A cavalier president
Iran’s ordeal shattered the Carter presidency, reminds Fouad Ajami writing in today’s Wall Street Journal. And President Obama’s tutorial has just begun. A leading observer of the Islamic world and professor of Middle East Studies at Johns Hopkins, Ajami writes that Obama’s statements last week (”the difference between Ahmadinejad and Mousavi in terms of their actual policies may not be as great as had been advertised”) put on “cruel display the administration’s incoherence.”
But the foreign-policy education of America’s 44th president has just begun. Hitherto, he had been cavalier about other lands, he had trusted in his own biography as a bridge to distant peoples, he had believed he could talk rogues and ideologues out of deeply held beliefs. His predecessor had drawn lines in the sand. He would look past them.
Like multiple U.S presidents before him, Obama has presumed that a softer U.S. policy toward the Muslim world can somehow be shape-shifting in the war within Islam itself. For all the Iranians yearning for liberty, says Ajami, we should not underestimate “the power and the determination of those moved by the yearning for piety.”
Obama’s belated effort to sound hawkish over the weekend, as Iranians began dying in the streets, looks anemic beside the determination of the ayatollahs to maintain their theocratic regime.




Learn it! Speak it! Live it!
Bring Christmas to a child in need!








Click to Print
Include Comments











back to top96 Comments to “A cavalier president”
This portends to be a long white nuckle flight thru stormy weather. I suggest you fasten your seat belts for nonstop turbulence. And sure the pilot’s a good looking guy, but did you see that copy of “Airline Piloting for Dummies” in his back pocket? You better hope there’s not too much change!
Report comment to moderator
I haven’t reached full cynicism in my life as of yet. I’ll give PresBO the benefit of the doubt this way. I truly believe that he really doesn’t know what to do.
Many who don’t know what to do, do little if anything.
Report comment to moderator
Wouldnt it be nice if he could just come out and say “Around the world we support anyone who wants to create govt of the people by the people for the people!” But then others will say that smacks of JFK rhetoric which blundered us into the rice paddies of VN.
Report comment to moderator
A U.S. president sounding and being more hawkish will have absolutely no (positive) effect on anything in Iran.
Report comment to moderator
Don’t worry. Barak Obama is launching a secret mission to rescue the American hostages being held at our embassy in Tehran.
However, don’t post any comments that might give the plan away until he pulls it off.
Report comment to moderator
“he had trusted in his own biography as a bridge to distant peoples, he had believed he could talk rogues and ideologues out of deeply held beliefs.”
1. This is why we shouldn’t hire lawyers to do the job — they believe they have the power of persuasion and it’s all about “winning.” They believe they can run a good con.
2. And let’s face it — Obama did run a good con. He got elected with very little experience. What’s the lesson: you can fool some of the people all of the time, but you can’t fool the mullahs.
Report comment to moderator
There’s a presumption in the OP that “sounding hawkish” or “determined” would be any benefit to the people of Iran.
How so?
On the contrary, hawkishness would be of great detriment to the Iranian people. Anything that sounds like a promise of American intervention will give the Iranian right-wing exactly what they want: the chance to dismiss clear evidence of vote fraud and blame the protests on an American conspiracy to undermine Iran.
Just look at the propaganda coming out of Iran and tell me how any talk of intervention would be helpful.
Report comment to moderator
Iranians would have “begun dying” in the street last weekend if Obama had begun issuing orders to the Islamic Republic about their election. Thanks to Obama’s prudence, Iranians can say they died in pursuit of self-determination rather than as punishment for yet more interference from America.
Report comment to moderator
NJLawyer – your #2 is spot on. Running a good con is what Chicago politicians do well. Good analogy.
Report comment to moderator
JJF at 7:
Nailed it. This country does not have the stomach for another Mid-East adventure. The current two-front war is bad enough. EVERYBODY knows that. Including the Iranians. Rattling hollow sabres just makes an ugly clunking sound, and serves as a great rallying point for the Iranian government.
Report comment to moderator
SAWGUNNER — be glad Obama doesn’t have “Foreign Policy for Neocons” in his pocket.
What neocons like WSJ really want is for Obama to support the Ayatollah and Ahmadinejad. Seriously. Neocons secretly prefer Ahmadinejad to Moussavi, because they are suspicious of phony moderation. Neocons welcome the prospect of a harsh crackdown because that could block Obama’s overtures for talks with the regime. Neocons want a fight.
Report comment to moderator
The sensibleness of Obama’s response is a wonder reprieve from the cow boy government, and it’s why his Iran response has won praise and affirmation from Kissinger and several other high value conservative foreign policy gurus.
And high value domestic conservatives aren’t all buying into the latest distracting rhetoric either. Grover Norquist calls the Republican campaign to to paint Obama as “weak” on Iran a “false sense of moral superiority that supposedly flows from letting the world know we are against bad stuff.”
Report comment to moderator
#11 Thank you Scroop. I dont read COMMENTARY often enough to have as clear a pipeline into the inner workings of NeoCon-dom as you seem to have. I think WSJ criticizes BHO for his nuanced neutrality. Can one be neutral between the firehose and the blaze?
Report comment to moderator
MYNOCK — your reminder of our “cowboy” government points out what’s wrong with neocons calling Obama a “cavalier president.” The supercilious George Bush was a cavalier president, to be honest, Mindy Belz should admit that a “cavalier president” is what she’d like to have again.
Report comment to moderator
#6 NJLawyer.. you nailed it superbly.
Report comment to moderator
Neocons seem to be a strange bunch and I’m a bit confused about them. From what I’ve read they’re not solidly right wing or left, but rather have seemed to be a weird hybrid that switches back and forth—more recently to the right. I have heard some say that they are predominately oriented toward Israel, and that is a defining characteristic–but I’m not so sure about that.
Open Question to anyone with an opinion: What do you think has been the defining characteristic of a neocon over the past few decades?
Report comment to moderator
I’ve been hanging out with old friends in DC this weekend and the feeling is, the President might solve a couple problems if he strongly dealt with North Korea.
Report comment to moderator
In the majority of nonWestern countries, the regimes are headed up by gangster types (Mugabe and other “Presidents for Life”) who shot their way into power. Elections? For the third world it’s often just “one man, one vote for one time only”.
For most of them Mao’s injunction “Politics flows out the barrel of a gun” is an accepted unchallengeable creed. So brutal thugs like the Assad dynasty or the Tehran mullahs are expected to somehow mellow out and make nicey nice when Barack extends a handshake and a smile??!
Seems a tad naive, to put it mildly.
If they know military intervention or its threat is off the table all these brutes breathe easier and are content to dismiss any Carteresque statements from BHO.
Mabye even as the mullahs are sending weapons into Iraq we should start a Ho Chi Minh trail into Iran to support those who want to take down the mullahcracy.
Report comment to moderator
Michelle,
I wouldn’t be surprised if we don’t knock their missle out of the air, should they test toward Hawaii.
Report comment to moderator
#4 Yeah:
Absolutely correct. Fancy talk not backed up by action will lead to slaughter just as it did in Hungary 1956 or Iraq in 1991 when the first Bush implied we’d help the Iraqis “rise up” and overthrow Saddam.
As was said about Napolean if you say you’re going to take Vienna you’d better take Vienna.
Report comment to moderator
#17 I hope BHO has his “Reagan vs PATCO” moment soon.
All the brutal thug dictators (and certainly the Soviet Central Committee) took note of how Ronnie handled the striking airline pilots. They knew he was no Jimmy Carter!
Report comment to moderator
How does this apply?
Let’s assume, as is very likely the case, that Khomeini saw the results of the election, decided they were unacceptable, and instructed the government to fabricate results saying Ahmedinejad won.
How is that evidence of Obama’s inability to fool the mullahs? Do you think that if he had talked tough, they would not have dared to rig their election? Is there anything that any U.S. President could have done that would have caused Khomeini to accept the candidate he didn’t like?
The way I see it, Obama’s strengths or weaknesses, successes or failures, have almost nothing to do with the situation in Iran right now. Do you see a legitimate failure here, or are you just eager for any reason to write another anti-Obama post?
Report comment to moderator
SAWGUNNER — You’re closer to the pipeline than me ‘caus my subscrip lapsed 15 yrs ago. But one can get this stuff from the news. Prominent Israelis have been quoted in the past week saying that Ahmadinejad would better serve Israeli strategic interests.
Thinking of the hazzards of getting between the firehose and the flames — do you remember Clark County, Ohio in the 2004 election? The Guardian newspaper launched a preemptive crusade against expected vote fraud there. The paper organized UK moonbats to write thousands of letters to voters in the county urging them to vote for Sen. Kerry. The result? First, Clark County voters sent thousands of pieces of hate mail across the Atlantic in the opposite direction. Secondly, Clark County voters went to the polls and voted for Bush more heavily than any other “Gore” county in Ohio. Clark was the only “Gore” county that Kerry lost.
The Islamic Republic certainly committed vote fraud. But it’s possible that Ahmadinijad won by a little or lost by a little. The society is highly sensitive to the “insult” of foreign advice, and Ahmadinijad without cheating can count on getting votes from devout and patriotic Iranians who don’t want to hear from neocons.
Report comment to moderator
I’d say it’s the deeply misguided and immoral belief that America’s national security is best secured by aggressive military action toppling governments that don’t like us and attempting to replace them with governments that do.
Which applies to Iran, by the way. It was one of our early experiments in regime change. We didn’t like that the democratically elected reformer Mohammed Mossadeq nationalized Iranian order, so our CIA fomented and executed a coup that removed him from power and replaced him the despotic Shah, who had agreed to give us good oil deals. Classical neo-conservative strategy. It backfired horrifically when the Iranian people chafed under the Shah’s rule so much that they backed Khomeni’s radical clerics in their anti-Western 1979 Iranian Revolution.
Oops.
Report comment to moderator
SAWGUNNER (3): But then others will say that smacks of JFK rhetoric which blundered us into the rice paddies of VN.
Frank: Two points:
1) I’d be at the front of that line. By what legal principle does the leader of one country (including the US) interfere in the politics of any other country (including Iran)?
I copy here once again the very wise words of John Quincy Adams from his speech to the U.S. House of Representatives on July 4, 1821.
Read them, slowly and deliberately, while considering what is occurring in Iran at the moment — and by what legal principle we would intervene there.
Proverbs (26:17): “He that meddles in a quarrel not his own is like a man that taketh a dog by the ears.”
2) Perhaps JFK’s rhetoric helped blunder us into the rice paddies of Vietnam, but it was without a doubt LBJ’s lies that deceived us into them.
Report comment to moderator
sorry, that should be “Mossadeq nationalized Iranian oil”
It was called Operation Ajax, if you doubt that America would do something so blatantly evil or if you want to read more about it.
Report comment to moderator
Here we have the latest example of conservatives ignoring what’s best for the country in order to score political points for the Republican Party.
Of course all the arguments that conservatives made about the left undermining George Bush are just as applicable here, but you won’t here a peep. For conservatives, the opportunity to smear a political foe will trump facts, history, and commonsense every time.
Report comment to moderator
JJF asks: “How does this apply?”
The left supports Obama without giving thought. The mullahs are not fooled by a smooth-talking con artist lawyer who is arrogant enough to think he can just talk them into change (unlike the silly left here who bought it hook, line and sinker). They may not be harmless as doves, but they are wise as serpents. The mullahs already know that Obama is out of his depth with them. I can only pray that Obama knows this, too, and will continue to shut up.
And, as usual, you think like an American thinks.
Report comment to moderator
#28
You give mullahs way too much credit, I think.
As for Obama’s response: if the alternative is more chest-thumping or ‘axis of evil’ rhetoric favored by some, then I agree with you in the hope that he remains mute. Too much encouragement may cause the revolution to move beyond it’s ability to support itself. Even though it’s slower, organinc growth is best if possible.
Report comment to moderator
Just saw that the Shah’s son is also calling for restrained rhetoric from the US and other governments. Chest-thumping doesn’t help, it only hurts the cause of freedom.
Report comment to moderator
I think Frank’s nailed it by quoting Adams.
We should never have interfered with Iran’s means of government when we staged that clandestine coup. As JJF says, it backfired. And we, and especially the Iranians, are paying the price.
I’m mostly inclined to say we should stay totally out of it, except to vociferously oppose tyrannical oppression. My only problem is that the US is largely responsible for this mess in the first place. If we had left Mossadeq and Iranian oil alone, we’d probably be enjoying a much better relationship with Iran right about now… Mossadeq, and Iran was pro-American at that point, but you can see it’s definitely NOT pro-American now.
I’m no Obama fan, and oppose most of what he’s doing, but I echo the comments of others. What exactly should he be doing?
Report comment to moderator
In 2 weeks back in 79 the mullahs/Khomeiniacs killed more Iranians than the Shah had in the previous 38 years.
These guys play hardball, Mr President!
Report comment to moderator
OK, BusHitler is gone. So now why do they hate us?
Oh, right, of course, they had us because of the unspeakable evil of BusHitler which has just transpired.
So why did they hate us before BusHitler? Apparently they somehow knew BusHitler was coming (perhpas some sort of prophecy give by their god, who doesn’t exist, but gave them a prophecy anyway?). So they were pre-emptively hating us for the BusHitler to come. And Cheney. And Halliburton. And, of course, the Jooooooos.
Report comment to moderator
You entirely didn’t answer the question. You just responded with more generalities (e.g., Obama is out of his depth, he’s not fooling the mullahs, he’s naive).
Here’s the question again:
What, specifically, is the failure of Obama’s response to the situation in Iran? What action should he have taken that would have caused Khomeini to accept Mousavi’s (presumed) victory?
Report comment to moderator
The worst thing you can do is underestimate your enemy. The mullahs are in power, and they control the military and the judiciary. They believe what they believe, and no upstart, smooth-talking lawyer is going to convince them to sit down and talk about giving up that power. They are not stupid men, and they know their culture and people a lot better than we posters here do. The mullahs can afford to dismiss Obama, or they can use what he does say against their people in whatever way pleases them. These are the people who sent out unarmed 14 year old kids to be the first to be slaughtered by the Iraqis back in the day, remember?
The odd thing is that 30 years ago the students then brought these guys to power. Those students are now the parents of these students, but these students don’t have a Khomeini waiting in the wings, nor do they seem to have the BaniSadrs or Ghobtzadehs seeking reform. And we know what happened to Bani Sadr and even moreso to Ghobtzaheh.
Do I think they will eventually fall from power? Yes. And if the students stand their ground, which will be very difficult, sooner or later their parents will have had enough of their kids being slaughtered. But if the students don’t have the staying power and are not willing to go to the mat and fight — with more than stones as noted above! — that fall from power will not be now.
Report comment to moderator
Sawgunner, NJLawyer, etc.: While you all are patting yourselves on the back for “nailing it superbly,” please notice that not one of you has explained what Obama should have done differently and how it would have made any difference.
JJF and DJ are right: You’re just taking the opportunity to continue running down the president. No matter what he does, it will be the wrong thing, as far as you’re concerned.
Have fun, but I will look elsewhere for any serious insight into things.
Oh, and KWatson’s #27 is completely correct: Of course all the arguments that conservatives made about the left undermining George Bush are just as applicable here, but you won’t here a peep.
Report comment to moderator
JJF, Khomeini is dead.
At his core, Obama is a smooth-talking lawyer who is out of his depth with very hardened men. The feeling I get from Obama is the feeling I got when new law clerks fresh out of law school started their clerkships in chambers. They thought they knew it all until the first time they had to defend their work to the judge. Wise law clerks had a healthy fear of going into the judge’s office. Obama is not like a wise law clerk, and I suspect that the lawyers working with him are the same way. Proof: see the references to his quotes in paragraph 1 of the topic. He voices his “misspeaks” and we’re not supposed to hold them to them because he’s Obama. (Had he been GWB, you’d be all over him.)
Obama IS naive, he is out of his depth, he lacks experience, and you leftys are still unwilling to take a long hard look at him. In that, you put our own country in peril, because we’re at risk of having another Jimmy Carter, nice guy but ineffectual. Thank God we don’t have people over there to be taken hostage like the last time.
Report comment to moderator
The name of this thread is “A Cavalier President.” When you say things off the cuff without thinking of the ramifications like Obama said in paragraph one of the topic thread and those things are known to the mullahs, they know what they’re dealing with — nothing with intestinal fortitude, just someone who is relying on his celebrity to get by. That won’t work with these fellows. Letting them know that was a mistake.
Report comment to moderator
“What, specifically, is the failure of Obama’s response to the situation in Iran? What action should he have taken that would have caused Khomeini to accept Mousavi’s (presumed) victory?”
I applaud that we are demanding from the dissatisfied specific alternatives to what Obama has done, and I am certainly pleased that so many conservatives are among the rational for once. But JJF, you’r question is a little flawed. We should remember that putting Mousavi in office is not the end goal of U.S. interests. I would rephrase it like this, ” What action should he have taken that would have enhanced the prospects of a non-nuclear Iran, of stability in the region, or security for Israel?” The plan for meeting those end goals is still strong international pressure, new listening & engagement, and modeling the respect for national borders that we hope to inspire toward Israel’s. These events present new opportunities for those plans to work (opportunities which likely coincide with Iranian reformists’ end goals if we don’t screw things up), but they aren’t directly tied to Mousavi.
Report comment to moderator
I still don’t see any specifics, NJL, about what Obama should have done differently and what difference it would have made. For my part, I think his restraint is the wise and correct course.
You are right. I meant Khamenei in post #22. He is the current supreme leader of Iran.
Report comment to moderator
Good point. Your question is the better one.
From what I’ve read, Mousavi is just as much an extremist thug as Ahmedinejad. He was responsible for murdering leftists and intellectuals during the Iran/Iraq war, and he supported the students who took our hostages in the 70s. We only want him in power because he is (according to the likely hypothetical I was framing in that post), he is the duly elected leader of Iran.
Report comment to moderator
Obama needs to man up, for a change. A strong stand against the Iranian govt is exactly what is needed. Whimpering about speaking up possibly causing bigger problems is cowardice, nothing more. For goodness sakes, man up for once Barry. They had/have no intention of talking to you either way, despite what you wish.
But don’t take my word for it. After all, I’m just a neo-con, right wing, theocracy seeking, christianist. Just ask Anlir. Feel free to ignore what I say. But at least take the time to read what an Iranian has to say. You may actually learn something.
Iranian Hero & Leading Activist Ahmad Batebi On Obama: “His Lack of Response Will Not Be Regarded Kindly” (Audio-Video)
http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2009/06/iranian-hero-leading-activist-ahmad.html
“His (Obama) lack of response will not be regarded lightly. We will watch for how much his response will help the people or the regime. We will know more this week… Obama can hold talks with the regime in Iran if he wants. Is it morally correct for Obama to support the regime? Does he actually believe the people of Iran will appreciate that? The social movement requires support. If the world really wants the advent of terrorism to disappear in the Middle East, if they want peace with the Palestinians and Israel, if they want nuclear techhology to be developed for peaceful things and not nuclear weapons… They only need to support the people of Iran right now. This regime has the most dangerous of ideologies. They’re killing the opposition.”
“And, people need to know that if they do not stand by the Iranian people shoulder to shoulder right now, that they themselves will come face to face with this very regime. And if this regime is allowed to have a nuclear weapon it will do the exact same thing with the entire world. This regime does not represent the people of Iran. And, morally the people of the world need to support the people of Iran and not what the regime wants.”
Obama is way out of his league here. Only the kool-aid drinkers don’t see it. He’s an amatuer, and it’s becoming more obvious every day.
You lefties may now resume acting as if you know what you’re talking about.
Report comment to moderator
He let them know what he thinks and that he doesn’t think things through. I don’t know, but when I’m playing poker, I don’t let the other guy see my cards. Here, one of the cards is his naivete and his lack of experience. He has now confirmed that. That was a mistake. Is that specific enough for you?
Report comment to moderator
Obama’s foreign policy has not been very positive so far. North Korea has not been held in check. Despite having UN sanctions to board NK’s ships we havent yet (at least as of the news around 11am) I say call NK’s bluff and sink the ship.
Meanwhile youve got a protest going on in Iran that Obama hasnt given much support too.
What support should he give? Well I think a strong vocal support for democracy is enough at this point. Maybe applied pressure to a revote in the least. Applied UN pressure. There are alot of things that can be done “unofficially” or behind the scenes to support the Iranians.
If Obama is so good at being an orator, he should be able to come up with something better than what he has so far.
He either honestly thinks playing nice with dictators will win them over, or he’s in bed with them already. Either way, his foreign policies havent been too successful so far.
Report comment to moderator
That’s not always a bad thing. If the control operators at Three Mile Island had done nothing, the safety systems would have automatically shut down the reactor in a safe manner. Instead, the people who thought they knew what they were doing, did something, like bypass a critical safety system.
Report comment to moderator
The case against mililtary or other intervention is a classic straw man argument. There are a number of intermediate steps between ivading Iran and turning a deaf ear and a blind eye to the victims of a brutal regime. It is not either undermine Iran by direct or covert action or ignore the aspirations of its people entirely. Italy’s embassy is treating wounded demonstrators, Germany’s Merkel has unequivocally condemned the brutal repression going on. Such actions have always been appreciated by dissidents facing repression from brutal regimes and have an effect. It is the universal testimony of dissidents in oppressive regimes such as the former Soviet Union, China, and Cuba, that attention to their plight and condemnation of their oppressor’s actions restrained the oppressors and fed hope to the dissidents. They don’t involve “meddling.”
When Reagan said to the Soviet premier, “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!” he violated no international norms nor interfered with any foreign government, legitimate or otherwise. He simply expressed leadership, precisely what is lacking in the present. And the people of a divided Germany, emboldened by that expression of support and solidarity, eventually did tear down that wall.
Iran will accuse the US no matter what we do. Obama should consider doing the right thing and speak strongly in favor of Western values such as freedom of expresson and self-determination instead of hoping to stay in favor with Iran’s thuggish rulers.
The term neocon (new conservatives)originally referred to a number of leftists, including Irving Kristol, who, chagrined at the virulent anti-Americanism of the Left during and in the immediate aftermath of Viet Nam, found more congenial company among the paleoconservatives (original conservatives)like Barry Goldwater and William F. Buckley. It has degenerated into the ad hominem of the moment for knee jerk leftists who prefer to denigrate their ideological opponent to trying to make a case.
“Oops” If that’s your apology for your cartoonish black and white historical revisionism, accepted. The reality is more confused and nuanced. The Shah was repressive, but less so than the alternatives, and he was not repudiated by Iran en masse, but after Carter withdrew any support, was forced to flee by the Revolutionaries who seized our embassy in defiance of all internatonal law and norms. American actions influenced the fall of the Shah as much as it did his prior restoration.
“I’d say it’s the deeply misguided and immoral belief that America’s national security is best secured by aggressive military action toppling governments that don’t like us and attempting to replace them with governments that do”
So WWII was misguided and immoral? America would have been more secure without replacing the Nazi Reich and Hirohito’s militaristic government with more pro-American, more representative governments? Admittedly, it is seldom easy or even advisable to overthrow other governments, but it is surely not always misguided or immoral. The benefits of our western way of life for human thriving are incontrovertible, and today our civilization finds its gravest enemies among its heirs who would flatten the world with their distorted perception of moral equivalency.
Report comment to moderator
He either honestly thinks playing nice with dictators will win them over, or he’s in bed with them already. Either way, his foreign policies havent been too successful so far.
I think our foreign policy has been moving along very well.
After the President’s speech in Cairo in which he let it be known that he was prepared to pursue diplomacy, Hezbollah lost in Lebanon, and Iranian protesters were emboldened to speak out against apparent election corruption. There’s also movement and preparations in Hawaii that indicate that we will not permit NK to test fire another missile in our direction.
There is room for improvement, but overall I’m very happy with the direction of our foreign policy.
Report comment to moderator
Wow DJ, you must have some seriously low standards if Obama’s foriegn policies are enough to make you happy.
And since you brought up NK and the Hawaii thing….Isn’t it ironic that Obama is using a weapon system he cut, deeming it unnecessary?
That is also a demonstration of Obama’s cluelessness.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/06/16/lawmakers-question-obamas-missile-defense-cuts/
“At Fort Greeley in Alaska, the missile defense silos can defend the U.S. from both North Korea and Iran, but the Obama budget would cuts the number of interceptor missiles based there from 44 to 30. And that has both Republicans and Democrats asking, why now?
“Is this being budget-driven?” Sen. Evan Bayh, D-Ind., asked.
“The numbers don’t add up to me,” said Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., “I think it’s just a question of somewhere somebody has decided to cut missile defense substantially, and you’re doing the best you can under a difficult circumstance.”
Sen. Mark Begich, D-Alaska said: “With North Korea, it seems since we’ve made this announcement, as I’ve said, 40 percent of their testing has occurred, plus an underground nuclear test. I mean, I don’t know. That seems risky to me.”
Asked the odds of shooting down a rogue missile using the current ground-based system in Alaska and California, Marine Corps Gen. James Cartwright, vice chairman of the Joints Chiefs of Staff, said, “90 percent plus.”
The European interceptors would provide an added layer of protection to the U.S. from potential Iranian missiles. But the Pentagon is now looking at basing the interceptors onboard ships, or mobile launchers at existing U.S. army bases in Europe. But that capability won’t be ready for eight years, a former missile defense official said.
A recent Congressional Budget Office report found, “None of the alternatives considered by CBO provide as much additional defense of the United States.”
Pentagon officials say if North Korea proceeds to develop its long-range missile capacity, they’ll adjust the following year’s budget requests, leaving many on Capitol Hill asking, why cut it in the first place.”
But hey, it’s good enough for DJ. Now back to the topic at hand.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/06/22/iran.us.wolfowitz/index.html
“I understand the concern about meddling in a way that seems to label the opposition as American tools, but the opposition made it very clear they want support from the world,” said Wolfowitz, a staunch supporter of the U.S.-led war in Iraq and a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.
CNN Senior Political Analyst David Gergen added that, “It would be useful for the president to show more forceful leadership internationally on this issue.”
He noted the graphic images emerging from Iran, including the fatal shooting of a young female protester identified as Neda, saying the violence calls for “some kind of humanity from the West.”
Even CNN’s political analyst get’s it. Obama, not so much.
Report comment to moderator
Iranians may be nearly as religiously conservative as Americans, and as deeply divided. A third support Ahmadinejad and a third support Moussavi. The other third are moderate swing voters who can’t make up their mind.
A third of Iranians can’t. make. up. their. minds. Ahmadinejad hads strengths and weaknesses. On the other hand, so does Moussavi. A third of Iranians are Reagan Democrats from Oaikland, Co. Mich. Maybe they’ll vote against Nafta, or against Negroes, or against Big Oil.
But there’s a better than even chance that these Iranian swing voters will vote against arrogant foreigners.
Report comment to moderator
Wow DJ, you must have some seriously low standards if Obama’s foriegn policies are enough to make you happy.
Oh they are! Coming off the last 8 years in which we’ve been constantly told just be thankful that a bomb hasn’t dropped on our heads or we haven’t had another terror attack…. They’re exceedingly low. But the really sad part is my expectations are so much higher right now than they were just a few short months ago!
BTW, I don’t give much credence to anything that war-mongering, imperialist Wolfowitz has to say.
Report comment to moderator
DJ says,
Coming off the last 8 years in which we’ve been constantly told just be thankful that a bomb hasn’t dropped on our heads or we haven’t had another terror attack…. They’re exceedingly low.
That’s funny. Funny because under Bush, and thanks to him, it didn’t happen. With Obama, we already know when and where it will happen. Even funnier is the only thing he plans to do about it is use a Bush era weapons system to try to stop it. So suppose they make a mistake and actually hit Hawaii. Which would be the better stradegy, pre-emption or reaction? We know where in NK the missles reside, why not end this nonsense now? I bet the people of Hawaii would prefer the first option. Sadly for them that’s not an option with Obama. He doesn’t have the stones for it.
And what about this part. You left that out.
“CNN Senior Political Analyst David Gergen added that, “It would be useful for the president to show more forceful leadership internationally on this issue.”
What about him DJ? Or is he also a war-mongering imperialist?
Report comment to moderator
No. Gergen is more respectable, and I certainly would give his opinion more weight than Wolfawitz. But I don’t think Iranians themselves want us to interfere too much. It will weaken their hands in dealing with their own government.
And we should consider one other thing. It is not at all certain that monolithic movement, and some evidence to the contrary. The voices seem to be mixed. If you listen closely to the interviews of the people there, they seem to have a coalition of people who want a freer Islamic government, and/or a re-vote, and/or a completely NEW government. If we interfere in the wrong way, we will almost certainly tear that coalition apart.
More cynical people think this is exactly the result that some on the far right are hoping for. I’m hoping not to become quite that cynical.
Report comment to moderator
“With Obama, we already know when and where it will happen.”
Wow, well if you know when and where the next massively deadly terrorist strike will be, you might want to tip someone off. Seems like really relevant information you shouldn’t just keep to yourself.
Of course, instead of dialing up the DHS, you could instead just take a long hard look in the mirror. I think this might be a better option for you, since you are displaying a serious tendency to say stupid things.
“We know where in NK the missles reside, why not end this nonsense now?”
Well despite the issue with the pre-emptive doctrine being morally bankrupt, there are many good reasons to not attack North Korea.
If you valued actually locating answers to your inane questions, you might already know that North Korea has literally dozens of conventional artillery brigades protected in covered trenches and scattered across the border aimed at highly populated South Korean cities, including the capital. We could not attack North Korean missile bases (which P.S. are mobile) without triggering a reaction that would kill several thousand innocent South Koreans. Most people are not willing to sacrifice Seoul in order to destroy the very limited ballistic missile capabilities of North Korea.
And shall we go into the ramifications of destabilizing the North Chinese border? Or the conflict of interest that would reawaken between the 4 largest global powers if we re-enacted the Korean War?
How about you take that look in the mirror, and let us know when you are ready to join us at the adult table, huh?
Report comment to moderator
DJ,
It sounds like the Iranian that I linked to in #42 sure wants us to interfere, as you put it. He thinks it weakens their hand if we, and the rest of the world, don’t, as you put it, interfere.
Mynock says,
“Wow, well if you know when and where the next massively deadly terrorist strike will be, you might want to tip someone off. Seems like really relevant information you shouldn’t just keep to yourself.”
First off, it’s not a terrorist attack. It’s called an act of war. It’s gonna be around 7-4-09 and it’s aimed at Hawaii. I’m shocked you haven’t heard of it by now. The NK’s have been up front about it. Not exactly trying to hide their intentions. Perhaps you should check out some news sites and read it yourself.
And this one is priceless.
“Well despite the issue with the pre-emptive doctrine being morally bankrupt, there are many good reasons to not attack North Korea.”
I always find it amusing when people, like YOU, who advocate for murdering babies and gay “marriage” talk about something being morally bankrupt. You have no standing to determine what is morally bankrupt when you advocate things that clearly are. I don’t expect you to be the sharpest knife in the drawer, but I am a little surprised that your so butter knife dull. Well maybe not that surprised.
Report comment to moderator
AJ: I always find it amusing when people, like YOU, who advocate for murdering babies and gay “marriage” talk about something being morally bankrupt. You have no standing to determine what is morally bankrupt when you advocate things that clearly are. I don’t expect you to be the sharpest knife in the drawer, but I am a little surprised that your so butter knife dull. Well maybe not that surprised.
So I take it then that you have no response for the point about the repercussions of an attack on North Korea’s missile bases?
I deduce that based on your sudden frenzied refocusing of the topic onto your irrelevant ad hominem rather than the substance of the point.
Report comment to moderator
I agree with MIM in #31, I think. I’m no Obama fan, and oppose most of what he’s doing, but I echo the comments of others. What exactly should he be doing?
And I agree with JJF, the 1953 CIA-sponsored coup was clearly a strategical and (more importantly) moral failure. However I would blame it on the Eisenhower administration, not somehow on today’s neoconservatives. The political scene in the ’50s was not the same as it is today, and “neoconservatives” as we think of them today did not exist. For one thing, conservatives were still shaking off the old pre-WWII isolationism.
Also, the 1953 coup replace a democratically elected government with a dictator. This is the opposite of what the neoconservatives have pushed for.
Report comment to moderator
DJ said (referring to low foreign policy expectations):
Oh they are! Coming off the last 8 years in which we’ve been constantly told just be thankful that a bomb hasn’t dropped on our heads or we haven’t had another terror attack…. They’re exceedingly low.
Well, I don’t have a problem with your view of Obama’s foreign policy so far. But I think you’re underestimating Bush’s foreign policy successes. I mean, if you’re saying Bush ruined our foreign relations, which ones? Care to go country by country?
Report comment to moderator
Well Steve let’s see. I think Mynock did bring up some good points about what a pre-emptive strike would cause. HOWEVER, I chose to address mynocks obvious playing dumb about the planned NK missle launch. And his smart — comments. And I notice you have nothing to say about Mynocks behavior which came before mine. I get a little snarky in return and I’m changing the subject? Please. My posts dealt with the issue at hand, your buddy mynock was the one who started to make it personal. Your liberal bias is showing again. Here’s an idea Steve. Skip my posts. Skip responding to them as well, if they bother you so. I’m a big boy, I could live with it.
Report comment to moderator
Here’s an idea Steve. Skip my posts. Skip responding to them as well, if they bother you so. I’m a big boy, I could live with it.
That would sorta defeat the purpose of taking part in a discussion forum, no?
Report comment to moderator
MattY
Thanks for the link. It was a good article. It’s a bit of hyperbole to say that Bush ‘ruined our foreign relations’. I don’t think he was off in every area, but there are a few areas that stand out.
Admittedly, the Middle East has been a thorn for every president, including Bush. But, I think listing Iran in the ‘axis of evil’ was a major mistake that probably swept that extremist Ahmedinajad right into power and was counterproductive to our goals in Iraq as well. (And I won’t even go into Iraq.) Another thorn was the repressive regime of Saudi Arabia: I cringed like so many others to see our President dance arm in arm with those princes….I cringed all the way to the gas pump like everyone else.
I thought Bush treated Mexico (under Fox) like the 51st state, and minimized the importance of problems on the border. I don’t live on the border, but it is the responsibility of the federal government to protect our borders and it is abundantly apparent to me that many Americans of all ethnic persuasions who live there don’t feel protected at all.
As for China and India, our relationship with them seems to have been largely dictated by the needs of multinational companies and their associates on Wall St. We opened wide our trade borders and let them flood our market with cheap goods. And we’ve paid the price in the decimation of our manufacturing and small business base. As far as I can tell, Bush continued and increased detrimental practices followed by Clinton in that regard. I am in favor of vigorous protections, especially for small to medium sized American-based businesses; and penalties—not tax breaks—for companies who leave the US to operate elsewhere.
I have no idea if Obama will do much better in many of these areas. But in the Middle East, he’s already on the right track.
Just my 2 cents.
Report comment to moderator
So you now blame Bush for Ahmedinajad being in power? – that doesn’t make sense – I don’t believe it was a mistake whatsoever, when Bush made that statement – when 9-11 occurred, there was plenty of footage – Muslims dancing for joy over what had transpired against the U.S. – Bush had nothing to do with Ahmedinajad being swept into power, however it is a handy excuse when needed.
Below is the the statement Bush made – I don’t find anything in that statement which should bother anyone. Iran has made threats. They held many hostage in the 80’s –
Report comment to moderator
Another Iranian seeking “interference” from the US and world.
http://amfix.blogs.cnn.com/2009/06/22/iranian-protestor-plea/
“Mohammad: Yes. Let me tell you something. For about three decades our nation has been humiliated and insulted by this regime. Now Iranians are united again one more time after 1979 Revolution. We are a peaceful nation. We don’t hate anybody. We want to be an active member of the international community. We don’t want to be isolated. Is this much of a demand for a country with more than 2,500 years of civilization? We don’t deny the Holocaust. We do accept Israel’s rights. And actually, we want — we want severe reform on this structure. This structure is not going to be tolerated by the majority of Iranians. We need severe reform, as much as possible.
Roberts: Interesting perspective this morning from Mohammad, a student demonstrator there in Tehran.
Mohammad: Excuse me, sir. I have a message for the international community. Would you please let me tell it?
Roberts: Yes, go ahead.
Mohammad: Americans, European Union, international community, this government is not definitely — is definitely not elected by the majority of Iranians. So it’s illegal. Do not recognize it. Stop trading with them. Impose much more sanctions against them. My message…to the international community, especially I’m addressing President Obama directly – how can a government that doesn’t recognize its people’s rights and represses them brutally and mercilessly have nuclear activities? This government is a huge threat to global peace. Will a wise man give a sharp dagger to an insane person? We need your help international community. Don’t leave us alone.”
Report comment to moderator
Two quotes from CNN –
Report comment to moderator
JJF #24
Thanks for your answer regarding ‘neocons’. I think it’s probably pretty accurate. Though I had not considered them as regards the US involvement in the overthrow of Mossadeq. While it is certainly true that the CIA and Britain caused the overthrow of Iran’s Prime Minister, I had not considered the political affiliations in power at the time. But it certainly would fit.
Report comment to moderator
Ken #46
Your claim regarding JJF’s description of Mossadeq that “ The reality is more confused and nuanced. The Shah was repressive, but less so than the alternatives… is just not so.
The Shah was foisted on the people by US and British interference after they engineered the overthrow of Iran’s Prime Minister, Mossadeq. Mossadeq was put in power by democratic means and was not repressive at all. The Shah, on the other hand, could be quite repressive on occasion, though not always.
He had a very unique and creative way of dealing with his enemies, especially the clerics. He would load them up in a helicopter, fly low over the salt marshes, and push them out live into the brine—where their pickled and preserved bodies could serve as a warning to others who might oppose him.
He disposed of troublesome clerics in this manner until Carter’s conscience pressured him to stop. It was all downhill from there, as the clerics were only too happy to get revenge by siding with hopeful, optimistic students and others who were looking for a little freedom and another Mossadeq.
The plain simple truth is the US did a real disservice to the people of Iran through our interference in their affairs. And all revisionist efforts to the contrary, that fact won’t be covered up any longer.
Report comment to moderator
DJ – 65
Have you lived in Iran?
What this sounds very much like, is straight from a current Iranian history book. Hmmmm
Report comment to moderator
I had no idea you read Farsi. How many current Iranian history books have you read, Victoria?
Hmmmm
Report comment to moderator
DJ – you can’t answer the question? Hmmmmm
Interesting…………….
Report comment to moderator
Apparently neither can you? Hmmmmm
Very interesting….but it stinks.
Report comment to moderator
After reading the entire thread, I have only read criticism of Obama’s style. No alternatives are offered. In reality, the interference in an other state is a delicate act which needs to be balance. Being proactive will remind Iranians of 1953 and backing off too much will give the impression of a green light. Its a delicate balancing act with few alternatives as the lack of suggestions here indicates.
Food for thought
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OMbMK2oTPkc
I neither agree nor disagree with the video but it should raise questions that need to be asked.
Report comment to moderator
DJ,
I asked you a civil question, if you care not to answer that’s your choice – however the ‘not so clever’ question with an answer is very telling…..my post 67 -
Report comment to moderator
Sorry that should read YOUR POST 67
Report comment to moderator
All of your questions are very telling Victoria, and usually contain a dig or bias of some sort. The last time we had this go around, I decided not to answer any more of your questions. But I don’t mind playing if you have the humor for it…or not.
Report comment to moderator
HRW,
There are times when riot police are needed just to restore order. There was no bloodshed visible in the video. Of course being held without being charged is a far more serious matter. But does this happen on a regular basis? There is no reason to think that it does.
If the makers of the video are trying to equate the riots in Iran with riots here, then it’s a thin comparison. They missed the main interesting elements: election fraud, repressive dictatorships, and lots of blood and death.
What did you think of the video?
Report comment to moderator
DJ,
Asking questions regarding Iran is not a dig, however it’s TOO OBVIOUS that you have taken it the wrong way.
As far as “bias” I am biased when it comes to the United States, and President Bush, Bush was a great President, it is to his credit through his leadership that this country was kept safe after 9-11 –
I am biased against the threats that Ahmadinejad has made, which many of the Iranian’s find no fault with –
When you wrote —– Post 60 “Admittedly, the Middle East has been a thorn for every president, including Bush. But, I think listing Iran in the ‘axis of evil’ was a major mistake that probably swept that extremist Ahmedinajad right into power and was counterproductive to our goals in Iraq as well.” ——- you tried in vain to make President Bush the scape goat for Ahmedinajad, which simply isn’t true, but it does serve a purpose for those who need an excuse for Ahmedinajad. If you consider my comment in post 61 a “dig” it wasn’t, it was my strong belief along with most American’s.
Report comment to moderator
I don’t consider my questions humor, they were straightforward, however these types of questions are usually met with a not so clever side step. I don’t consider anything to do with Iran, Ahmadinejad, or the faulty history of the Shah to be humorus in any way.
Report comment to moderator
Victoria is really on a roll today.
I am weary of the “Bush kept America safe after 9/11″ tweet unless it is accompanied with a “Bush didn’t keep us safe during 9/11.” Why he always gets a free pass on that mystifies me.
Report comment to moderator
Actually, I think Victoria is a secret feminist.
Report comment to moderator
Actually Random , I am a feminsit
Report comment to moderator
feminist
Report comment to moderator
Cling to ignorance and bigotry with all your might. The truth is out now and will not be put back in a box.
Report comment to moderator
Why are you a feminist?
Report comment to moderator
BTW, Monty, If you’re still here, I apologize for my excessively unkind words to you all throughout this thread. Hope you don’t hold a grudge.
Be well.
Report comment to moderator
President Bush can be credited with no further successful attacks on American soil post 9-11. He can also be credited with the rise of Iran as a regional power when he eliminated its regional rival, Iraq. His Presidential legacy on foreign affairs is complex. I think it will be years before the full ramifications and effects of his policies are known. Who knows, maybe some of them will have worked. We’ll have to see.
As to ALL OF YOU WHO CALL ON THE PRESIDENT TO DO MORE: What would you, oh excellent foreign policies experts, have him do?
Report comment to moderator
“After the President’s speech in Cairo in which he let it be known that he was prepared to pursue diplomacy, Hezbollah lost in Lebanon, and Iranian protesters were emboldened to speak out against apparent election corruption. There’s also movement and preparations in Hawaii that indicate that we will not permit NK to test fire another missile in our direction.”
Uh…I’m not sure how you can attribute much of any of that to Obama and one speech, because I’m willing to bet, most of those Iranians on the street have never heard it…much less the Lebanese. Considering that Bush had many more such speeches in regards to denouncing Hezbollah and the Iran regime, its just as likely that both cases are instances of years worth of build up…
“Wow, well if you know when and where the next massively deadly terrorist strike will be, you might want to tip someone off. Seems like really relevant information you shouldn’t just keep to yourself.”
It’s an act of war..not terrorism…sheesh. And theyve pointed their rockets at Hawaii…the only place they can reach currently. Frankly theyd be fools to attempt…then again they dont seem to fear Obama very much, and probably dont think he’ll retaliate at all except with another “stern statement”…
“So I take it then that you have no response for the point about the repercussions of an attack on North Korea’s missile bases?
I deduce that based on your sudden frenzied refocusing of the topic onto your irrelevant ad hominem rather than the substance of the point.”
Are Iranians any less than South Koreans?
Mynock’s point was considerable. The issue though is that North Korea is most likely aiming to blow up South Korea anyway. If they are willing to test us so far, I think its really only to give them confidence that we wont interfere much should they attack SK. In other words the lack of action may lead to many more deaths of SK’s than may happen should we act first within reason.
Report comment to moderator
“What would you, oh excellent foreign policies experts, have him do?”
Board suspected vessels according to UN sanctions on NK. Sinkem if necessary. Call NK’s bluff. If NK is still progessing foward, Obama isnt doing enough. Any other ideas are welcome, but this is in Obama’s pay grade to be able to keep NK in check and protect us and SK.
As far as Iran goes…continual statements in regard to human rights and voting and freedom are good, but he could possibly use the UN for something good like leveraging a revote or an investigation. The Iranians at least need to see that he’s using that diplomacy for more than just his freedom of speech.
Seems to me the Iranians are fighting not for the guy they voted for, but they are rising up against the rigged voting. Large difference, and I’m sure that is something we can all encourage and be supportive of.
Report comment to moderator
Thorn
To get a UN investigation, you have to have the votes to do so from member states. In the UNSC you have have to be able to avoid a veto from China or Russia. It might be possible, but would be very difficult. The UN team would then likely be told that they could not enter Iran. Back to a stalemate.
On North Korea — they are saber rattling as they do from time to time. I do agree with you on suspected vessels. We’ll see what the Obama folk come up with.
Report comment to moderator
CB,
The point is not to sit idle. Even if UN Sanctions or investigations are refused or if vetoed etc, it’s still Obama attempting more than just words. He has alot of influence and power as the US President (or should) and that can go along way if used wisely.
Simply waving a finger wont be considered enough. Actions are far more important, especially in diplomacy.
A prime example is Bush during Katrina…if he had at least expressed and done everything he could and been outfront about it, rather than in the shadows…he’d have received far less criticism, failure or success.
Obama has nothing to fear by adding more pressure to the Iranian government. He wont lose anything by doing so…he can only gain and so can the Iranians.
Note, I do not think that any military involvement here is wise or necessary, just for the record.
Report comment to moderator
Thorn
But he may lose something by pressing for action — right now the Iranian gov’t can claim U.S. involvement but it has nothing on which to back that up. If we gear up a UN initiative we do risk touching off nationalist sentiments within Iran and balancing the debate in the opposite direction we want it to go. In other words those who are marching for their votes could easily lose sympathy and lose ground as their compatriots react to nationalist sentiment — which is high in Iran.
Report comment to moderator
There is a legitimate difference of opinion on just what should be done. I agree with CB in #89 that stronger language or actions have to be carefully considered first, since there is a very real likelihood of negative reactions in Iran.
These people have to fight for their freedom, and the best we can do at this time is speak and act judiciously. I’m not sure what Obama should do next, but I’m not faulting him for his response thus far.
The president’s positive language in Cairo is not directly responsible for the Iranian uprising. But it was an encouragment. But more importantly, I think it’s highly unlikely that there would have been an uprising at all if his language had not offered the real possibility of peace through diplomacy.
The Iranians are very nationalistic and would be more likely to prefer a more conservative regime if they felt their safety as a nation were in danger.
And we are the same way. I think that was a major factor in the Bush re-election in 2004—we felt that we might not be as safe if we elected the more liberal candidate. I doubt that Iranians are much different from us in that way: scare tactics work.
So while I don’t give Obama credit for the current uprising, I do think it was possible largely because he did nothing to squelch it. John McCain’s hardline approach almost certainly would have.
Report comment to moderator
Well DJ, I dont see McCain or Bush or anybody else doing much different, because most are wise enough not to step in or threatren Iran at least militarily.
You can be hardline and forceful when it comes to human liberties like voting, while not pursuing a military response. You can be out front denouncing Iran’s government and working with other leaders to leverage them. If Reagan can move sentiments without military, at least a good orator like Obama should have no problem either.
Is it just as possible that Bush understood the Iranian’s sentiments and his lack of military actions against Iran was out of that knowledge? It’s just as possible. In other words, Iranians were almost to a breaking point, it just took the right trigger. I dont see say like the Iraqis in a similiar position under Sadaam at that point. Obama’s speech in Cairo wasnt much different than most of Bush’s.
It’s more likely that Bush’s actions over the last 8 years, have had a greater impact..and obviously positive on the Iranians, than one speech by Obama in only 5 months.
It’s really up to Obama to continue that course and to encourage the Iranians to peaceful protest and resolve, while diplomatically hammering Iran’s government over their actions. He doesnt need to carry the football so to speak in this situation…he just needs to provide the gatorade and a cheering squad.
Report comment to moderator
The Iranians are already blaming the United States for the uprising. The last thing we need to do is “provide Gatorade and a cheering squad”. If Obama speaks any more forcibly then he already has, there’s no doubt that it would be far easier for the Iranian regime to label the counterrevolutionaries as agents of a foreign power and traitors to Iran. The Iranian opposition has asked us not to get involved. We should heed their request and resist the temptation to use the situation to score cheap political points against Obama.
Report comment to moderator
Kwatson,
Who cares what the Iranian government wishes to paint us as. They already have painted us as evil for years. The actual Iranians arent beleiving a bit of crap their spouting in the first place. If they were, there would be no protests.
The protesters dont want us involved militarily for sure..but they do want the US and the rest of the world on their side, leveraging on the Iranian government.
Report comment to moderator
Thorn, That’s just plain wrong. Where do you get your news. I’ve seen and heard interviews with Iranian Americans that have close contacts with the opposition and they convey that the opposition is pleased with Obama’s restrained response and urge our government not to give the regime any ammunition. One of the Iranians I heard interviewed said that McCain’s comments where not helpful, especially from the guy everyone in Iran knows sung “Bomb Bomb Iran”.
Where do you get your news?
Report comment to moderator
DJ (90) -
Well said. Props!
Report comment to moderator
The Brits didnt do anything different than us KWatson. They’ve said the same thing. It’s still ammo, thats still going to be used by the Iranian government as propaganda to slam its protesters no matter how “restrained” it is.
And frankly, I dont think you read a word I said. And apparently your pretty blind to other Iranians that have called for it, see AJ’s post 62.
What else can Obama do? He can go talk to Russia about withdrawing their overt support of Iran. Regardless of who is elected in Iran, they are still gonna be dealing with Russia. What he can be doing, is encouraging the international world to be condemning Iran for its violent response to the protests in the least.
Maybe he is doing so, but so far all I’ve seen is just “restrained” statements. This is a prime opportunity to change thte world through peaceful diplomacy.
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDonTheWeb.com to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!