Blogs and Stories
Whose Side Is Obama on?
Spencer Platt / Getty Images; AP Photo
During the campaign, Obama pledged to meet any world leader "without preconditions." Now that Iran is in turmoil, he needs to go back on his word.
Plus, read more insight on Iran's election from other Daily Beast writers.
After a day of nonviolent protests in Iran, seven Iranians died after anger boiled over and a gaggle of anti-Ahmadinejad activists threatened to set fire to the headquarters of the Basij, a notorious loyalist paramilitary that does the domestic dirty work of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards. The teenage Basijis are the acne-ridden thugs who savagely beat women who dare to violate the dress code imposed by Iran's supposedly Islamic regime, and they've long been a pillar of the country's quasi-fascist order. That members of the earnest, green-shirted, Twittering rabble that's rocked the streets of Tehran dared to take on the Basijis in so spectacular a fashion suggests that the days of the Islamic Republic of Iran are numbered. Once the fear is gone, the country will never be the same. The only question is whether Barack Obama, the first president to have deep and firsthand experience of the Islamic world, will stand with the kids or with the thugs. As the Iranian regime reveals itself to be as hollow and corrupt and vulnerable as the Soviet empire at the moment of Gorbachev's elevation, President Obama has the initiative—like President Reagan, he can use his moral authority to help bring an end to the nightmare reign of the mullahs. Or he can turn a blind eye as the hooded gangsters who run the country, the moral equivalent of Klansmen, beat members of Iran's answer to Generation Obama into submission.
The only question is whether Barack Obama, the first president to have deep and firsthand experience of the Islamic world, will stand with the kids or with the thugs.
Today, Obama treaded carefully, warning against “meddling” in Iranian elections. This is a continuation of his rhetoric as a presidential candidate, when Obama promised to dramatically alter America's relationship with Iran. Rather than lead us to the brink of a war that neither country could win, Obama promised to negotiate with Iran over its nuclear program, with the end result being a friendly and cooperative American relationship with a nuclear-free Iran. This was a far cry from President Bush's approach during his first term, when Iran was named a member of the "Axis of Evil." Foreign-policy thinkers from across the political spectrum, from liberal internationalists to arch-realists, considered Bush's moralistic approach to Iran a dangerous mistake, and most rallied behind Obama's more conciliatory stance. There's no question that Bush's rhetorical zeal was to some extent counterproductive. After the invasion of Iraq, the Iranian Revolutionary Guards essentially had a free hand to smuggle deadly weapons to their Iraqi allies. American forces knew that shutting down the pipeline of deadly IEDs and EPFs, responsible for maiming and killing perhaps hundreds of Iraqis and Americans, risked starting a major war with Iran. Oddly enough, had Bush avoided calling Iran's evil regime evil, he might have had a freer hand to take military action. And so there was an obvious logic to Obama's decision to ratchet down the ideological temperature, and to recognize that the mullahocracy wasn't going anywhere.
Now, however, the world looks rather different. When Ronald Reagan first met Gorbachev, he fell for him hard—so hard, in fact, that neoconservative hawks condemned Reagan for going soft in the head. A number of incendiary polemics were written about how Mikhail Gorbachev was a canny operator who promised to revitalize Soviet strength while soft-headed patsies like Reagan fell for his song-and-dance routine about perestroika. But it turns out that the soft-headed Reagan was right: Gorbachev really did represent a watershed, a recognition on the part of the Soviet elite that the old ways of doing business were badly broken and that the survival of the Soviet system was in jeopardy. Instead of clinging to the creaking Stalinist model, Gorbachev knew he had to democratize the Soviet state, and he knew that his main enemies weren't in America but rather in the Soviet military machine. And so Reagan, the obsessive Cold Warrior hellbent on the destruction of the Evil Empire, suddenly became a peace-loving, tambourine-shaking believer in a new Age of Aquarius. When circumstances changed, Reagan changed with them.
The Iranian state can't hold a candle to the Soviet Union at its prime. Whereas the Soviets could destroy the United States hundreds of times without breaking a sweat, the Iranians are low-level spoilers. But the Iranians are avid exporters of terrorist violence and ideological extremism, and the clerical regime has turned a once-prosperous country into an impoverished economic hellhole. When you think of the kids risking their lives to take on the armed Basijis, consider that there aren't nearly enough jobs to go around for the country's educated youths. For them, the outcome of the presidential election really was a matter of life and death. Just as Gorbachev's arrival changed everything in U.S.-Soviet relations, the revolt of Iran's middle classes should change everything in U.S.-Iranian relations.
It is easy to see why Barack Obama wouldn't want to stake his presidency on Iran. Universal health care was in the plan. Transforming the Middle East was not. But if anything, President Obama has demonstrated an admirable nimbleness in response to changing circumstances. When the Bush administration appeared to cheerlead for the overthrow of Hugo Chavez in Venezuela, they helped him score major propaganda points. Yet what's to stop President Obama from giving a major address about the universal struggle for human freedom, one that connects the longing of Iranians for real political justice with nonviolent resistance to Jim Crow and to colonialism? And why not announce a campaign against Iran's ruling elite as vigorous as the campaign against apartheid-era South Africa. When Ronald Reagan called on Gorbachev to tear down the Berlin Wall, it took just over two years to make the dream a reality. Given that Obama has a mile-wide competitive streak, perhaps the right question is: Can he do better?
Reihan Salam is a fellow at the New America Foundation and the co-author of Grand New Party.
John Talks Joe
Lloyd Grove is editor at large for The Daily Beast. He is also a frequent contributor to New York magazine and was a contributing editor for Condé Nast Portfolio. He wrote a gossip column for the New York Daily News from 2003 to 2006. Prior to that, he wrote the Reliable Source column for the Washington Post, where he spent 23 years covering politics, the media, and other subjects.
The Right Dumps Carrie
Jacob Bernstein is a senior reporter at The Daily Beast. Previously, he was a features writer at WWD and W Magazine. He has also written for New York magazine, Paper, and The Huffington Post.
Geithner's Stock Plummeting
Jeff Madrick is a contributor to the New York Review of Books and a former economics columnist for the New York Times. He is editor of Challenge Magazine, visiting professor of humanities at Cooper Union, and senior fellow at the New School's Schwartz Center for Economic Policy Analysis. He is the author of Taking America, The End of Affluence (Random House) and The Case for Big Government.
The GOP's New Hope?
Reihan Salam is a fellow at the New America Foundation and the co-author of Grand New Party.
Is Saving Karzai Worth U.S. Lives?
Reihan Salam is a fellow at the New America Foundation and the co-author of Grand New Party.
The Collateral Damage to Muslims
Reihan Salam is a fellow at the New America Foundation and the co-author of Grand New Party.
Reihan,
You are approaching the issue in a conventional way. However, I am afraid this time around things are not very conventional. The majority of Iranian people have hated this regime since its inception. This is a regime that has not really been that bad for the rest of the world as much as it has been the enemy of the Iranian people. Now, after 30 years, the Iranians who have stayed unabashed by the constant propaganda if this regime, and finally recognize their real enemy, have woken up and will not give up until they get rid of this regime in its entirety. It will not be easy and the enemy is very strong but they will manage. Unfortunately, there will be a considerable amount of violence but ultimately the regime will be toppled. Some of the mullahs will escape and some who stay will face justice. Out of fear of anarchy, Iran may be invaded and become occupied by major International forces. It will probably take several years before viable Iranians gain complete control of their country at which time a real democracy will be estabished and Iran will become Iran again. The point is that this time around doesn't really matter what the response of the each and everyone of the world leaders including president Obama is although each and everyone will represent their own interests. The real players this time around are the active Iranians themselves and nobody else. They are not as incapable as common wisdom may dictate.
xxx
Meghan - the Roamainian people overthrew Nicolae Ceau%u015Fescu back in '89. Why can't the Iranian people overthrow the Mullahs? Freedom is not free.
This comment has been removed by The Daily Beast's editors.
This user is no longer registered.
Obama's doing the right thing...for now, biding his time. At some point if it becomes irrevocably clear that the election was stolen and the Iranian governmental violence grows to a larger scale, Obama will have to speak. From an American perspective, we must hold our tongues for at least now. If we want Iranians to have freedom, we could speak but speaking out gives no guarantee that they'll get it, while virtually assuring that efforts to prevent a nuclear Iran will fail. Imagine if Obama came out and called Ahmadinejad something like a "tyrannical despot" but Ahmadinejad remains in power. You think he'll keen to stay unarmed?
We must wait, the time for action has not yet revealed itself.
This comment has been removed by The Daily Beast's editors.
This user is no longer registered.
If Obama comes out in strong support of the protesters, claiming election fraud, and demanding action from the Iranian government, then the Iranian government can claim that the protests are simply orchestrated by the Great Satan and not the true will of the people. They will then crush the protests and declare that justice has been served. As long as it is clearly the people of Iran who are rising up in protest the clerics can't take that line. Cowboy diplomacy didn't work so well in that last few years: Let's all learn a lesson from that.
Obama is for Obama and his own agenda and the timing is not for him to speak or act. He is keeping mum for the moment. If and when the right situation presents itself he will step out and up, no problem.
You are correct. He isn't a blowhard like Bush.
Obama's big strength is his incredible popularity. But it can also become his weakness and lead to his downfall should he start to concern himself too much about it.
This comment has been removed by The Daily Beast's editors.
xxx
It would seem there has been a limited analysis of President Obama's temperament and his personality. When I first read he had raised more money than Hillary Clinton, I wanted to know who this guy was. When I had earlier read the lists of possible challengers to Hillary's claim to the Democratic candidate, I asked myself: Who the hell is Barak Obama?"
I read everything I could lay my hands on. Then I heard Lou Dobbs bad-mouthing Obama. I wrote and told Lou: "He is going to be your president." Now the world knows. That was almost two years before the election.
As a Canadian, it is sad to see the ignorance of the American press, in this case, that of Reihan Salam. Obama is simply brilliant. He is doing absolutely the right thing for a rookie. Even his fellow Democrats do not know how smart he is. Never mind the Republicans. He is 100% correct about health care. You have a lousy system. Who in his right mind will think 'for profit health care system' is kosher? I hear Senator Mitch McConnell. He is wrong. Like Bush, just tell the Americans they need protection and it is money in the bag. I guess Americans still look for a Communist under their bed when they get up each morning? How could those clowns get away with claiming what Obama wants to do (and he will do it) is socialism?
Reihan, Obama is doing the right thing by keeping out, as Americans have, in the past, been to quick meddle in other countries' affair. It has become genetic in the American psyche. The only hope is for the Iranians to do what the French did, the French Revolution. What about the American Revolution?
Dr. M. H. Rajabally
Kelowna, B.C.
Canada
Dr.Rajabally-
Two things in your post-
1. You read he raised more money
Than Hillary Clinton.
2. His fellow Democrats don't know
How smart he is.
How could he raise more money than
Hillary Clinton if his fellow Democrats
Didn't appreciate how smart he is.
I agree with everything else-
And PS I called Obama early also.
Ritarita, touché. I mean those elected Democrats who are playing politics. Some of them better be careful. They may not get the nomination for the next election!!!
Ritarita, I guess The Daily Beast is not as sophiosticated as I thought! I wrote the word 'touche' in French. I am sure you know what I mean. Have a nice day and take care.
My grandmother--an 83 year old woman who had never voted in her life--called Obama back in 2004.
The approach the president is taking should be analyzed for its difference from past administrations. Here we have a situation with a brutal regime. No one is second guessing that. But now the US is allowing the oppressed people to stand up for themselves first. We are watching revolution rise. This is a moment in history that future generations will remember. Earlier, the doctor likened this to the French Revolution. That's very good.
In a year's time, there will be some violence and more bloodshed. The people of Iran will have made their voices known. The US will have given the reformers cursory support and encouragement (nothing like we did in the 70s). And the government in Iran will have turned around.
The Middle East is a tight knit area of the world. A peaceful, independent Iran, that came to be that way due to the actions of its own people and NOT the interference of any foreign nation let alone the US, will do so much for the region in general. If we involve ourselves beyond what we have currently, at so early a stage, we run the risk of slowing the momentum of change in a part of the world that so desperately needs it.
I'm just saying.
When Mr Salam stated that neither Iran nor the USA would win the war if they fought each other, that captured the quandry the USA must face. The USA is said to be the world's only super power. War has become a lose-lose situation. The Korean war was the 1st worlds wars where neither side won. The USA has had 'Nam & Iraq. The USA, like France, lost in 'Nam. S Viet Nam is gone. The united Viet Nam bears scars from the war that make it a crippled nation. In Iraq the USA deposed Saddam Hussein but the USA lost the peace. The USA has failed to make Iraq into a democratic nation. When & if the USA leaves, Iraq won't be a united nation. The Kurds, Sunni, Shia & other Muslim sects will continue killing each other. Iraq will be dived in to sectors where each controls & rules. That will be how what is now called Iraq will be in the future. The USA incursion into Afghanistan will fail. That was true of occupations of Czarist Russia, the UK & the USSR. The tumor of Korea is festering again. There is a shaky weak truce. N Korea is baiting the world. We also have Iran. The USA, allegedly a super power, doesn't have the force & money to fight all of these wars.
W, Cheney & Rumsfeld destroyed the US Army as we took & continue to occupy Iraq. The USA's forces are afflicted with palsy & even more malign conditions.
We may not be able to rebuild the Army as Gen Powell did after 'Nam. Powell & his officers worked years to rebuild the US Army. The US Army has been destroyed by W & his ilk.
Mr Salam is right when he says that no superpower or its foe can win a war.
Others will write erudite articles & books to try to explain the USA & the world's plight. Mr Salam may choose to do so or join others to analyze the situation.
Thank you.
As a first time user, your comment has been submitted for review. It can take anywhere from a few hours to a day or two for your comment to be reviewed, depending on the time of week and the volume of comments we receive.
Please log in to leave comments.