Comments on: Silence Is Golden

By: Yes, but… § Unqualified Offerings

Yes, but… § Unqualified Offerings — Sun, 12 Jul 2009 23:41:15 +0000

[...] don’t think Daniel Larison’s points are entirely wrong. I said downblog that the US government should keep its mouth shut. [...]

By: nbfazel

nbfazel — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 19:27:58 +0000

I sent this article to one of my relatives in Tehran. She responded as follows:

Dear Behzad ,

I finally managed to read your article. In my opinion the election in Iran was between bad and worse ,… so we chose the bad !
there was no guarantee that if mousavi has been elected ,he would be better than ahmadinejad ! but at least we could look at him without the feeling of disgust !!! at least he is educated ….at least he doesn’t say Big lies !!! at least he has an educated wife who is everywhere with him and supports him.and I personally like his ideas and reforms.

about “Gucci rally ” …!!! it wasn’t like that ! people form different level of socioeconomic classes can be fined in mousavi supporters! you really should be here and see it for yourself to understand what I mean. they all came and come and will come for their hearts and for what they believe in .. nothing else.

I don’t know what will happen in the future , but I believe that what ever will happen , it doesn’t matter much,… because the most important thing had happened.people has fined out that they can decide what they want ,…. they can be united and they can fight for it.it was a huge step for our nation. and it scares the country leaders . nothing else matters.

boos

Mojdeh

By: Ted V

Ted V — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 20:36:24 +0000

Dude, Francisco, really? The fact that young Iranians use cel phones and Facebook, that their friends and family help them get information out, and that Saberi photocopied records (journalists would never do that without government coordination) is proof that Obama is meddling in Iran? Give me a frigging break. If Saberi was a spy, why did they release her?

By: Roach

Roach — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 20:06:08 +0000

I wrote something about this over at mansizedtarget.com. The neocons are so eager to relive the moral clarity of the Cold War they have forgotten that most Third World countries’ elections are referenda on who will oppress whom. Have they forgotten these are Muslims we’re talking about having an election through a process managed by Mullahs in an Islamic Republic? This is hardly the Velvet Revolution or Solidarity in Poland. It’s more like the Beer Hall Putsch or the Night of the Long Knives or some other unsavory episode of political violence that hardly led to a new awakening of freedom.

It is somewhat encouraging to thing some Iranians are fed up with their regime. But the same enthusiasm, impatience with oppression, and sense of national reawakening was equally present in 1979.

I also think it’s comforting to think the election had to be rigged. Really? We’re talking about Muslims in a country run by crazy Mullahs for the last 30 years.

By: Sufferian

Sufferian — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 19:13:02 +0000

I agree that Obama throwing his weight in behind Mousavi is a bad idea right now, for the fact that foreign support of a political group in a country usually removes a large basis of its popular support. But that doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t at some point become involved in the conflict, especially if popular support for Mousavi breaks into widespread violent. Isolationism is really not a valid position to take anymore. The idea that the US does not need to have an opinion for every crises outside America unless it directly impacts us is silly. Globalization has seen to it that everyone’s economies, and thus their standards of living, are interdependent. Iran has 10% of the world’s remaining oil reserves, it is the US’s best interests to make sure that it has a good, stable relationship with the country. If that means not doing anything in hopes the democratic system will out and stability will return, that’s all well and good. But doing nothing, no matter what, because it’s none of our business is a silly opinion, from an ethical, or pragmatic standpoint.

By: PBell

PBell — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 18:58:45 +0000

How strange. Everyone seems to think that calling for a fair election and giving people an opportunity for democracy is the same as supporting Thug #2. That is not what this is about. It is about supporting freedom and democracy, Look at Bush second inaugural. “All who live in tyranny and hopelessness can know: the United States will not ignore your oppression, or excuse your oppressors. When you stand for your liberty, we will stand with you.”What did Reagan say: “We call upon all free people to join in urging the Government.. to reestablish conditions that will make constructive negotiations and compromise possible.” Thats all he needs to say. No one is advocating dropping a couple of A teams in the countryside or starting a bombing campaign.
But from the above I guess it is OK for them to slaughter as many people as they like so we can resume negotiations without preconditions. We don’t want to meddle in their affairs after all. That hope and change thing? Fuggetaboutit.

By: Daniel Larison

Daniel Larison — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 15:36:03 +0000

I don’t know whether the administration is interfering covertly in Iran or not. That is not what I was talking about here in any case. After the “color” revolutions, I wouldn’t be in the least surprised if Washington is providing funding or aid on the sly to opposition forces, but at the moment I have no reason to believe this is the case.

By: Francisco

Francisco — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 15:23:45 +0000

Those of you who suffer from the illusion that the Obama administration is not meddling in the internal affairs of Iran ought to view this video: http://informationclearinghouse.info/article22839.htm. Not all things that glitter are gold… especially Obama’s silence.

By: Matt C

Matt C — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 10:32:30 +0000

i knew there was a reason i kept loading your blog…i was waiting for this post.

doing absolutely nothing about Iran sounds like a really good plan right about now.

By: nrmurra

nrmurra — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 10:15:50 +0000

Right on.

Probably the worst thing that can happen to a faction involved in an internal power struggle or domestic upheaval is to be in any way associated with the interests or influence of a foreign power. During the French Revolution, the Jacobins were enormously successful at demonizing the Queen as an Austrian agent, which carried a lot more weight than ordinary anti-royalist invective. (although perhaps not as much as incest) While it would not be terribly risky for Obama to denounce any percieved fraud, he should certainly stay away from hailing the protestors as champions of American values or some such. This is not just a tactical mistake but a moral one as well. We tend to forget that other humans do not regard themselves as faceless participants in a vast pro-Western International vangard. The Iranian dissidents see themselves, rather, as committed patriots trying to save their nation from corruption as misrule. We should honor their self-image by maintaining a rhetorical distance.

As it happens, our aggressive posture towards Iran will probably make the vaunted “secular revolution” or “hipster uprising!” everyone seems to be waiting for less probable, because a nation which feels the pressure of external threats tends to value power over liberty, international strength over domestic house-cleaning, and hasty re-consolidation over thorough dispersal.

By: Daniel Larison

Daniel Larison — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 03:43:33 +0000

Obama's statement here seemed appropriate and reasonable for the most part. No speculation on what happened, criticizing the violence and re-stating basic principles about his diplomatic approach--this seemed all right to me on the whole. One might quibble here or there, but I don't see much that I would criticize. Stressing non-interference and respect for the Iranian people was good.

By: Ted V

Ted V — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 00:54:38 +0000

I hear what you’re saying, but let’s throw out the emotion of the deal, and picking which side is virtuous. Let’s talk about our true interests, especially concerning what President Obama wants to do. Mousavi said that he backs discussions with Iran and the UN Security Council. Ahmadinejad is against them. Mousavi says:

“With Mr. Obama, the tone [of the U.S.] has changed. There is now talk of exchange and dialogue, which is a good sign. If this trend continues, it will help improve the situation.”

http://www.smartmoney.com/news/on/?story=ON-20090529-000843-1750

Isn’t it enough to root for Mousavi and his bloc for that reason alone?

By: LMaggitti

LMaggitti — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 00:09:53 +0000

So what do you think of his comments? I mean, I agree with you, but realisitcally he was going to say SOMETHING, and I think given that he did a decent job of avoiding the most serious pitfalls.

By: Balloon Juice » Blog Archive » Also, I’ll Have Kale, Spinach and Peas For Dinner

Tue, 16 Jun 2009 00:04:21 +0000

[...] this Larison piece is a solid read, and this is sage [...]

By: kent

kent — Mon, 15 Jun 2009 23:58:37 +0000

Dan, this post sure was a buzzkill. Making a guy step back and think about who and what he’s cheering on. Darn you anyway.

Excellent post. I know absolutely zip about Iran and I need to admit that. Thanks for the wakeup call.

The whole situation reminds me of the old Bloom County cartoon (top one on the page) …

http://www.caracarn.com/bc/index.cfm?opus=807

… where way too many of us are at the same intellectual level as Binkley, including the talking heads on the cable news channels.