Glen Dean apparently needs it spelled out for him, so I'll make this short and sweet.
Over the decades, the U.S. has made a few mistakes in foreign policy. Yes, I know that saying that the U.S. has ever made any mistakes in its entire history automatically means I Hate America and I Blame America First, but we have. In particular, we have an unfortunate history of overthrowing democratically-elected governments if we didn't like the result of an election. This is a particularly salient problem as it relates to Iran and Honduras.
In 1951, Iran elected Mohammad Mossadeq as its first democratically-elected Prime Minister. The U.S. and the U.K. didn't like him because he dared to suggest that Iran should have some say over the allocation of its own oil resources, rather than Britain controlling it all. So in 1953, in what came to be known as Operation Ajax, the CIA and MI6 fomented a coup against Mossadeq and replaced him with the Shah. The Shah came to be bitterly despised and viewed (correctly) as a U.S. puppet. It was a major factor in the anti-U.S. hostility of the 1979 Iranian Revolution.
In Latin America, the U.S. has a recent history of backing military coups. We propped up Batista in Cuba, Pinochet in Chile, the contras in Nicaragua (whom we financed, by the way, by illegally selling arms to Iran), and the junta in El Salvador. While the U.S. didn't do anything directly in Honduras, we staged our involvement in Nicaragua from bases there.
So either way, if the U.S. is to have any legitimacy in mediating these crises, it is of paramount importance that we not be seen as the ones trying to foment it all. If the U.S. is seen as instigating the new revolution in Iran, it will give Ahmadinejad and the clerics a nice little bit of propaganda to rally their bases of support--"Just like 1953 and Mossadeq!" Similarly, given our history of backing military coups in Latin America, if we didn't move quickly to fully dispel any suggestion that we were involved with the Honduran coup, it would have killed our credibility in Latin America and given a boost to people like Hugo Chavez. As it is, getting all of our North and Central American allies together immediately to resolve the situation was the best way to steal Chavez's thunder.
Besides, what exactly would the right have Obama do in regards to Iran? Yell louder? Give a little cowboy-ish slogan, like "Ahmadinejad--Wanted Dead or Alive"? All that would accomplish what, exactly?
Or perhaps they'd have him drop a couple bombs over there? Yeah, that would show 'em! Except that at the exact moment we dropped the bombs, the entire political right in this country, Glen Dean included, would immediately rediscover paleo-conservatism and whine about how we shouldn't be "intervening". It's a nice little trap they've set up, but Obama isn't falling into it.
(H/t ACK)
7 comments:
Obama could have supported the Iranian people instead of their undemocratic government. Here's what Bush said during the 2005 Iranian election:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/16/AR2005061601056.html
“Today, Iran is ruled by men who suppress liberty at home and spread terror across the world,” Bush said. “Power is in the hands of an unelected few who have retained power through an electoral process that ignores the basic requirements of democracy. The June 17th presidential elections are sadly consistent with this oppressive record.”
Addressing the Iranian people, Bush added: “As you stand for your own liberty, the people of America stand with you.”
Bush didn't drop bombs on Iran. What he did do was pick the right side, condemn the government's actions, and give moral support to the Iranian people.
Obama on Iran, last week:
"The Iranian government must understand that the world is watching. We mourn each and every innocent life that is lost. We call on the Iranian government to stop all violent and unjust actions against its own people. The universal rights to assembly and free speech must be respected, and the United States stands with all who seek to exercise those rights."
Condemning the government? Check. Moral support to the people? Check.
And did Bush's stance help Iran become more democratic. No, actually, it gave Ahmadinejad a boost in support. The two of them really were mirror images of each other.
Remember, history has a well-known liberal bias.
Still pretty timid, and it only came well after the government's violent crackdown against the protesters.
A few days after the election even people within Obama's own administration were disappointed with his weak tone. From the June 17 New York Times:
"Even while supporting the president’s approach, senior members of the administration, including Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, would like to strike a stronger tone in support of the protesters, administration officials said.
"Other White House officials have counseled a more cautious approach, saying harsh criticism of the government or endorsement of the protests could have the paradoxical effect of discrediting the protesters and making them seem as if they were led by Americans. So far, Mr. Obama has largely followed that script, criticizing violence against the protesters, but saying that he does not want to be seen as meddling in Iranian domestic politics."
I agree with Obama on this. America does not need to be out there making any statements on events that occur in other countries. It is none of our business.
"I agree with Obama on this. America does not need to be out there making any statements on events that occur in other countries. It is none of our business."
Do tell. Then what do you think about Obama's interference in Honduras? That's where a lefty, Hugo Chavez-backed el presidente decided that constitutional term limits didn't apply to him. He was therefore removed from office under order of the country's supreme court and a unanimous vote of the legislature.
Result: Obama calls for the reinstatement of the deposed leader who tried to defy his country's constitution and a suspension of military relations with Honduras.
Obama applied one standard in dealing with despotism and murder in Iran. Yet he applied a different standard in support of a Marxist in Honduras. Why? Please enlighten me. He is inconsistent.
All we ever wanted was verbal support for the people getting shot from the rooftops in Iran. Verbal support and a pledge not to deal with the regime murdering him. Yet he legitimized the murderers. In Honduras, a President, Chavez lite, is impeached and thrown out of office, and he supports the criminal.
I swear, this son of a bitch had to spend some time in Manchuria.
Post a Comment