What Our Fundamental Values Demand

From today’s Krauthammer column:

Even from the narrow perspective of the nuclear issue, the administration’s geopolitical calculus is absurd. There is zero chance that any such talks will denuclearize Iran. On Monday, President Ahmadinejad declared yet again that the nuclear “file is shut, forever.” The only hope for a resolution of the nuclear question is regime change, which (if the successor regime were as moderate as pre-Khomeini Iran) might either stop the program, or make it manageable and nonthreatening. That’s our fundamental interest. And our fundamental values demand that America stand with demonstrators opposing a regime that is the antithesis of all we believe. And where is our president? Afraid of “meddling.” Afraid to take sides between the head-breaking, women-shackling exporters of terror — and the people in the street yearning to breathe free. This from a president who fancies himself the restorer of America’s moral standing in the world.

The left can imagine that the decision by President Obama to remain neutral in this “vigorous debate” the Iranian people are now having is a wise one, that it will prevent the demonstrators from being tainted by American support. But on Krauthammer’s core point, that our fundamental values demand action and support for those who oppose this regime whether or not it does them a disservice, there is really no argument. The idea that the American government could remain impartial in this dispute and subsequently do business with the regime regardless of the manner in which it maintains power is a kind of absurd hyper-realism — and it is rejected by the very dissidents in whose interest the left claims Obama is acting. Conservatives are not calling on Obama to use military force to aid the demonstrators in Tehran. They do not expect Obama to provide these demonstrators with arms or money or training, as the Iranians have done for our enemies in Iraq. All conservatives are asking for is that the President of the United States clearly and forcefully denounce a regime that would use violence and intimidation and fraud to maintain its grip on power. It’s possible that doing so could come at the cost of allowing the regime to justify a crackdown, but the inaction and indifference the White House now displays could also invite such a crackdown by signaling that the regime will pay no price for it. So why not just tell the truth?

Related Content