Chicago Gets Googled
Asian Carp: 'Nice Try, Suckers'
Friday Afternoon Diversion: Earth With Rings
CPL's Bookamania Brings The Reading Fun For Kids
The international news of the last week has been filled with images and descriptions of the post-election turmoil within Iran. As tens of thousands of people in Tehran and around the nation filled the streets to protest what they believe is a stolen election, the American president has been remarkably mum on the whole affair. "The last thing that I want to do is to have the United States be a foil for those forces inside Iran who would love nothing better than to make this an argument about the United States," Obama said in an interview recorded Friday. "We shouldn't be playing into that."
As Iranian paramilitary and police forces cracked down on the protests, beating and arresting people and breaking up gatherings in the streets of cities like Tehran and Shiraz, Obama has found himself in a tougher position, having to take a more defined stance on the unrest. In a press conference held yesterday afternoon, the President spoke more forcefully of the need for peaceful democratic dissent in Iran. Echoing the rhetoric of the campaign that got him elected, he tried to make it clear that blaming the United States for unrest in Iran won't work to quell a population that wants a voice at the polls:
The United States and the international community have been appalled and outraged by the threats, the beatings, and imprisonments of the last few days. I strongly condemn these unjust actions, and I join with the American people in mourning each and every innocent life that is lost.I've made it clear that the United States respects the sovereignty of the Islamic Republic of Iran, and is not interfering with Iran's affairs. But we must also bear witness to the courage and the dignity of the Iranian people, and to a remarkable opening within Iranian society. And we deplore the violence against innocent civilians anywhere that it takes place.
The Iranian people are trying to have a debate about their future. Some in Iran -- some in the Iranian government, in particular, are trying to avoid that debate by accusing the United States and others in the West of instigating protests over the election. These accusations are patently false. They're an obvious attempt to distract people from what is truly taking place within Iran's borders. This tired strategy of using old tensions to scapegoat other countries won't work anymore in Iran. This is not about the United States or the West; this is about the people of Iran, and the future that they -- and only they -- will choose.
While Obama has tried to stay out of what is clearly an issue internal to Iran, opposition presidential candidate Mir-Hossein Mousavi called for a peaceful demonstration in front of the Iranian parliament today at 4 p.m. Tehran time (6:30 a.m. CDT). Amid rumors that there is a power struggle going on within Iran's powerful Council of Guardians, this demonstration may be the end of the Sea of Green movement there. Or it may be the beginning of a new era of democracy and diplomacy in Persia.
Be sure to revisit our photos from last week's rally in Chicago. We've been refreshing the New York Times's newblog The Lede for timely updates of the news in Iran. And Boston.com's Big Picture has posted stunning photos from recent events.
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
"Amid rumors that there is a power struggle going on within Iran's powerful Council of Guardians, this demonstration may be the end of the Sea of Green movement there. Or it may be the beginning of a new era of democracy and diplomacy in Persia."
Or it may be something in the middle that won't be apparent right away, even to those in Iran, and certainly not to us.
Headline correction: "President Obama Address Situation In Iran (Again)"
"While Obama has tried to stay out of what is clearly an issue internal to Iran..."
Clearly an internal issue? I thought basic human rights were never an issue "internal" to any nation?
Human rights are universal, but the election and turmoil are to be solved (or continued) by Iranians.
If the 2000 US Presidential Election had erupted into violence, I would not expect Iran (or the U.N. or any other nation) to step into our situation. I would expect the situation to be solved by Americans, ourselves. Unless a massive war or genocide started to occur, I would not expect anything from the international community or our neighbors.
So if China has sent troops to Chicago in '68, that would have been fine with you?
As well, should we have bombed China in 1989?
Why not Burma now, too?
Or Saudi Arabia?
We all want "human rights," but we have, and always have had, limited power that we must put, ideally, to its best uses.
I think the headline should read
"Obama finally puts down his waffle cone and allows progressives Americans and other countries to push him to take a progressive stand on Iran
I'm curious as to why so many of the same people who wanted a role of non-intervention in Iraq 6 years ago now want to intervene in Iran. It seems an interesting example of cognitive dissonance.
So am I. Odd, isn't it?
I think part of it is the romantic notion of taking to the streets (not to diminish the real bravery of these protesters, of course--especially the women). This romantic notion, I think, overlooks the reality that the leading opposition candidate is one of the people who created the Islamic Republic and its police-state apparatus. This is no Jeffersonian protest movement, at least not yet. And our previous direct involvements in Iranian politics did not turn out so well for us.
I also would like to know what some right-wingers would like Obama to do: Invade? Bomb Iran's oil infrastructure? Make some meaningless noise about freedom and all that? Consider: The US since 1979 has conducted covert activity in Iran, some of it designed to promote grass-root democratic efforts through communication efforts, and some revolving around Special Forces activities and stirring up the country's oppressed minorities. I think it's a good guess we are doing a few things behind the scenes now.
The absolute best thing we can do right now it condemn the state-backed violence, stay out and hope for things to turn out in a way that benefits us, while doing, perhaps, a few behind-the-scenes things to keep the pot stirred. Obama is showing some wisdom with his first real foreign policy test. (and some balls, too--it takes balls to exercise wise patience when people on the left and right are pressuring your for more)
If you call our President- who is considered an international change agent -taking a public stand for human rights and fair elections "intervention", then yea, I'm for it
So what would you have him do?
Any US intervention at this point would only strengthen the ruling council's spurious claims that these protest are all the work of foreigners. Right now they're putting up duped "confessions" from clearly beaten/bloodied protesters who say the BBC Persian Service coerced them into it.
Further, why does the United States need to reiterate it stands against tyranny? Everything Obama has said underlines the US value for the democratic process. That's the sound strategy here. Everyone from Kissinger to Madeline Albright (night and bloody day) has come out supporting this as the smart play.
I'd imagine the State Department is quite busy on the back channels, that's where the action should be. Demands for intervention at this point are just childish.
Jess is correct,
Anything beyond Obama's cautious words will be seen as meddling and offer up the perfect excuse for the hardliners in Iran. It's actually been said that Bush's sabre rattling ("no options off the table") were a great help to the regime in basically keeping the country as a whole united against the "Great Satan".
Furthermore, if anybody's worried that we aren't doing 'anything', I'd eat my hat if covert boots aren't on the ground and at work over there ala "the color revolutions". Such has been the case in every similar event in the past. Doubt that's changed.
We seem to have a two headed snake at the helm as it looks like North Korea is stepping up with the crazy.
Not that I am saying that Iran poses a threat to us...it's the wing nuts posing the threat with their inane criticisms of how he is tackling this situation.
I do not envy his job.
Look, I never said Obama should invade or even call for stronger sanctions. But the fact is that he at first basically said the election made no difference. What kinda single is this to all those numerous oppressed nations out there?
And you can toss around back channels all you want, but I’m not gonna abdicate my concerns in into a blind trust, no matter how many Americans do it.
And screw Kissinger! He aint nothing but a war criminal
Why do you think the election would make a difference?
Serious question. I ask because the main opposition candidate 1) was vetted and approved by the ruling clerics prior to running; and 2) has been a main figure in the apparatus of the police-state since its founding.
Kissinger is most likely a war criminal--I'll give you that--but he still knows his way around geo-politics.
Well, the election DIDN'T make a difference if you have been observing the Iranian government for the past eight or nine years. It was pretty clear they weren't going to relinquish the status quo.
As for what Obama has been saying: " Violence has spewed into the streets as protesters challenging its results have been attacked. In his remarks, the president vehemently backed the protesters' right to speak their mind, saying he's "deeply troubled" by the violence. "I want them to know that we in the United States do not want to make any decisions for the Iranians, but we do believe that the Iranian people and their voices should be heard and respected," Obama said."
The Iranian people and their voices should be heard and respected...what's wrong with saying that? And that's from a Fox news website. Or from MSNBC: ""When you've got 100,000 people who are out on the streets peacefully protesting, and they're having to be scattered through violence and gunshots, what that tells me is the Iranian people are not convinced of the legitimacy of the election. And my hope is that the regime responds not with violence, but with recognition that the universal principles of peaceful expression and democracy are ones that should be affirmed."
I guess having a level-headed president that wants to take his time before starting a THIRD fire in this world, who doesn't use cartoon phrases like "Mission Accomplished" or "Bring it on" takes some getting used to after eight years of pointless braggadocio.
I guess you have just tuned into what Obama has been saying, which is different then what he said at first, in contrast to Hillary, Biden and the world
And have You been "studying" the Iranian government for two years or is that "braggadocio"? and I'm not talking about fox news or MSNBC. Try not to be so dense. I never even implied that Khamenei was gonna turn over the government. Its about supporting a movement( that no one saw coming) verbally to sustain it, not starting a fire. Man, I feel like I'm debating freshmen at a community college in Iowa
I guess you have just tuned into what Obama has been saying, which is different then what he said at first, in contrast to Hillary, Biden and the world
No, the quote I have there IS what he said at first. Guess a lot of people around here have to do some studying...
Tilda its a small thing I know, But Obama neededs to always stand with citizens of countries that risk their lives in waves for human rights. Think about how many people are locked away in an Iranian prison right now? They need to know that Obama is with them as much as he can be.
Again I'm not calling for any physical action directed at Iran. But American words count and those that take to the streets in Iran need to know that we are with them in spirit. Western solidarity is a basic need in the international human rights movement. Besides, Obama did change his tune dramatically, but it took 26 year old Neda Agha Soltan to be gunned down in the streets( like any old child in Englewood) for Obama to get out of mute mode. Frankly I was hoping for more of a "Ich bin ein Berliner" moment instead of the same old American “realpolitik”
So, what specifically would you like him to say?
I assume you have no desire to bomb Iran over this, and also to see the eventual overthrow of the Iranian police state (please correct me if I assume too much), which means Obama has to carefully select his words.
Listen, I agree with your spirit on this one, agree nearly 100%, but I also think there is a time in international relations that one needs patience and a cold heart in order to get the best outcome in the long-term.
As for the Berlin speech, I think the context was entirely different, though I do see your point.
Tilda
Your assumptions are correct and I have stated that in my last comments and again I under stand the need to use realpolitk, but as stated in the London Guardian and NTY editorial, both Sunday, Obama getting behind this movement in words ONLY will not change our relationship with Khamenei but could very well cause this fledgling movement to grow and continue and maybe get rid of Khamenei and the whole regiem
Yea the Berlin speech was an entirely different context, but set an important new tone for America even though I thought it was b.s in a nation of lynchings, violence and hyper segregation and a murderous foreign policy,
not that I was around
"Think about how many people are locked away in an Iranian prison right now? They need to know that Obama is with them as much as he can be."
I'm sure the prison populations of Iran are sitting with their faces glued to their television sets, waiting to see what the U.S. president has to say about them.
I guess you know less about the human rights
movement than do high schoolers in Amnesty International.
Prisoner's get news of the outside from sympathetic guards, doctors and new prisoners. This news helps to sustain them.
Heh. Yeah, I'm sure they perk right up knowing some guy in a far-too-rich-for-its-own-good nation 8,000 miles away is rooting for them, especially if they know the meddling of that same nation is largely what put them where they are in the first place. I'm sure it really gets them through the torture knowing that Barack Obama is pulling for them real hard.
Just to put it in perspective, the words of Roxana Saberi, the Iranian-American journalist who was jailed in the country for 100 days.
""I'm very disturbed and distressed by what I've seen in Iran in the past 10 days. That peaceful demonstrators have been confronted to violence and force, I think it's been very inhuman," Saberi told reporters in Paris.
Sounds not too different than Obama's words. If someone who was imprisoned there can used measured terms, why can't the president?
I'd also like to add for those that think Obama should meddle:
Remember The Guardian issue in Ohio 2004?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/3981823.stm
When the British liberal paper had Brits sending Ohioans letters urging them to not vote for George Bush. Of course the people were (with good reason) like: Who the fuck are you telling me what to do?!
Think about it..these letters were from our long term friends and allies to.
I also think that it's some extreme fucking irony that a good number of the Americans that are now crying for "Neda" and these protesters were not so long ago quite happy to incinerate them all (men, women and children) and turn Iran to glass.
"Bomb Bomb Bomb, Bomb Bomb Iran."
So true, especially with McCain (well, maybe not the nuke part)
screw this. I just hope its still hot outside!