Arab Perceptions of the Iranian "Green Wave"

Ok, so you know that Iranians aren't Arabs, right? They're Persians. So how do Arabs feel about what's going on in Iran? What's their perception of it? Well, how about we ask someone who has been travelling in Arab countries, someone who is in a position to tell us? The Tehran Bureau has published the essay for us. Here's a quote:

Most Arab governments dislike the current Iranian regime, so you would think they would be pleased to see it toppled, or tempered by its own people. Yet, if such change were to occur through street demonstrations choreographed via a web of digital communications, whispered messages, and rooftop religious chants in the middle of the night, Arab leaders of autocratic regimes would be unhappy — because they would sense their own vulnerability to similar mass political challenges. The fact is not lost on anyone that the Iranian regime effectively withstood and defied American-Israeli-European-UN pressure, threats and sanctions for years, but found itself much more vulnerable to the spontaneous rebellion of many of its own citizens who felt degraded by the falsification of election results by the government.

(An intriguing side note: Events inside Iran picked up steam at the same time as the Iranian presidential elections coincided with the Obama administration’s change of policy — as Washington backed off the threats and aggressiveness of the Bush years — and offered to engage with Iran on the basis of mutual respect. Would a more detached US policy towards Arab autocrats similarly open space for Arab domestic effervescence and indigenous calls for more liberal, honest politics?)

The Passion of Captain America

Captain America, John McCain, is at it again. He was interviewed on C-SPAN (a VERY important and highly watched network, ahem) as seen in the video below.

As you watch the short clip, ask yourself this question. What exactly does McCain want Obama to do? Does he want him to declare war on Iran? Perhaps just make a stronger verbal statement? It's unclear. At the end of the clip he says he just wants Obama to stand up for human rights like our founding fathers did. I could hear the Battle Hymn of the Republic playing softly in McCain's head when he said it.

And yet where's McCain's passion? Where's the gusto? I was half expecting him to yawn at some point. I yawned a couple times watching it. He's boring. Why is he boring? Look, I'm not a young, naive child who has to be entertained all the time, but if someone is speaking and you're bored to tears within seconds, it's not because you have a short attention span, it's because the person's heart isn't in it. McCain's heart isn't in it. He has no passion. And why, I ask you?

Because his words are empty and meaningless. Because he's calling on Obama to say what he's already said. Because he knows that his earlier stance was outrageous and harmful to the US, and he knows it, and he's had to back off of it because he looks like a fool.

I don't want to practice age discrimination, so I apologize, but McCain is just old and tired, and I'm tremendously relieved that he wasn't elected President. He's got nothing to contribute to this situation, which is probably why he's being interviewed on C-SPAN. Anyway, here, watch for yourself, and be glad he's not our President. (Not that I love Obama - I didn't vote for him either. At least he's got a little personality though, sheesh!)

Bill Oreilly and Tony Blair Getting the Point

In last night's talking points - a brief segment at the beginning of his show - Bill Oreilly of Fox News criticized Obama's critics who think he should take a harder stance in favor of the protesters, citing Henry Kissenger. Hooray! Perhaps now radical neo-con Republicans will be alienated and seen for the political opportunists that they are.

Meanwhile, Tony Blair said: "[This is an] extraordinary and exciting moment... It's difficult because you want to stand up for people you sympathize with, but President Obama is right, you've got to be careful because your intervention could be used against the people protesting. ... [We can help] by focusing on it, by letting people know that the world is watching and is, in many senses, in solidarity with the people there." (H/T Huffington Post)

Be quiet now Captain America.

.

"Leave Iran to the Iranians"

"Iranian hardliners just can't wait for President Barack Obama to raise high the protesters' green banner so they can turn it red, white, and blue and unleash a bloodbath against 'American agents.' And American hardliners and foreign-policy gurus just keep pushing Obama toward precisely that rhetorical abyss..."

"For many years now, virtually every Iranian who talks to an American says we should stay out of their affairs, that when we try to help them, we hurt them. Do you hear Iranians twittering their thanks to Charles Krauthammer, Paul Wolfowitz, Joe Lieberman, and John McCain? Does that silence mean anything to those Americans urging them on to spill their blood for freedom and democracy? Oh, of course, our moralists and seers of 'a historical turning point' are not so crude as to blatantly call the protesters to freedom's barricades or for Obama to urge a bloodbath for democracy. But they walk right up to that line."

"Charles Krauthammer doesn't hesitate to proclaim his real goal: 'regime change' as the only way to solve future nuclear threats. 'Our fundamental values demand that America stand with demonstrators opposing a regime that is the antithesis of all we believe.' He then asks, 'Where is our president? Afraid of meddling.' And how does this brilliant pen of the right propose to meddle effectively? Like his neoconservative brethren, he offers nothing besides moral condemnation."

Captain America "fails to mention moral calls in the 1950s by John Foster Dulles and the C.I.A. for uprisings in Hungary and its neighbors. The result? Soviet armies crushed the revolutionaries, and we did nothing, as President Eisenhower had made clear was his position beforehand. And [Captain America] doesn't mention H.W. Bush's urging the Shiites of southern Iraq to rebel against Saddam in the wake of the first Gulf War. This resulted in a Shiite rebellion and in Saddam's killing tens of thousands of those poor souls, while Washington did absolutely nothing. And what about Tiananmen? Would going to the moral mattresses have prevented the awful crackdown by the Chinese communist government? Not a chance. And look where we are today-with China as America's biggest holder of U.S. securities. [Captain America] and his fellow neocons are well aware of these histories and historical complexities. So, their disregard of any fair-minded exposition of the issue suggests a hidden motive - [Captain America's] goal of confrontation and regime change." (References to "Captain America" added.)

These quotes are from a new piece from the Council on Foreign Relations. Let me just add that this blatant naming of names and very direct criticism is unusual for CFR. This is a very moderate, centrist organization. For them to so directly and vehemently criticize the neo-conservative position is quite significant. I should also add that CFR is the producer of the excellent academic journal, "Foreign Affairs," which is read very widely in Washington.

.

Captain America Strikes Again!

Rich Lowry, you're an idiot. Captain America strikes again.

Once upon a time I was a committed Republican. Now I realize that they, just like the majority of all politicians, are not committed to truth and justice, but to grabbing whatever political power and influence they can, even if that means exploiting ignorant Americans at the expense of the lives of Iranian protesters.

Look, it's people actually in Iran and taking part in the protests that are begging the world to stay out of it. The regime in Iran are masters of propaganda, and they can twist anything Obama says. Khamenei demonstrated earlier today in his very rare public appearance for a Friday sermon that he's even capable of making stuff up altogether. So, the less Obama says, the better.

Everyone in Iran is distrustful of foreign influence. They have long memories. Remember Alexander the Great? They're still mad about that over there. You remember, the young Greek lad that defeated the entire Persian army and overthrew the greatest empire on earth at the time? What does that have to do with us? Foreign influence.

Khamenei is already trying to portray the protesters as being puppets of the Wicked Witch of the West (that's US). Obama doesn't want to help him make his case in any way. The Iranian people are very fragile when it comes to their Supreme Leader.

I know - we Americans can't understand that. We hate authority. As soon as someone makes some claim to truth we think it's a power grab and immediately lash out against them as a tyrrannical oppressor, and how DARE you?! Yes, we hate authority in any and all forms. "We don't need no education...teachers leave us kids alone!"

But in Iran, it's different. Authority is respected. Authority means something. The people are very religious. They believe things that we can't even comprehend. It's a delicate situation, Captain America. Read Peggy Noonan. Listen to Henry Kissenger. Listen to the protesters themselves. You can't just go in there like an 18 year old punk, snot nosed kid fresh out of boot camp ready for blood.

Calm down and let the adults handle things. Go play in your sandbox and pretend the world is your chessboard, neo-con.

Khamenei's Speech: Invoking the West

Khamenei's speech made numerous references to the West: the US, the EU, the UK and Israel. Using this translation and the "find" function in my web browser, I'm going to try to find all the references to the US. Why? Because I want to demonstrate that Obama's policy of basic silence on this matter is the correct stance to take.

First he says, "The Zionist, American and British radio are all trying to say that there was a competition between those who support and those who didn't support the state - everyone supported the state." By "everyone" Khamenei means all the candidates. He is complaining that the Western media is saying that the dispute between Ahmadinejad and Mousavi is a dispute between those who want to preserve the state and those who want to overturn it. He's saying that that's simply untrue. Notice what he's trying to do here. He's trying to force people in the opposition to acknowledge, even if only in their hearts, that they don't want to overturn the state. He's saying, "You don't want to be like the Americans or the Zionist dogs do you? You don't want to overturn the state." It seems like such a small thing he's asking the Iranians to acknowledge, but this is actually a very important psychological move. He's trying to get people to draw lines in their own mind and say to themselves, "Well, I may protest, but I'm sure not gonna cross that line!" He's trying to keep protests from turning into a revolution. So Khamenei agrees with me that revolution is in fact in the air, and he's trying to stop it, invoking powerful images of the evil Wicked Witch of the West to do so.

Next, he says, "First, before the elections, their [US and EU] media orientation and their statements made was they wanted to cast out the hearts of the people a feeling that the election was useless to cut the turn out..." His point here is that prior to the election, Western media was trying to convince people in Iran not to bother voting, because the election was largely meaningless. He goes on to praise the huge 85% turnout on election day, praising Iran for proving the Wicked Witch of the West wrong. Then he goes on to say that when the evil West saw the results (the protests), that they saw an opportunity, and their masks came off and they revealed their true nature.

He said, "a number of heads of states and other leaders of EU and America made statements that clarified the true nature of those leaders. It was said on behalf of the US president that he was waiting for a day that people came out to streets." What he's saying here is not entirely clear to me. President Obama said no such thing, nor nothing that implied it. Yet notice how he says that someone said it on behalf of the President. See how careful Obama must be in what he says? So even though publicly Obama has said that there isn't much difference for the US between the candidates, Khamenei is trying to impute statements to him. He's trying to associate him with the opposition movement. He is a seasoned veteran deceiver and his rhetoric seems pretty powerful to me. It's easy for people who don't know better to believe this stuff. But it's even easier if there's actual sound bites and video footage of President Obama saying things in favor of one side or the other. He goes on to blame European and American "agents" on the "riots" vandalism and starting fires, etc. But a picture is worth a thousand words:

Then Khamenei gets bizarre. He said, "An American Zionist capitalist some time ago claimed that he had spent ten million dollars and created velvet revolution in Georgia. They are comparing the Islamic Republic with GEORGIA!?" Now, that's very odd, because the Velvet Revolution is the name for the "Gentle Revolution" that happened in the old Czechoslovakia in 1989. Understanding exactly what he means is probably impossible. He is, after all, a madman. But his point isn't so hard to understand. He's trying to say that the US has already admitted to being involved in a revolution involving Muslims, and he's saying that WE are saying that we'll be more than happy to do the same thing here. Our capitalist greed by which we amass wealth to ourselves will be put to use in service of buying a revolution in Iran. He's just trying to build suspicion in the hearts of the gullible. Now, at first gloss, we might say, ah, what a loon, and blow him off. It's much harder for Iranians to just blow him off, even if they think he's out to lunch. He's like the Pope in Iran. He's the Supreme Leader of the whole country. It's hard to just ignore him. And yet I think many will, because he does not cite evidence for it. He only says that someone, somewhere, once upon a time, made some claim....they are paranoid rantings of a madman, and anyone with common sense can see that.

He goes on to say that Americans have no moral high ground because we are oppressing the people of Iraq and Afghanistan, and...then there was that Waco, Tx incident: "What is the worst thing to me in all this are comments made in the name of human rights and freedom and liberty made by American officials they said that we are worried about Iranian nations WHAT? Are you serious? Do you KNOW what human rights are?! Who did that in Afghanistan? The wars and bloodshed Who is crushing Iraq under its soldier's boots? in Palestine? Who supported the Zionists? even inside America During the time of the democrats Time of Clinton 80 people were burned alive in Waco? Now you are talking about human rights?" I leave it to the reader to sort this out.

Well, my whole point is just to say that in Iran, it's kind of cool to invoke the West, especially the US. However, there is one very unusual thing about Khamenei's speech. There's one place where we would have thought he would mention the US, but he didn't.

He said, "I will tell you, diplomats of other countries in the past few days have taken away their masks and showing their true image. The most evil of them all is the British Government." Now I'm sure that when he said that, the Brits were positively choking on their crumpets and reaching for their tea to wash it down. But notice that for once it wasn't the US who was named as the most evil. I think that's significant, given the fact that Iran is literally surrounded by US troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not proud of the US that we're somehow thought of not quite so badly by an evil dictator. Far from it. Nonetheless, it shows that the US is a little bit less of a "political football" as Obama called it. This is good. It means Obama is successfully avoiding fueling Khamenei's rhetoric. It's a little bit harder for him to paint the opposition as another "velvet revolution in Georgia". Stop that giggling.

The Wall Street Journal Gets It

Peggy Noonan has put out a brilliant piece for the Wall Street Journal today, and I applaud it. Thanks Peggy, for getting it right and for getting the word out - and in a conservative newspaper no less! Hooray!

I am by no means a liberal or a Democrat. I grew up loyal to the Republicans, but am now a registered Libertarian. That doesn't mean I don't usually side with the Republicans though. Nonetheless, I've been entirely vehement at the ignorant and wreckless politics of certain Republicans lately, especailly Captain America, John McCain, which I've written about here. And yes, by calling him Captain America, I do mean to make him look ridiculous and cartoonish, so that you won't take him seriously.

The best thing for the President to do is stay out of it. I even wrote him a letter telling him as much, and I told him that he needs to get prominent Republicans to speak out about it in conservative forums, because frankly, conservatives won't listen to Obama.

Why is that? Well, because conservatives have already made up their minds about Obama. He's a liberal and probably a coward, they say. He couldn't possibly be right. Thus it's very, very easy for someone like McCain to come along in a smug desire for revenge for losing last year's election and say that Obama is screwing up foreign policy, just like conservatives always knew he would. It reminds me of when Rush Limbaugh said that he wants Obama to fail.

It's ironic how conservatives accuse liberals of being anti-American, because Rush's comments are what's truly anti-American. And I LIKE listening to Rush Limbaugh! McCain's actions here are also anti-American. I know he's got access to BETTER information than I do, since he's a Senator. Although, I doubt he spends as much time looking into it and thinking about it as I do. I didn't vote for Obama. I don't think liberal policies work. But I'm happy to be proven wrong. I want the country to succeed. I want Obama to succeed. I don't want him to ruin our country, and in fact, I'm convinced that ruining our country is a lot harder than it looks.

Obama is not just being a coward. I agree with him, and I was a Marine. Choose any Marine at random and call them a coward. You'll find out if you're right. If I were President, I would do just what Obama is doing. He's doing the right thing.

I might have a small disagreement with Noonan's article though. She thinks it was a mistake for Obama to say that Ahmadinejad and Mousavi are basically the same thing from our perspective. First, let's admit that yes, Obama's statement is incorrect. Noonan assumes that Obama doesn't know that. Perhaps that's a fair assumption, but I think it's incorrect. I think Obama knows that what he said did not reflect the truth of the matter. He knows, because he can employ common sense, that millions of Iranians think the difference between the two candidates is worth dying for. Only a fool could overlook that.

If it is true that the two candidates look the same from our perspective, we need to change our perspective. Anyone in our government will tell you that we know very, very precious little about Iran. I was very pleasantly surprised to see this ad for the opposition. I had no idea just how radical the opposition was. Perhaps a change in perspective is a good idea.

Nonetheless, let's assume for a moment that Obama knew that the comment did not reflect reality. Is there still some reason why he might have said it? Sure! Lots of them! For one, he might have been pushing Mousavi to parse his movement in a way Westerners can understand. For another, he might have been trying to be absolutely crystal clear to everyone in Iran that he was NOT taking sides, because in fact, he doesn't see a difference between the two. Perhaps that made the people in Iran kind of resent Obama's ignorance a little bit, but I doubt anyone in Iran was shocked or really cared all that much. They know we're ignorant about them. And in fact, Mousavi's statement describing how irritated he was about that only gives the fact more publicity that the US President isn't taking sides. (And I'm not the only one who thinks it was a good move.)

That's a very good thing, because if Ahmadinejad can paint the opposition movement as an American puppet movement, then the movement will lose a lot of momentum. Almost everyone in Iran is distrustful of foreign influence in their country, particularly Western influence, and that distrust goes all the way back to the Persians and the Greeks. People outside the US have slightly longer memories than we do. They still talk about injustices done centuries ago. When I was in Kosovo, I remember people talking about land disputes in terms of what happened 700 years before. In the Middle East, some still talk about the Crusades as if those injustices still need to be answered for. This is unthinkable for Americans who have only a 200 year history. White people still can't understand how blacks can still be upset about slavery in the US, when it was abolished 150 years ago. What does that have to do with me? we wonder. Well, some people have longer memories, and they have VERY long memories in the Middle East that stretches back for centuries, even millennia.

So the point is, the Iranians are distrustful of foreign influence, but particularly the US. So if Obama picks a side and supports it openly and publicly, that side will immediately lose at least some Iranian support. So it is actually in the best interests of the opposition movement that he remain silent.

But perhaps you ask why he doesn't then publicly side with the Iranian government, to REALLY ensure their doom. Of course he can't do that, because the American people wouldn't understand that he's lying. So the only thing he can do is take no side. And for this, the Republicans and others call him a coward and say that he's not standing up for the protesters. But the fact is, there's nothing he can do to help the protesters. All he can do is try to refrain from hindering their efforts.

What would McCain have done if he was President? Would he have stormed into Iran, in an attempt to oust the government? Doesn't he understand that if Obama did that, the new government would have NO legitimacy in the eyes of the Iranian people? How is that different from the current government? If we're TRULY Americans, if we TRULY believe in government by the people and for the people, then we'll let the Iranian PEOPLE form their OWN government, without our help, without our interference, without our meddling.

Bravo, President Obama, bravo. You're doing the right thing. Please keep resisting the temptation to be Captain America.

What Should Captain America Do About Iran? Nothing.

Nothing.

John McCain completely disagrees. Here is an example of a politician saying something stupid for the sake of political gain. He should know better. He's certainly in a position to be better informed than that.

Obama's position is right on the money. Stay out of it. Let's not "meddle" in Iranian affairs. His reasoning is absolutely sound. As soon as the US stands up against Ahmadinejad, then he can just turn around and call Mousavi a US puppet, and it's conceivable that some Iranians will believe it, and the movement will fizzle. Perhaps that's overstating things a bit, but we shouldn't miss the point. Let's not give the regime any way to claim that the opposition is the result of foreign powers meddling in Iranian politics. Everyone in Iran is distrustful of foreign influence. They have been for a very long time.

And anyway, just what does McCain think we can acheive by our meddling? Is the collapse of the Iranian government not happening fast enough to satisfy him?

Let's say that it's somehow possible to convince the Iranian government to "play nice" and stop killing protesters. What then? I hate to sound like a cold, bloodthirsty, inhuman monster, but the fact is, the doom of the Iranian state is spelled out in the blood of these protesters, who history will undoubtedly honor as martyrs. This is what happens in revolutions. There's violence; people die. I don't like it anymore than anyone else, but it's a necessary evil.

The fact is, Obama has denounced the violence. Iran is already under a number of sanctions from the UN. What more can be done?

"People are being killed and beaten in the streets of Tehran and all over Iran, and we should stand up for them," he told FOX News. "The way we stood up for the Polish workers in Gdansk, the way we stood up for the people of then Czechoslovakia in the Prague Spring and we have stood up for freedom in every part of the world. We're not doing that."

Precisely how should we stand up for these people, and how will that do them any good? If we take their side, so to speak, that will undermine their legitimacy in Iran. Why is this such a hard concept to understand? Not everyone looks at the US as some kind of world savior. Captain America is just a comic book.

When asked to respond to Obama's argument that perceived U.S. meddling could cast protestors as puppets of the United States, McCain said, "You know, I heard that argument during the Cold War that if we advocated for the oppressed under the then Soviet Union, that would somehow help the oppressors. It doesn't. It doesn't."

What a brilliant and well thought out response! "It doesn't." Brilliant! Why didn't I think of that? Why didn't anyone on the President's staff think of that? The fact is, McCain doesn't HAVE a coherent response to such a well reasoned argument, because he knows he's wrong. He is irresponsibly standing against the President, exploiting the ignorant American public, and all for the sake of political gain. John McCain is no Captain America.