Obama and Iran
Digg 
Stumble Upon 
Newsvine 
Slashdot 
Mixx 
Diigo 
Delicious 
Reddit 
Facebook
Andrew Sullivan’s blogging on the past week’s events in Iran has been indispensable, but his latest bit of advice for President Obama is much less so:
What the president must do is refuse to recognize the sham government and demand an inquiry into the election.
No, he mustn’t. By my lights at least, the thing for Obama to do is to give no indication at all that his administration cares one way or another about the outcome of this election, as it’s only in this way that he can keep this situation from becoming, in Andrew’s own words, “the Iran-vs.-America” story that Ahmadinejad would clearly love it to turn into. Indeed, if the Obama administration finds that it just can’t keep its mouth shut, the best course of action would likely be the one that Thoreau decided would be too tricksy for one Joe Biden:
2) Infidel kryptonite, saying that Ahmadinejad is a swell guy and you’re delighted that he won.Wait, scratch that, you’d just screw it up.
As Thoreau suggests, the reason for such an approach to the situation is not just that U.S. interests in this matter don’t clearly come down on one side as opposed to the other, but also that the near-guaranteed blowback from any visible American intervention would involve mass popular uprisings giving expression to sentiments directly opposed to the ones currently being voiced. If, at the behest of the U.S., there is an inquiry into the election and Mousavi comes out ahead, what do you think would be the reaction in the Iranian streets? The streets of Cairo or Baghdad or Kabul? How about among the other governments of the region?
Getting things straight in Iran is a task for Iran, and perhaps – perhaps – also for the UN or the EU. Given the sad history of American meddling in the region, this is the perfect time for our president to sit quietly on the sidelines.
Filed under: foreign affairs
Schwenkler 1, Sullivan 0
(Well, in fairness to Andrew, he deserves quite a few points for his coverage, but I’m rarely inclined to be charitable toward him (as if he cares), and you’re on the money here.)
I really think that this may be the true test of Obama’s mettle, the test of the sincerity of “Change.” I’m with Dan McCarthy in fearing that, however this all ends, neocons, liberal internationalists, or both are going to find some way to spin it as “sound” pretext for, at best, fiercer saber-rattling and, at worst, the war with Iran that even President Bush was wise enough to dissuade Israel from launching. I’d like to think that Obama is sufficiently prudent to know better, but then-Governor Bush promised a “humble foreign policy” when challenging Al Gore.
[...] John Schwenkler [...]
Does anyone but me get the sinking feeling that each rough half of the American political spectrum can easily find the narrative it wants in the current situation, in a way that clears the road for some type of intervention?: i.e. the ‘right’ sees A-jad flexing his muscles and the ‘left’ sees a bunch of Twitter-using college kids getting their heads smashed by police?
Schwenkler 1, Sullivan 0
or
Schwenkler 27, Sullivan 0
Here’s why: as much as I am influenced by Sullivan’s coverage, the suspicion of fraud, or the support of people-lead revolution…what if we are wrong?
Even if this is a coup of the greatest proportions, we must stay out of it (…as Rod Dreher would say…) full stop.
Obama should state only that he hopes for a peaceful, non-violent resolution to the election, and that truth and order rule the day. As hard as that is in Iran.
Amen. Well, it looks like he’s going to be speaking tonight at a press conference with Berlusconi, so we’ll get a measure of his sanity soon enough.
[...] agree with John on this one: Getting things straight in Iran is a task for Iran, and perhaps – perhaps – also for the UN or [...]
[...] John Schwenkler, Larison’s colleague at American Conservative, agrees: The reason for such an approach to the situation is not just that U.S. interests in this matter don’t clearly come down on one side as opposed to the other, but also that the near-guaranteed blowback from any visible American intervention would involve mass popular uprisings giving expression to sentiments directly opposed to the ones currently being voiced. If, at the behest of the U.S., there is an inquiry into the election and Mousavi comes out ahead, what do you think would be the reaction in the Iranian streets? The streets of Cairo or Baghdad or Kabul? How about among the other governments of the region? [...]
Good analysis. You should send it over to the WSJ editors: their editorial in the international edition suggested that Obama should go easy on Netanyahu and damn the Iranian elections.