Obama pressured from both sides RE: Iran

[mogster]

Translated article thru google

Obama politically neutral line has aroused strong criticism from the political opposition in the United States. They believe he must run a tougher line against the election of Ahmadinejad, and clearly take the demonstrator's side.

- He must speak out about the election is tainted, counterfeit and fraud - that the Iranian people are deprived of their rights, said the republican John McCain on NBC program "Today", writes AP.

Obama, however, expressed "deep concern" for the obvious attacks on freedom of speech and democracy, and says the troubles show that "the Iranian people are not convinced valgets legitimacy", NTB reported.

Do you get any deja vu's here, Americans? ;-)

The auto translation of this article is not very correct, I'm afraid, so don't take all you read as fair game. But the above translates correctly, and the Republicans are according to that attacking Obama for _not_ speaking out. So, how double standard is this, if you were here in 2004?

Another article has a diametrically opposite view of the situation:

Obama will be according to the BBC have been set to the wall by some conservative politicians in the United States for his support to the opposition supporters, especially because it is pointed out that Ahmadinejad is actually in the theory may have passed out from the election as a winner, too, if the results have not been tampered with.

Yeah? So he's, according to republicans, both doing not enough and doing too much. Another quote from the last article:

- Iran's voices must be heard, but I will not go in and mediate. It is not productive, the history between the U.S. and Iran taken into consideration, he said, according to the channel's website.

A reaction from the US president which, in Norwegian media and by US republicans, are portrayed as a result of Obama's lack of action OR too much action, that's the only possible outcome apparently.
And it all is played out with the backdrop of Ahmadinejad's lust for nuclear arms and the history of enmity between the US and Iran for the last decades, as contentum.

What they don't mention is the coup in 1953 and all the aftermath of that, which will make the US president a not neutral entity in this matter, and the fact that Obama is not a kinglet like Bush, who reached into other nations with great arrogance to change them to his benefit. With disastrous results, as we now know.
Obama has this in mind, he's a smart man. He knows that if the US goes in too deep officially, this can be used against the democracy movement by the regime supporters.

The repubs doesn't want a democratic Iran, that would ruin their world picture. They have proven this again and again up through history. If the Iran religious regime disappeared, it would mean that Reaganism is truly dead.

[napoleon_in_rags]

1. He's being wise. There has been so much fanfare facts have been lacking.

Things like this:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/14/AR2009061401757.html

Keep popping up. There's clearly a really strong revolutionary push, a desire for change and to move forward. But I am incredibly wary of any narrative coming out of this which tells us Iran needs to be "liberated" like the Iraqis, because last time I saw it the media was lying like crazy.

[mogster]

6. That's interesting

I agree to what you say; no war agenda should be framed by the media. On the other hand, it's strange how things look different in the Iranian case with Obama on top, compared to Bush. I'm not sure I'd have taken a different stand if this had happened with the moron as president, freedom has it's own language. Real freedom ;-)
On the other hand, I don't think this freedom movement would have happened with Bush as president, because it seems to be inspired by the 'Yes, we can' that your country is so full of right now. Hardliners builds hardliners, I think that is OK to assume by now.

An interesting angle on this would be to hold the likudniks in Israel up against an Iran on the way to real democracy. You'd think the not-very-democratic minded Israeli wingnuts and their harsh rethoric would look a little out of place without the (supposed) Iranian nuclear ambitions and Ahmadinejad to fuel the fear.

[napoleon_in_rags]

7. You are absolutely right. That brings up a key difference between progressives and conservatives.

A very powerful difference I just realized, and it is this: Progressives, wherever they are, anywhere in the world, are pretty much on the same side. An American liberal, a Chinese environmental activist, an African human rights worker, an Egyptian feminist can pretty much sit down at a table and get along, they will be on the same side. However an American conservative fundamentalist Christian, a fundamentalist Muslim and a hard line traditionalist Chinese and right wing Israeli hawk sit down at a table, somebody is going to get shot.

The point is that ultimately, if progressives worldwide form a coalition, no opposition can ever unify against us. In order to stay in power, conservative hardline factions of the world must create division, they must create an identity in a progressive's mind larger than the progressive identity: The must create thoughts like given the violence from other countries against my people, I must consider myself an Iranian first and a progressive reformer second. I think its really important that we reinforce the progressive identity for this reason, and stand with them. Its not about Iran or America or Israel anymore, its about the future vs. the past.

[LeftishBrit]

8. Excellent points

One key aspect of the RW is xenophobia, so the RW hawks of different groups/ countries/ religions will soon be fighting each other - while everyone around becomes literal or metaphorical collateral damage.

While the left are rarely fully unified, as we do suffer from a lot of fragmentation and political infighting (which reduces our effectiveness), we do not suffer from the same xenophobic hawkishness. True progressivism seeks to build bridges; RW hawkishness to destroy them.

[napoleon_in_rags]

9. Yeah, in fact I'd say that's our defining trait, or should be.

I think when people identify the collateral damage aspect, things change too. Suppose somebody blows themselves up in an Israeli market. The question is, will that person be identified as a Palestinian, or as a hateful bigot willing to kill innocent people because they of different race religion. When people identify the real issue, the latter, there is a strong desire to not be part of that, and to side with Palestinians, Iranians, Israelis, or people of any religion or nationality who also stand against xenophobia and hate, whomever it is from. That's when people get down to what it really is they oppose.

[RandomThoughts]

2. Everything the Republicans say are to try to regain power by making the democrats look bad.

They don't care how it effects anyone in the world, just another reason why they have no credibility.

[MADem]

3. The GOP are heavy backers of organizations of expat Iranians here who back BabyShah.

BabyShah, in fact, lives in MD and is a well known figure in Cap Hill circles.

There's a bunch of "Put BabyShah back on the throne, let's dust off the old Constitutional Monarchy," crowd. Make no mistake.

I don't think the country is interested in that, though. Not by a long shot.

Here's Babyshah's website--he's all grown up now!

http://www.rezapahlavi.org/

[EFerrari]

4. You can see something of that pressure right here

in the atrocity stories that have been posted uncritically since Friday.

If he continues on his present course, which probably isn't as distant as the White House is claiming at all, it will still be a good thing, imho.

[jeanpalmer]

5. McCain is nuts

Thank god he didn't get elected. We'd be fighting a war with Russia and be getting ready to invade Iran. Hard to believe he could make that kind of statement without hard evidence.