The New Republic

"I'll have more to say about the administration's disgraceful response (if one can even call it that) to the ongoing events in Iran..."

I'm sure we're all looking forward to that.

Meanwhile, it sure would be nice if we hadn't squandered all of our goodwill in the region and the world on an ill-conceived and disastrously mismanaged war of choice.

- FWright

June 14, 2009 at 3:52pm

I don't think the unfairness of the ballot was as big a caveat as the complete impotence of the post of president, but I guess it's a moot  point now.  Still, I think the snippet is right in that this is a strike against Tehran's legitimacy, despite erroneously implying it's the first strike

- Simon Greenwood

June 14, 2009 at 4:28pm

give me a break, what the hell is he going to do? if he comes out in favor of the opposition he is only going to give the theocrats a chance to claim he is meddling. First lets see how it plays out, if there is a general strike, if things turn against A-jad then the opposition won't have to fend off charges of being a US puppet. But the notion that if Obama makes a statement then suddenly...what exactly do you expect?

I suggest you check your history books there Kirchick and see what the response of Bush was when Gorby was deposed in 1991, this was his response: US President George Bush has called the coup a "disturbing development" and cut short his holiday to return to the White House.

There is nothing we can do except wait (which is what Bush did in 1991), afterwards if A-jad wins, we can condemn him to our hearts delight.

- blackton

June 14, 2009 at 4:54pm

This post is a perfect symbol of how sick and childish our poltical culture has become. It sounds like a petulant 10 year old.  There is not one word that is journalistically relevant or even interesting in it.  That a journal like TNR chooses to print it is sad.

Jamie, you think your self righteousness and petulance matters more than the footage coming out of Iran and the courage of the people involved. You are a tiny speck of narcissistic meaninglessness.  How about an interview with someone on the street there?  Or is nattering around on the web all you're capable of?

- Wandreycer1

June 14, 2009 at 5:09pm

James, I believe the previous regime in Iran, the one under the Shah, had one or two legitimacy issues also.  The fact that a government is brought down in a violent revolution is often a pointer of sorts.

The kidnapping of the U.S. embassy staff was of course illegitimate in the extreme, as almost everyone would agree, but I don't think that was what you wanted to say.

- ironyroad

June 14, 2009 at 5:35pm

Given our history (especially the CIA's history) with Iran's democratic institutions, Obama trying to influence the presidential election there would go over as well as, say, Putin telling Poles who to elect.

- primwallflow

June 14, 2009 at 6:44pm

I'm pretty sure Putin does make a point of trying to tell the Poles (and all other former satellites) who to elect, as well as bankrolling that candidate.

- Simon Greenwood

June 14, 2009 at 6:55pm

Blackie, et al. I gotta say, my European friends are sending emails asking me what is the hell is going on with Obama - especially since the Canadian government's comments was a little more muscular.  I mean, when France and Germany are ahead of the US in respect NOT of the elections, but of  the battering of pro-democracy demonstrators, there is something seriously wrong.  And you know, when you see videos of truncheon-wielding motorcycle-riding police charging heedless into the crowds, I think something a little more than mere "we are concerned" is required.

I note that the attacks on civilian demonstrators is a different thing from the elections.  Only now it is becoming crystal clear how vast the electoral fraud was and how meticulously planned the clampdown on the reformists, and so a tardy reaction from State ON THE ELECTIONS is to be expected; on the beating of demonstrators, as Mr. Knightly might have said, Badly done, Hillary, badly done.

So here I am agreeing with the boy Kirchick in substance, and then I hit this remarkable line: "on the preceding campaign like it was a flowering of genuine democracy."

Hmmm.

No, you moron, it was not a "flowering of genuine democracy", but there were millions of young, educated, hopeful Iranians out in the street, trying to make a difference.  And the reporting reflected that, even as everyone noted the constraints and the uncertainties.  It is possible, you know, to make a genuinely sound point about the Iranian regime without snarkiness that also ricochets against the poor students being clubbed and kicked and killed in the streets of Tehran.

- icarusr

June 14, 2009 at 7:38pm

Simon,

I'm inclined to think of Putin as the devil incarnate myself - but Putin bankrolling a Polish political party or presidential candidate seems implausible, and would certainly backfire.

- jobeek2

June 14, 2009 at 7:40pm

new record. Called this as the latest from the whining whelp as soon as I saw the lede. This is getting easier.

- thejauntyboulevardier

June 14, 2009 at 7:59pm

Icarusr, I have a thought or two on the US response.  Hope you don't mind me sticking my two-cents worth into the conversation.

While it is true that Canada, France, and Germany provided stronger responses, I wonder if that is a bit of weak tea.  My guess is that anyone in authority in Iran is not particularly shaking in their boots because the Canadians are upset.  

On the other hand, the US response has to reveal itself a great deal more subtly, not wanting to, especially on the heels of Obama's speech in Cairo, provide Iran with any rationale to wail about interference from those meddlesome Americans.  

Also, note that some of the neo-cons are the ones who stated before the election that Ahmadinejad was preferable to anyone else.  Now, they reasoned that this is because he was the fire-breathing wack-job you know, as opposed to the subtle, wily Satan you don't.  More likely, Ahmadinejad's daily ravings provided them with opportunities to say that they wanted to bomb Tehran until it glowed (then again, folks like Bolton use everything said by any Iranian as proof that we need to blast them into bit-sized kibble).

Thus, we are in a bit of a bind, diplomatically, because we certainly want a more moderate Iran, but we certainly don't want to egg the leaders on so much that they simply make all of the reformers and their supporters disappear.  We need to play this one carefully.  A loud, dogmatic, sternly worded rebuke may feel good, but will accomplish nothing - especially for the reformist Iranians.  Yes, this is a foreign policy issue, but this is also about the people of Iran figuring out how to run Iran.  We step too heavy, and we make this ugly situation even worse, while not helping the reformers at all.

- kgrant1054

June 14, 2009 at 9:08pm

I'd add to kgrant's well laid-out arguments that we have a certain record, visible in different cases (e.g. Cuba and Hungary during the Cold War; after the Gulf War the Iraqi Shi'a and most recently Georgia), of giving the impression with fiery churchillian cadences that we are on our way to help people, and then suddenly reality sets in and we're backing out of the room.

We need to avoid giving the opposition forces in Iran -- which may now become more doggedly oppositional, which is dangerous for them even if inevitable -- the false impression that we are here with engines running, ready to go.  It makes us feel good, but creates problems that we don't have to bear the brunt of.

- ironyroad

June 14, 2009 at 11:03pm

You say about them:

"The regime currently ensconced in Tehran has always had a 'legitimacy problem...'"

They say about you:

"The staff currently ensconced at The New Republic has always had a legitimacy problem..."

And both of you are quite skilled at pointing out what being legitimate is and is not.

So skilled in fact you have taken it upon yourselves to tell the world what it ought to be; what it can only be; what God meant it to be

Let me give you an example of how it works:

1]

In the 1950s, America [along with Britain] launched an assault on Tehran and ousted the democratically elected  government there

2]

A pro-American right wing thug regime was installed led by Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi---The infamous Shah of Iran

3]

In 1979, the ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini returned from exile to Iran to "ensconce" an Islamist thug regime in its place

So, if you probe American foreign foreign policy going back to, say, 1776 you will find that, more than just negociating with autocratic regimes, American leaders installed many of them as well.

But you are spot on about the role the mainstream media in America plays in hiding things.

We just disagree about what exactly it is being hidden.

george walton

- iambiguous

June 14, 2009 at 11:31pm

I think I can say with considerable confidence that no one in Iran is looking for a Churchillian declaration from Obama, or Hillary for that matter.  But words matter, and so does when they are uttered.  13 Jewish Iranians are arrested in Shiraz and the State Department issues a communiqué - 110 students - Jewish, Christian, Muslim, who knows? - lie dead in the streets of Tehran, and tumbleweeds roll in Foggy Bottom.

As for whether Ahmadinejad quakes in his boots - he won't, whether it is Canada, France, Russia or the US.  That's not the point though.

- icarusr

June 15, 2009 at 1:12am

kgrant is right -- our government should be playing it carefully and looking several moves ahead. As to the disproportionality of the response to the Shiraz incident versus this weekend, well, tough. Protesting an arbitrary arrest is one thing; dealing with a potentially regime-altering coup/countercoup is quite another, and the interests of the United States are more heavily invested in the latter situation. Protesting the Shiraz incident is a freebie for Washington; it has no real potential downside. In the current situation, Washington's options are almost all downside, so the needle needs to be threaded with great care.

As to Jamie's inane pose, here is yet more evidence that the poor boy is so traumatized by the Bush years that he honestly doesn't know the difference between strength and weakness. Talking tough but not altering the facts on the ground is not strength, contrary to what Dick Cheney or John Bolton or Marty Peretz would like us to believe. Strength is measured by the ability to affect outcomes. If Washington puts out macho statements, we put down a marker declaring that we intend to achieve an outcome that matches our words. And then when the mullahs respond by preventing that outcome, as they have the power to do, America will once again be proven to be a weak actor of empty words. Maybe weak little crybabies like Jamie think that the satisfying rush of moral indignation at  the start of the game is worth the price of losing it at the end, but this is too important for that shit. The national credibility is on the line, and after eight years of the Bush crowd time and again showing the world that America is a bigmouthed weakling who talks tough but loses the real fights, it's high time we took care to measure our words and act first, and speak only to the extent that we know we can match our deeds and their outcomes to our words.

In a situation like this, every word that comes out of the White House or Foggy Bottom is either a promise or a threat, and a strong nation makes neither unless it knows it can follow through.

- rhubarbs

June 15, 2009 at 7:35am

What would you have them do?  We are dealing with something a great deal more delicate, and with a great many more moving parts, than a simple 1999 arrest because the paranoid Iranian govt. thought those 13 were spies.  If anything, the question is why our state department went overboard then, not why aren't they overplaying their hand now.

Beyond saying that we support the reformers, what can we actually do?  I mean that, what can we do to help them?  A strongly worded statement of condemnation?  Ahmadinejad and his cohort would love that, they are absolutely waiting for us to reprimand their vulgar display of coercive power - for he would say, 'see, I told you that America would respond in this way.'  (Here is the cheap shot of the day - it would be as if the US got hit by another terrorist attack - well, if that happens, Cheney and all others would be crowing about, 'see, I told you this was going to happen.')

So, how do you say that you support the reformers, full well knowing that you really can't do much beyond saying that you support the reformers, especially in light of the fact that meddling in Middle Eastern countries never really quite turns out the way we want it to turn out, and knowing that the present Iranian government wants to point out that we are meddling as a way to prove their point that the Americans are not to be trusted?

- kgrant1054

June 15, 2009 at 8:02am

I don't think reading comprehension is Jamie's long suit. I've read a lot of NYT (and other MSM) coverage on the elections, and I never once got the idea that it "was a flowering of genuine democracy" or that the NYT's reporters and editors are stupid enough to think such a thing. Did someone take the SAT for him, or is it possible that he can read entire sentences, paragraphs and articles and understand them, but sometimes chooses not to because actually engaging with them makes them much more difficult to refute?

JK may love strawmen for their easy combustibility, and his target audience may enjoy the spectacle, but sometimes I wonder if this does more harm to his own side than to the intended targets. If you jostle exclusively with strawmen, are you in danger into turning into one yourself?

- Geoff G

June 15, 2009 at 8:36am

Geoff, I believe it was Nietzsche who said, "Beware when you wrestle with strawmen, lest you become one." Though honestly, the Kirchick boy passed that point long ago, as witnessed by the fact that most of the bloggers, left and right, with whom he tried to gin up feuds in 2008 simply ignore him now.

- rhubarbs

June 15, 2009 at 9:00am

"The regime currently ensconced in Tehran has always had a "legitimacy problem," from the day it seized power..."

Can't imagine us actually supporting the overthrown of a non-democratic monarchy or doing it ourselves.  

- Nari224

June 15, 2009 at 9:33am

rhub, kgrant, good rebuttals nothing to add. ick, I am sympathetic to you, it is your country after all. I have no problems with word of condemnation, lets just wait it out and see what happens.

- blackton

June 15, 2009 at 10:51am

Hmmm.  State is now "deeply troubled", which is about what the French and the Germans have said, and about right.  A day late, but they got it; and Obama will be speaking at 5, and I suspect that it will not be "wait and see what happens".

It's one thing to give up on hectoring other countries and respecting local traditions and choices; and of course I agree with the need to keep in mind the US's national interest, which is not always in the direction of human rights discourse.  But, I think we also need to be mindful of the fact that too much pragmatism has its own costs, as many have observed already, in moral leadership.

I'd be interested to know your reaction to Obama's speech - especially if, as I suspect, he will be come out with modest words of concern for the people who are being beaten in the streets.

- icarusr

June 15, 2009 at 4:48pm