Find Your Valentine
Slog
News & ArtsMonday, June 15, 2009
International What Is Obama Going to Say to The Iranian Protesters?
Posted by Eli Sanders on Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 11:14 AM
For a very long time, through Republican and Democratic administrations alike, the U.S. government has subtly encouraged the young people of Iran to wrest control of their country from the old theocrats who hold power. The latest in this series of statements comes today from Robert Gibbs, President Obama's spokesman, who told reporters on Air Force One:
We continue to be heartened by the enthusiasm of young people in Iran.
Which is all well and good, and definitely in U.S. interests to say, but now that these young people are in danger of being shot at for showing their "enthusiasm"—or, more accurately, for putting their bodies on the line for exactly the type of reform that Obama and others have been calling for in this part of the world—it's time for Obama to signal, somehow, that he stands with them.
And yes, I know this is a tricky situation for the U.S., with risks of any statement by Obama being used by Ahmadinejad and others to rally the Iranian population against the "U.S.-backed" protesters. But lives are being lost. In all likelihood, young ones. Exactly the type of lives that Obama was hoping to affect when he said in his Cairo speech on June 4: "I want to particularly say this to young people of every faith, in every country—you, more than anyone, have the ability to remake this world."
There's got to be something more than silence that Obama can now offer the young people of Iran.
UPDATE: Via Sullivan and, of course, Twitter, word that Obama will likely make a statement on Iran at 5 p.m. EST.
1
Mousavi is really no different than what Iran has had for decades, subservient to the ruling mullahs. And all those administrations have gotten us nowhere because of our own past treachery. I don't see the point of taking sides.
2
Obama will save us! He is our LEADER! We need a LEADER! Because we are all a bunch of stupid sheep people! BAAAAAAAAAH
3
A "signal" is fine, but really, at the end of the day the Iranians have to do it for themselves. Us sticking our noses in this won't help, and would likely have the effect of delegitimizing whatever progress is made.
4
Let's see, what happened the last time a U.S. administration gave hints of support anti-government demonstrators?
Hope Obama's support for Iranian democracy is stronger than that for...gays here at home.
Hope Obama's support for Iranian democracy is stronger than that for...gays here at home.
5
First of all "enthusiasm" is the wrong word. We were not "enthusiastic" when we overthrew the British.
Secondly, any real revolution has a price to pay in blood; and the Iranians appear to understand that more than fat ass Americans watching from the sidelines.
Secondly, any real revolution has a price to pay in blood; and the Iranians appear to understand that more than fat ass Americans watching from the sidelines.
6
Just remind them that the USA stands for Democracy and Fair Elections.
And ignore the shining example of the US Supreme Court mullahs in 2000 ...
And ignore the shining example of the US Supreme Court mullahs in 2000 ...
7
I think it's a mistake for the administration to make big statements of support for the protester -given the US's current reputation in Muslim countries, I'm not sure the support of the US wouldn't hurt more than help.
8
Maybe... U.S. support could be a kiss of death if not done right. The white house is wise to measure their words carefully.
9
Uh, his statement did "signal" that, if that's all you want.
If you want something more, something concrete, why did you elect Obama? His whole campaign was about how he believed it was wrong to get involved in toppling an oppressive middle east regieme. A more oppressive one than Iran, I might add. But I guess it all changes when the oppressed are urban hipsters with access to Web 2.0 media.
If you want something more, something concrete, why did you elect Obama? His whole campaign was about how he believed it was wrong to get involved in toppling an oppressive middle east regieme. A more oppressive one than Iran, I might add. But I guess it all changes when the oppressed are urban hipsters with access to Web 2.0 media.
10
at least he's not going to say the wrong thing. the thing that will give the mullahs an excuse for their violence.
not that they need one.
not that they need one.
11
Since the US posture towards Iran is already so extreme, we don't have many cards left to play aside from the military and espionage. The former option is unlikely and the latter one doesn't talk about.
Better to wait a bit until Europe lines up against the regime and then make a coordinated statement backed up by some sort reaction in Europe (e.g. asset freeze).
Better to wait a bit until Europe lines up against the regime and then make a coordinated statement backed up by some sort reaction in Europe (e.g. asset freeze).
12
Eli: What exactly are you proposing? Your addition to your original post has only further obscured your point. Lives are being lost, yes. So Obama should...make a more forceful statement in support of protesters? Do you think the Iranian mullahs will say to themselves, "uh oh, Obama just said he supports the protesters. We better not shoot them!" Highly doubtful. Such a statement by Obama might even stiffen the will of the hard-liners and result in more deaths.
So what's your point, exactly? Not trying to be argumentative here, I'm just asking.
If we really want to keep young loss of life (or any loss of life, for that matter) to a minimum, maybe "silence" (don't the supporting statements made by Clinton, Biden, and others count?) is the best way. The very fact of Obama and his election is the catalyst for this whole thing anyway...he does more as a symbol right now than as a speechmaker.
So what's your point, exactly? Not trying to be argumentative here, I'm just asking.
If we really want to keep young loss of life (or any loss of life, for that matter) to a minimum, maybe "silence" (don't the supporting statements made by Clinton, Biden, and others count?) is the best way. The very fact of Obama and his election is the catalyst for this whole thing anyway...he does more as a symbol right now than as a speechmaker.
13
I hope the students are well informed enough to have noticed Obama's pattern of ditching his promises when they become politically inconvenient.
14
Too bad you've disowned Obama because one of his administration's actions didn't go your way a couple days ago. Oh, well.
15
I'm getting more and more excited (although nervous) for young Iranians that are revolting against their fraudulent elections and demanding to be counted. What an exciting time in their history.
That could have been us in 2004 if we weren't so damned apathetic.
That could have been us in 2004 if we weren't so damned apathetic.
16
I'm sure he will run through a long list of moral equivalencies between the protesters and the regime while remaining aloof and personally superior to both and impressing upon them how their only hope is to do exactly what he, in his vast and God like wisdom, dictates.
17
"That could have been us in 2004 if we weren't so damned apathetic."
Yeah it is so freakin coool to get killed by government forces! That shit really gets you laid!
Yeah it is so freakin coool to get killed by government forces! That shit really gets you laid!
18
I hope Obama stays out of it. The worst thing the US could do now is appear to take sides.
This isn't about us and never has been. It's about the Iranian people and their relationship with their government. About the only two things that supporters of Ahmedinejad and Mousavi agree on is that nuclear power is good and the US government isn't to be trusted.
This isn't about us and never has been. It's about the Iranian people and their relationship with their government. About the only two things that supporters of Ahmedinejad and Mousavi agree on is that nuclear power is good and the US government isn't to be trusted.
20
Hmmm...a good comparative to what's happening now in Iran is what happened in Hungary in 1956. I don't think any comments the Big Owe makes will have much affect.
http://www.american-presidents.org/2006/…
http://www.american-presidents.org/2006/…
21
The Iranian people have a right to believe that their votes are being fairly counted in this sham election to produce a figurehead to rubber-stamp the unelected Ayatollah's edicts! It's a matter of principle!
23
It's a shame Iran is worse to gays than any US state, but nobody is willing to protest this.
What's up with that?
What's up with that?
24
Maybe he could say, "Hey, sorry for sending in the CIA to overthrow your last democratically-elected leader in 1953. But seriously, you didn't really think that we and Britain were going to put up with you people controlling your own oil, did you? I mean we're all for democracy when it goes our way, but what did you expect?"
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
SL Letter of the Day: Pill The Homos! by Dan Savage
-
The AP Is Reporting That Whitney Houston Is Dead by Paul Constant
-
Slog Bible Study: Deuteronomy 21:10-14 by Goldy
-
Because Guns Make Us Safer by Goldy
-
SL Letter of the Day: Daddy Loves Who? by Dan Savage
-
Gregoire: "This is signed!" by Eli Sanders
-
Gay Kids Are Still Killing Themselves by Dan Savage
-
Whitney Is Dead, And So Is Hollywood by Kelly O
-
Planned Parenthood Exposed! by David Schmader
-
Stranger Tournament of Dunces, Match 3: Rep. Mark Hargrove vs. Rep. Norma Smith by Eli Sanders
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (24) RSS