Obama on Iran

The news here had orbited for the past days around Michael Jackson's death by cardiac arrest and the case of the South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford's admission that his disappearance of 5 days was connected to an extra-marital affair. These are news that immediately take hold of the average American's attention. They love show biz here. Thus, the news on Iran and Pres. Obama's reaction to the unrest there slid immediately from public attention. Which is a bummer as far as I'm concerned. It is the more important piece of news having long term and far reaching significance.

The rash of post-election public outrage in Iran and the brutal government effort to put it down involving a concerted news blackout, public beatings and arrests and the death of a female student protester elicited partisan reactions vocalized through American press. The Republicans by and large were pressing for a stronger reaction from Obama. They accused him of being soft on the "enemies of freedom".  Obama on the other hand stuck to a more "guarded" position expressing concern for the deaths and arrests of demonstrators but sticking by the position that this was a problem internal to Iran. He spoke in general terms and was more inclined to provide details for his proposal to reform the American Public Health System by establishing public health insurance system especially for those who heretofore could not afford health insurance.

But Obama's reaction to the trouble in Iran is easy to understand. It certainly is not how George W. Bush Jr. would have reacted. The Republicans wax nostalgic for their old leader. He would have loved and made good use of this opportunity to make rhetoric that would fire-up American conservatives. He would have needed this to justify the torture of POWs in U.S. prisons and the various infringements on civil liberties. That Obama did nothing of this sort only proves that finally we have an American president who is trying to move America forward from the old ways.

Here is an American president who is holding his guns instead of going for it on impulse. Last week, Obama spoke in Egypt. The speech was not intrasigient. Instead it attempted to appeal to Islamic moderates and in the process isolate the militant extremists. Of course, it drew immediate ire from American conservative Republicans who still believe that the best way to defend themselves from terrorists is by scaring everyone with their readiness to use military force at the slightest instance. It is a hopelessly forlorn position whose validity has never ever been evidenced by history. 

Obama's position on the Palestinian homeland issue was particularly important. For once, an American president had expressed sympathy for the establishment of a secure homeland for Palestinians. This would, of course, bother conservative American Jews. But Obama was clear that the Palestinian movement must be peaceful. He had sufficient credibility to make this claim. We are convinced that here finally is an American president who is ready to attempt to "fix" the problems of the Middle East by listening to all parties who were ready to resolve their issues through peaceful means. It is admittedly only a first step but it is a serious first step. And why is this any different from George W. Bush's position on the Middle East? George W. Bush did not have the moral credibility to make a proposal of that sort even were he inclined to do that.

The view that all Muslims are inherently militaristic is erroneous. Indeed, there are moderates all over the Muslim world and Obama, given his experience in Indonesia, knows this. The message in Egypt was generally to get them on the side of peace. I believe the public demonstrations in Iran protesting against the election results is a good indicator that Obama is getting his message across in the Middle East. It is admittedly a leap of logic. You would be right to go so far as to call it a leap of faith. But consider that for the first time since the Iranian revolution which installed the Ayatollah Khomeini into power, young Iranians are moving in defiance of the theocracy. At the very least it is encouraging for us who believe that the final solution for peace in the Middle East must come only through the process of liberalism and modernization.

So why shouldn't Obama openly intervene in Iran as the Republicans have claimed he should? He should not intervene because that would be imperialistic. In which case, the Ayatollah's would be proven right that the troubles in Iran have resulted because of Western Media and the acts of the American Satan. Soon the Ayatollah's will realize that they face a paradox. They need to get their young people educated. But that cannot come without a price. With education comes the thirst also for civil liberties. Such liberties as are allowed all civilized and educated peoples worldwide. The Ayatollahs will fall just as surely as did the Berlin Wall. But Obama knows it is neither his nor America's job to make them fall. That is a job best left to time.

For once we have an American president worthy of the world. June 29, 2009, Kinutil/CDN