President Obama has been correct in his very restrained response to the protestors in Iran. I was wrong in my opinion Wednesday when I wrote that I wished President Obama would “make a more substantive statement of support for Iranians seeking justice in this election than what he has said so far.”
I point out my mistake to you because;
a) I want the credibility from being able to admit that my opinion was wrong and that I have changed my mind;
b) Because I came to the conclusion that I was wrong because of the Principles of Mind Your Own Damn Business Politics, posted at this link.
In this case, I followed Principle 9 of the Principles of MYODB, “Those that disagree with your views are not necessarily bad. They might have valid ideas. Listen.” I listened, or more precisely, I read and I learned about a different perspective on the issue from two people that have very different views than I have.
Yesterday I read two columns, both written by men that I disagree with on just about everything they have ever said, written, done, stood for, and even thought. In short, I am no fan of either. Yet reading their columns changed my opinion about President Obama’s response to the Iranian protestors.
Pat Buchannan and John Kerry, two men that are themselves polar opposites in their political views, both wrote that President Obama was right in not saying more in support of the Iranian protestors.
Buchannan sites numerous examples of tyrannical regimes resorting to extreme violence to preserve their power and writes: “If Obama cannot assist the demonstrators, why declare we are with them? That would call into question the nationalist credentials of the protesters by tying them to a power not universally loved in Iran. It would play into the hand of the regime by confirming charges that the crowds are “rent-a-mobs” like the ones Kermit Roosevelt and the CIA used to dump over the regime of Muhammad Mossadegh in 1953.”
Buchannan goes on to point out the reality that the Iranian regime cares nothing for world opinion and certainly not the opinion of a U.S. president: “It is impossible to believe a denunciation of the regime by Obama will cause it to stay its hand if it believes its power is imperiled.”
Kerry wrote: “If we actually want to empower the Iranian people, we have to understand how our words can be manipulated and used against us to strengthen the clerical establishment.
“The last thing we should do is give Mr. Ahmadinejad an opportunity to evoke the 1953 American-sponsored coup, which ousted Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh and returned Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi to power. Doing so would only allow him to cast himself as a modern-day Mossadegh, standing up for principle against a Western puppet.”
Buchannan clearly agrees with Kerry: “But it is certain that if Obama denounces Tehran, those demonstrators will be portrayed as dupes and agents of America before and after they meet their fate.”
I have read and heard many comments comparing the Iranian protests to Tiananmen Square, the Hungarian Revolution, and Prague Spring. However, Kerry points out a distinct difference: “Their signs, slogans and Twitter postings say nothing about getting help from Washington.”
I maintain what I wrote in a later post, that I hope the Iranian people put Iran on the path toward peace with their neighbors and the world.
Both Senator Kerry’s column in the New York Times and Buchannan’s column in Human Events are well worth reading, especially if you disagree with their view. As I said earlier, I disagree and in fact dislike both men. But they make good points in this case. I think they are right that President Obama is right. I was wrong.
{ 4 trackbacks }