear that criticizing the results could put Mousavi in even more danger?
Regardless, Barack Obama is being tested right now. Just as the whole world has been made aware of Iran's situation, so to is that world watching -- and tweeting -- the reaction of the United States when the principle of democracy itself is being threatened.
Labels: Barack Obama, Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
Saturday, June 13, 2009
Tehran Uprising, No US Televising
Labels: Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
Thursday, July 17, 2008
Thursday Shorts
1) Hmm...looks like May's fundraising dip for Barack Obama wasn't anything to worry about. Bounces back to $52 million haul in June (sorry, Hillary, don't expect much love from Obama's people on the debt-retirement thing).
2) The Bush administration and the Iranian regime start up an "on-the-DL" interaction -- with the possibility of a more meaningful relationship development (isn't that always the case though?).
3) Kudos to CNN's Roland Martin for commending McCain -- and knocking Obama -- on school vouchers. There is absolutely no logical reason why Obama can't stray from the NEA/AFT line on vouchers. Oh well, if the guy becomes president, here's hoping that this will be one of the first policies that he throws under the (school) bus. Whitney Tilson who is a pro-education reform Democrat -- and a big Obama supporter -- thinks that Obama can deliver the message that the teachers unions need to do. He occasionally does it at a rhetorical level, but I haven't seen anything yet resembling a real dynamic policy shift.
4) A Reagan-era conservative bails to Obama.
5) Two cable favorites from last year did well with Emmy nominations today -- "Mad Men" and "Damages." Glenn Close's performance in the latter was spine-tingling, and the flashbacks and flashforwards would have had even the biggest "Memento" fan's head spinning. Alas, my other summer guilty pleasure, "Burn Notice" wasn't recognized in any major category.
6) Finally, I've been drawn back to "Last Comic Standing" -- and actually know a few of the people who have appeared this season. Of the finalists, I know Adam Hunter the best. Adam can turn some folks off with aggressiveness that borders on arrogance, but his act never fails to make me laugh. Episodes available for online viewing.
Labels: Barack Obama, Emmy Awards, Iran, school choice, stand-up comedy
Monday, January 07, 2008
War With Iran?
|Wednesday, December 05, 2007
That Darn Month Again!
I'm stunned: There's no way that the president of the United States would receive critical intelligence data in August and not attach much importance to it for months, right?
Labels: George W. Bush, intelligence, Iran
Tuesday, January 23, 2007
And Iran, Iran So Far Away ...
"Overture, Curtain, Lights! This is it, Tonight's the Night ... "
The State of the Union, that is. That constitutionally required bit of Presidential summation which gives the nation's Chief Executive Officer a bully pulpit for roughly an hour. Then, thanks to "Equal Time," we are treated to a trailer of coming distractions from the opposing party. The subtopic to watch out for is whether or not the President will show any signs of contrition in the wake of the Election "thumping"; Or, will this be the launching pad for yet another expansion of the Global War on Terror? ("G.W.O.T." is not exactly the most awe-inspiring acronym that the Federal Bureau of Cool Operation Names has ever thunk up)
As an aside, are any of the current glue factory rejects in the Presidential Horse Race able to look past their massive egos and remember what started all this in the first place? Or, have we become so forgetful as a nation that crafting useful national security policies takes a backseat to what is still, regardless of how one feels about the Son of a Bush at Pennsylvania Avenue, a real threat?
Bonus points if, upon reading the headline pun, you immediately conjured up Retro Record Thots.
UPDATE: Kudos to EdMcGon for the BB Theme correction. I never could get that thing right. I thought the first words were "Oh, Monsieur ... " until I was 10-years-old. Guess I had Bugs and Daffy confused with Maurice Chevalier ...
Labels: Global War on Terror, Iran, September 11, State of the Union
Wednesday, January 10, 2007
To Surge, With Love*
In fact, Roberts is only partly right: Iraq is, in many ways, already in the administration's rear-veiw mirror: Iran is the central policy concern right now -- as the recent military leadership changes suggest. Thus, the surge is not really a "distraction," as such. But by committing only 20,000 troops (as if there were more to send out), it is a temporary band-aid while broader strategic moves are put into place, as Ralph Peters explores here).
Furthermore, as the ongoing developments in Somalia show, a commander-in-chief has remarkable options at his disposal. The Democratic Congress had better realize what is going on here. Ted Kennedy can give his full-throated opposition to the surge all he wants. There is greater U.S.-sparked movement on the "War on Terror" chessboard than, arguably, at any point since the beginning of the 2003 Iraq invasion. It is Iraq, Iran, Somalia, Afghanistan and more.
As far as the Iraq portion goes, I can't say that I am exactly optimistic. I'll be listening closely to the president's speech tonight, but from the early details leaked, it seems that there is definite decision on how to get the Sunni and Shiite forces to agree to run the country together.
As long as Prime Minister Maliki chooses to take orders for Moqtada al-Sadr (rather than the other way around), U.S. forces will continue fighting with one arm tied behind their backs -- trying to figure out which way the bullets are coming from and where all the IEDs are planted.
*Sorry it took me so long to drop that awful pun.
Labels: George W. Bush, Iran, Iraq, Somalia, Ted Kennedy, war on terror
