The wise approach, or the emotionally rewarding approach
In public, President Obama has adopted a low-key approach toward the Iranian elections, expressing concern without taking a public position about the outcome or being overtly critical of what appears to be blatant electoral theft.
That in turn has generated criticism from some here at home, who argue that the United States should be publicly defending Iranian reformers and stoking international outrage pver the outcome.
I guess your position on the matter depends on your concept of what foreign policy is about. Yes, the president can champion the cause of Iranian reformers and condemn the regime for stealing the election and rebuffing the will of the people. That’s apparently what has happened, and saying so publicly would make a lot of Americans feel good about the stern, pro-democracy position their government has taken. If foreign policy is about the impact it makes on domestic voters, President Obama should indeed condemn what’s happening today in Iran. It’s a cheap source of self-justifying emotion.
However, such criticism would also make it easy for Ahmadinijad to discredit his opponents as traitors doing what their American sponsors demand. Given the history of U.S. meddling in their affairs, that is a powerful message in Iranian politics, and would probably weaken rather than strengthen the reformists’ longterm prospects.
It’s like starting a campfire. If the election truly was stolen, as it probably was, it means the Iranian people want a future different than that offered by their current leadership. That is a spark to be nurtured and gently fed. If you blow on it too hard, if you try to force it into a blaze too quickly, you extinguish it.
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Guides
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2011 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
84 comments Add your comment
ByteMe
June 15th, 2009
7:38 am
criticism from some here at home
You should name names. This is no better than FOX airheads claiming that some people are criticizing the president and it turns out that it’s only the airhead doing that and trying to generate buzz. Name names and let’s go pick on them for being neo-conjobs.
Oh, and the conjobs only know how to create a fire by throwing gasoline on it.
DB, Gwinnettian
June 15th, 2009
7:40 am
I dunno either.
Only semi-related, but after reading of the Tehran protests, I couldn’t help wondering, over the weekend, if Al Gore’s decision to say “it’s time for me to go” after the SCOTUS ruled in favor of Bush, was truly the wise thing to do. Had he so much as lifted an eyebrow in the direction of nationwide protests, they would’ve been fast and furious and probably quite violent. Instead, about the only thing that poor GWB had to endure as a result of lingering public anger were a few eggs hurled his motorcade’s way a month later, during the inauguration.
Were we better for the relative calm after that modest storm? Is Iran better for continuing to contain its anger and living to fight another day? I guess the answer to both questions is yes but who knows.
Doggone/GA
June 15th, 2009
7:42 am
“You should name names.”
I agree. It’s not necessary to name them all, but give some prominent examples. As time goes on, I get more and more tired of “some say” news and/or commentary.
FinnMcCool
June 15th, 2009
7:42 am
Off topic:
Americans Who’ve Used Canada’s Health-Care System Respond to Current Big-Lie Media Campaign
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bill-mann/americans-whove-used-cana_b_215256.html
Scooter
June 15th, 2009
7:43 am
I think Obama should stay out of Iran’s elections.
TnGelding
June 15th, 2009
7:46 am
Apparently the Veep is going to be carrying the water on this one:
http://video.aol.com/video-detail/nbc-meet-the-press-nbc-meet-the-press-biden-shares-doubts-about-iran-vote/3921571054
Obama is playing it right. He can’t be seen as meddling, something the Muslims think we do a lot.
TnGelding
June 15th, 2009
7:49 am
DB, Gwinnettian
June 15th, 2009
7:40 am
I agree, the system was ill-served. If I had been Big Al, I’d probably still be banging on the door of the SCOTUS. If the Democrats hadn’t lost the majority in the House, I think there would have been a different scenario.
DB, Gwinnettian
June 15th, 2009
7:53 am
It’s not what DogG or BM were looking for–actually, theirs is a fair complaint against Jay, if he knows of those who are being openly critical of Obama specifically for their immediate reaction to the news, he should offer examples–however, TPM has a pretty good piece summarizing how some on the right have been looking to exploit this election to take more generalized potshots at Obama.
It’s the usual suspects though–your Mittens, your K-Lo…
Normal
June 15th, 2009
7:56 am
Look at it this way, If the head cleric is calling for an investigation and it’s not a sham, then they are reading the writing on the wall. The Clerics want to stay in power and maybe, just maybe are willing to bend when it comes to individual rights. The proof of the pudding will be if they send the troops out in mass or not. I don’t think they want that kind of bad press. What do y’all think?
———————-
TnGelding-I agree with you, now is not the time to meddle, just wait and see.
DB, Gwinnettian
June 15th, 2009
7:57 am
I agree, the system was ill-served.
Well…few who saw Fahrenheit 9/11 will forget the solemn opening scenes wherein members of the Black Congressional Caucus sought Senate sponsors to officially contest the decision, as is their right under the Constitution, and were summarily refused. I still find that haunting and I only saw it once.
But maybe those Senators really were acting in what they believed to be the nation’s best interests. (probably not. Probably just the corrupt sellouts I’ve always tended to believe, but I don’t want to.)
Anyway, I don’t want to drift this off-topic, it’s just something that had me wondering, again.
G.W. Carlyle
June 15th, 2009
8:01 am
What! You mean we can’t just ship in a bunch of weapons to feed some opposition group and just stand back and watch our little flower grow and bloom. But! But! It has worked so well for us in the past, hasn’t it.
FinnMcCool
June 15th, 2009
8:02 am
You know how every neighborhood or street has at least one person who knows everyones business and/or meddles in everyones business.That is the U.S.
Let Iran handle their own crap. They have intelligent adults there. At the end of the day the U.S. will have to work with whoever comes out on top anyway.
Joey
June 15th, 2009
8:02 am
Give credit where credit is due. That spark in Iran that you write about was ignited by the Bush Administration.
clyde
June 15th, 2009
8:16 am
In Iran they’re simply fighting over which bad guy to put in as president.Neither candidate is really worth fighting over.It’s like choosing to face a cobra or a mad cape buffalo.The real power is held by the Supreme Leader,the Ayatollah.
I rule Andy
June 15th, 2009
8:19 am
I say we bomb them. Then waterboard them all. It’s about time to plant the seeds of democracy in Iran as well. They DO have WMD’s. Bomb bomb bomb… war is good for the economy, bomb them and cut taxes. That’s what cemented GWB’s legacy as one of the best presidents ever.
ewwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww
DB, Gwinnettian
June 15th, 2009
8:27 am
The real power is held by the Supreme Leader,the Ayatollah.
Thank you, Captain Obvious.
Getting beyond that, however, is how the religious leaders react to what appears a pretty obvious public rebuke of their preferred candidate.
Curious Observer
June 15th, 2009
8:27 am
The mullahs have ordered a probe into possible vote-rigging purely as a means of placating outraged protesters. The mullahs have chosen their secular leader. The probe won’t change anything, and we will be poorly served by being more aggressive in our attitude toward the election outcome. In the end, Iran will get its nuclear weaponry and we will need to give the nod to Israel to undertake a campaign to destroy Iran’s nuclear capacity, with all the horrors that will bring to the Middle East. Iran seems to be on iron tracks to war, and we shouldn’t be surprised if North Korea decides to go out in a spectacular fashion.
DB, Gwinnettian
June 15th, 2009
8:31 am
But! But! It has worked so well for us in the past, hasn’t it.
Careful. To so much as acknowledge that something hasn’t turned out well for the US and the world at some point in the past is to go on an “apology tour.”
The foreign policy genius Mitt Romney told me so.
I rule Andy
June 15th, 2009
8:34 am
While we’re bombing the crap out of Iran, we need to withdraw our welfare payments to Israel and let them stand alone, the ensuing madness will bring about the battle of armaggedon and the second coming which is exactly what the wingbutternuts want… Kind of like the idiots who wish for the United States to disintegrate via seccession just to buttress thier political ideologies and because they lost the election(s)… poor wingbutternuts, wandering the wilderness and still can’t see the forest for the trees.
ewwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww
Wakeup
June 15th, 2009
8:36 am
And where is the all and powerful UN in all of this??? Likely more concerned with another US-bashing activity…
Dave R.
June 15th, 2009
8:40 am
Finn McCool, re: your 7:42. Maybe someone who writes a column about “Americans” experiences with Canadian healthcare might want to include more than two examples. Especially when one is his own from years ago.
DB, Gwinnettian
June 15th, 2009
8:41 am
To be honest, I rule @ 8.34, I’ve not seen a lot of popular support among right wingers for withholding aid from Israel, even though to do such a thing as you suggest, might well make Israel more likely to act rashly.
(Or not. I’m not convinced the aid we provide really has much of an effect at all, beyond making Israel and Egypt behave themselves with each other, which was the original intent.)
Great topic, have a good time with it folks, and be excellent to one another. I gotta bail.
Real
June 15th, 2009
8:52 am
Wakeup at 8:36 – I’d be more concerned about meddling by another Mr. Apologize for America — Jimmy Carter!!!
Rheems
June 15th, 2009
8:53 am
No good choices for Obama.
Alienate Ahmed who he’ll have to negotiate with later or remain silent showing that he doesn’t support democracy in action.
Obama – Zero
Mullahs – Won
Mullahs – Ahmed/Mousavi
G.W. Carlyle
June 15th, 2009
8:56 am
…Halliburton has a long history of doing business in Iran, starting as early as 1995, while Vice President Cheney was chief executive of the company. Leopold quotes a February 2001 report published in the Wall Street Journal, “Halliburton Products and Services Ltd., works behind an unmarked door on the ninth floor of a new north Tehran tower block. A brochure declares that the company was registered in 1975 in the Cayman Islands, is based in the Persian Gulf sheikdom of Dubai and is “non-American.” But like the sign over the receptionist’s head, the brochure bears the company’s name and red emblem, and offers services from Halliburton units around the world.” Moreover mail sent to the company’s offices in Tehran and the Cayman Islands is forwarded directly to its Dallas headquarters.
G.W. Carlyle
June 15th, 2009
9:02 am
During a trip to the Middle East in March 1996, Vice President Dick Cheney told a group of mostly U.S. businessmen that Congress should ease sanctions in Iran and Libya to foster better relationships, a statement that, in hindsight, is completely hypocritical considering the Bush administration’s foreign policy.
“Let me make a generalized statement about a trend I see in the U.S. Congress that I find disturbing, that applies not only with respect to the Iranian situation but a number of others as well,” Cheney said. “I think we Americans sometimes make mistakes . . . There seems to be an assumption that somehow we know what’s best for everybody else and that we are going to use our economic clout to get everybody else to live the way we would like.”
Cheney was the chief executive of Halliburton Corporation at the time he uttered those words. It was Cheney who directed Halliburton toward aggressive business dealings with Iran—in violation of U.S. law—in the mid-1990s, which continued through 2005 and is the reason Iran has the capability to enrich weapons-grade uranium.
It was Halliburton’s secret sale of centrifuges to Iran that helped get the uranium enrichment program off the ground, according to a three-year investigation that includes interviews conducted with more than a dozen current and former Halliburton employees.
Bosch
June 15th, 2009
9:03 am
Obama can’t come out publically and support the opposition leaders – that would indicate he thought the election was stolen (which I can not help but think it was) and it would also be bashing our precious democracy which we just had a war next door to Iran to put in place said beacon of light: democracy (hardy har har – well, that was the last excuse for the Iraqi War).
There is more than one way to skin a cat.
TnGelding
June 15th, 2009
9:09 am
FinnMcCool
June 15th, 2009
8:02 am
Yeah, I just got back from feeding my neighbor’s dogs that have been left unattended for 3 days. I should have checked on them yesterday but thought they would surely be coming home.
S GA dem
June 15th, 2009
9:13 am
I was going to comment but I’m still laughing too hard at Wooten’s column this morning about the poor white men from Mississippi who, because of the prejudices of ‘other’ people, just can’t get a break.
TnGelding
June 15th, 2009
9:15 am
Curious Observer
June 15th, 2009
8:27 am
I don’t think Iran wants war, but I don’t think Israel will wait much longer before taking out its nuclear facilities, especially with the rift developing with Obama.
I Rule You :-) You Whine :-(
June 15th, 2009
9:18 am
Not to mention Obozo would look like a hypocrite whining about “stolen elections.”
The Iranian mullahs would laugh in his ACORN loving face.
hahahaha
Copyleft
June 15th, 2009
9:18 am
This is one area where I understand Obama’s pragmatic approach, but I’d personally prefer to take a more idealistic, principled stance.
America should always stand, loudly and proudly, for progressive reform in all countries. Even if we don’t “enforce” it (at gunpoint OR economically), we should still always make it clear that we favor and encourage such changes.
TnGelding
June 15th, 2009
9:21 am
I Rule You
You Whine 
June 15th, 2009
9:18 am
Did ACORN program the Diebold machines in Y2K and Y2K+4?
electrician
June 15th, 2009
9:29 am
Iran is going to do whatever it wants to do ,just like north Korea, Obama has already proven that he is nothing to be concerned about,threats of ’strong language’ from Obama mean nothing to them and all the worlds dictators no there is no substance to American leadership anymore, might as well be isolationist and let them go their own way. and then if they mess with us..light em up.
N.J,
June 15th, 2009
9:36 am
Well my position would of course be that the U.S. really has no place dictating how the Iranians should run their government when for about 40 years, our way of managing it was worse than what they have their now. Overthowing a secularly run democratic government that was elected under the watchful eye of international observers, then putting in a megalomaniacal monarch for 25 years.
One thing that differs between the last regime, and this one, is that for 25 years, no one would dare to do the kind of protesting that is allowed to some degree in Iran now.
Of course perhaps Carter should get involved. So far he has been the ONLY American president to create the longest lasting peace agreement in the Middle East over 30 years ago, between Israel and Egypt, and the agreement still stands in place. Egypt constituted the greatest threat to Israel, as one out of four Arabs in the Middle East is Egyptian. Without Egypt the threat to Israel’s existance pretty much vanished up until recently, and Iran was not all that concerned with Israel until Bush threated Iran, so of course, Iran started threatening America’s proxy in the region, Israel. After all it WAS Israel that transfered all those weapons systems to Iran as part of the Iran Contra deal, so little were the problems between Israel and Iran back in the late 1980’s. If Israel had felt at all threatened by the Iranian government back then, there is no way they would have sold thousands of missiles to the Iranians at the request of the Reagan Administration.
Up until Bush stuck his foot in his mouth, the various clandestine contacts that existed between Israel and Iran served the interests of both. In 1998, one Israel businessman was sentenced to 16 years in jail when the media discovered that he was doing business with Tehran, but the government knew of these things for years. This was basically a show trial because the public was unaware of the ties between their government and Iran. An investigation done as a result of the trial uncovered hundreds of Israeli companies doing business with Iran, and the government turning a blind eye to it. Of course on several occasions during the Bush presidency both Iran approached Israel to start discussing Iran’s recognition of the State of Israel but this was quashed by the Bush Administration.
According to Dr. Trita Parsi, author of “Treacherous Alliance – The Secret Dealings of Israel, Iran and the United States,” (Yale University Press, 2007), Iran’s strategic imperatives compelled the Khomeini government to maintain clandestine ties to Israel, while hope that the periphery doctrine could be resurrected motivated the Jewish State’s assistance to Iran…
At the funeral of Pope John Paul II in April 2005, Khatami was seated close to Israeli President Moshe Katsav, who is from the same province as Khatami. Katsav said that he shook Khatami’s hand and the two had a brief conversation about Iran (Katsav was born in Iran). However, Khatami denied this.
Other reports indicate that Iran tried to initiate a rapprochement with Israel by recognizing its existence in a proposal to the United States. The report claims that Iran’s peace proposal with Israel was not accepted by the United States.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Israel_relations
Citizen of the World
June 15th, 2009
10:01 am
One must be circumspect in matters of diplomacy, and that means not shooting off one’s mouth, a la George “Bring It On” Bush. So Obama should be choosing his words carefully. He knows how to bide his time, and he will say more with regard to where the U.S. stands as things settle down, but make every effort to do so in a way that serves our long-term interests in the region.
retiredds
June 15th, 2009
10:04 am
Two things to ponder: 1. The most powerful person in the room is the quietist. 2. Be sure brain is engaged before putting mouth into motion.
Normal
June 15th, 2009
10:08 am
Copyleft, your 9:18. I agree with you in principle, but before we tell anyone how to clean their house, shouldn’t we have ours clean first?
They don’t need that “do as I say, not as I do” stuff that has been the way of more than a few past Administrations. We need to wait and see, then deal openly and pragmaticly with the winner. I think President Obama has the right idea.
I Report :-) You Whine :-(
June 15th, 2009
10:16 am
Kent Conrad, chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, said there is not enough support in Congress for the “public option” even though proponents offer “very good arguments” for it.
“You’ve got to attract some Republicans as well as holding virtually all of the Democrats together. And that, I don’t believe, is possible with the pure ‘public option.’ I don’t think the votes are there,” Conrad said on CNN.
Sounds like it is not an “option,” hahahaha.
Crash and burn, Obozo.
Haley Burton
June 15th, 2009
10:16 am
…The contract of the Halliburton subsidiary KBR to build immigrant detention facilities is part of a longer-term Homeland Security plan titled ENDGAME, which sets as its goal the removal of “all removable aliens” and “potential terrorists.” In the 1980s Richard Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld discussed similar emergency detention powers as part of a super-secret program of planning for what was euphemistically called “Continuity of Government” (COG) in the event of a nuclear disaster. At the time, Cheney was a Wyoming congressman, while Rumsfeld, who had been defense secretary under President Ford, was a businessman and CEO of the drug company G.D. Searle.
These men planned for suspension of the Constitution, not just after nuclear attack, but for any “national security emergency,” which they defined in Executive Order 12656 of 1988 as: “Any occurrence, including natural disaster, military attack, technological or other emergency, that seriously degrades or seriously threatens the national security of the United States.” Clearly September 11 would meet this definition, and did, for COG was instituted on that day. As the Washington Post later explained, the order “dispatched a shadow government of about 100 senior civilian managers to live and work secretly outside Washington, activating for the first time long-standing plans.”
TnGelding
June 15th, 2009
10:25 am
electrician
June 15th, 2009
9:29 am
“there is no substance to American leadership anymore”
Was there ever? Obo will hold his own with world leaders. I would think somewhere between isolationists and interventionists would be good ground to stake out.
Citizen of the World
June 15th, 2009
10:26 am
Oh, and I agree with Doggone/GA @ 7:42 — let’s have some names. I have the utmost respect for Bookman as a journalist and a columnist, and I would imagine that in not naming the critics he’s partly trying to avoid confusing the issue, but overall, let’s leave that “some say” style of journalism to the talking heads on the right. They’ve raised it to an art, but we don’t want to go there.
TnGelding
June 15th, 2009
10:29 am
N.J,
June 15th, 2009
9:36 am
Of course! Another great posting. Thanks for the detailed accounts.
TnGelding
June 15th, 2009
10:31 am
retiredds
June 15th, 2009
10:04 am
Thanks, I’ll be going to my room now.
TnGelding
June 15th, 2009
10:32 am
Just as it was intended:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090615/ts_nm/us_imf_usa_4
Copyleft
June 15th, 2009
10:40 am
Normal: You’re right, we don’t need additional (accurate!) accusations of hypocrisy.
But I would like to see us taking at least an informal “position” on social progress, to encourage it everywhere it occurs.
TnGelding
June 15th, 2009
10:42 am
Citizen of the World
June 15th, 2009
10:26 am
Maybe Jay’s still on vacation.
N.J,
June 15th, 2009
10:44 am
The situation in Iran is the result of 38 years of Anglo/American policy in that area of the world. The rather hypocritical nature of the concept of “self determination” for various countries that were once part of the various colonial empires, where some nations were allowed to choose their own governments, and others were not, depending on the amount of resources that world powers wanted to rip off from those nations was a travesty. The involvement of the clergy as a political element in Iran dates back to the overthrow of the elected government and the reinstatement of the Shah, who had his government established by the U.S. and Britain simply because he was the weakest and most corrupt man that the U.S. could find to put into the job. He literally ran from his own country at the sign of the slightest rebellion, literally cowering under blankets in the back of limosines of the British or American embassies several times. He even ran out of his own country during the first attempted coup to put him back on the throne and overthrow the Mossadegh government.
The western powers used the clergy’s fear of a communist revolution to make certain that the clerics stayed out of the struggle to replace Mossadegh with the Shah.
For the next 25 years, the only groups who actually shared in the small percentage of the oil wealth that U.S. and British corporations allowed the Shah to keep (80/20 split…the Iranians got 20 percent, foreign oil companies got the rest) were the nobility and a small class of intellectuals and technocrats, a new class created by the Shah to serve the nobles, but who were blocked from sharing any power with the ruling class.
In any case, there is nothing that is going on in Iran today, that is not directly the result of what was done TO Iran in the past.
RealityKing
June 15th, 2009
10:46 am
Obama and his doofus VP need to keep out of Iran’s elections. Not to mention the progressive media looking to sell stories. It will only raise the level of violence.., getting more people killed by the Mullahs strong armed response.
electrician
June 15th, 2009
10:47 am
TnGelding at 10;25 point taken, it would be great if we could find that middle ground somewhere, but until we can find within our own domestic policies, we have a slim chance of forging it on the global stage.