As the election demonstrations in Iran continue – despite the heavy-handed crackdown produced by the Iranian government – a number of people are starting to grow uneasy about the elections here in America. For good reason it seems that the late 70s Mullah-ocracy republican constitutional construct is not longer working for most Iranians.
The unrest, of course, lays a heavy burdens on President Obama and his administration, which has adapted the safe path of keeping–your–mouth-closed.
Many Americans feel that Obama should show more support for those mass demonstrations of people in Iran. And with accusations that the elections were heavily rigged, it’s hard not to want to give voice in the fray.
Evidence suggesting fraud isn’t hard to come by, especially when election turnouts exceed the number of people living in some towns as The Guardian reports:
In the most specific allegations of rigging yet to emerge, the centrist Ayandeh website – which stayed neutral during the campaign – reported that 26 provinces across the country showed participation figures so high they were either hitherto unheard of in democratic elections or in excess of the number of registered electors.
Taft, a town in the central province of Yazd, had a turnout of 141%, the site said, quoting an unnamed “political expert”. Kouhrang, in Chahar Mahaal Bakhtiari province, recorded a 132% turnout while Chadegan, in Isfahan province, had 120%.”
Worries about diplomatic relationships with a traditionally hard to get along with country has put the U.S. in an odd light. Should it support the change or no? The answer isn’t as easy as many would like to think.
A few, like former presidential candidate Sen. John McCain, don’t like Obama’s plan and have spoken out against the administration’s quiet policy.
In an interview on Fox & Friends, Sen. McCain said that the Iran elections were obviously a “sham” and that the Obama administration should show the Iranian people some support for their practice of free speech.
A few others agree. Such as Dan Senor and Christian Whiton of The Wall Street Journal, saying:
First, Mr. Obama should contact Mr. Mousavi to signal his interest in the situation and Mr. Mousavi’s security. Our own experience with dissidents around the world is that proof of concern by the U.S. government is helpful and desirable… Second, Mr. Obama should deliver another taped message to the Iranian people. Only this time he should acknowledge the fundamental reality that the regime lacks the consent of its people to govern, which therefore necessitates a channel to the “other Iran.
But, the cloud of doubt has already begun to hang over the analysts of the Iranian demonstrations.
In an article entitled “Will Tiananmen Be Obama’s Roadmap?” David Kuhn plots out Obama’s most likely route with the demonstrations:
And so Obama holds back. He does not want to respond harshly to the same Iranian regime that he hopes to work with on its nuclear program and the Muslim-Israeli peace process. And also like Bush, Obama realizes how sensitive foreign capitals are to American interference.
In fact, that’s de-facto defense for Obama’s position on the Iranian elections professed by the left that is overly sympathetic to an argument that America is some how a neo-colonial power.
Jacob Heilbrunn of TalkingPointsMemo, summarizes the argument:
Anyway, Obama’s refusal to egg on the demonstrators is wise for several reasons. First, the American government (as opposed to American culture) carries no weight in Iran. It doesn’t have a historical record, but a rap sheet that would simply undermine any protests by allowing the Mullahs to portray the protestors as the puppets of a foreign regime. Second, Obama would be acting irresponsibly to encourage resistance that could end in massive bloodshed. But he has (slightly) deepened his sympathy for the demonstrators by expressing “deep concerns about the election.” Third, the power struggle in Iran itself remains opaque. Whom, precisely, should Obama ally himself with–Mir Hossein Mousavi, himself the former creature of the Ayatollah Khomeini?
Then again, the administration could be working on the Iran scene in background.
The fear is if Obama backs a revolutionary candidate, and the candidate fails, the heavy Iran – American relations would start to crack the thin ice it’s already on. Also, if the U.S. is seen as taking sides in the Iran, that side may be alienated by the utter contempt for the U.S. there.
However, the lack standing up to a man who actively seeks nuclear weapons and to upset the Middle East’s status quo with hegemonic ambitions seems to be rather unwise – especially when he’s framing the now country-wide demonstrations as an American propaganda ploy.
The Obama administration doesn’t have much room, or say in Iranian elections, as it shouldn’t. What happens in Iran ultimately depends on the people there. They’ve already shown plenty of contempt towards being pushed around and censored and if they want to revolt against a perceived corrupt government, it’s well within their own power to do so.
There are many in America that want to help secure freedoms for others, or merely lend our voice of support, but the question remains: do we have that right?
