George Packer, who I adore, has recommended that Obama come out in greater support of Iranian protesters. This support, he argues, easily falls under the administration's foreign policy approach - realism.
"With riot police and armed militiamen beating and, in a few reported cases, killing unarmed demonstrators in the streets of Iran’s cities, for the Obama Administration to continue parsing equivocal phrases serves no purpose other than to make it look feckless. Part of realism is showing that you have a clear grasp of reality—that you know the difference between decency and barbarism when both are on display for the whole world to see. A stronger American stand—taken, as much as possible, in concert with European countries and through multilateral organizations—would do more to improve America’s negotiating position than weaken it. Acknowledging the compelling voices of the desperate young Iranians who, after all, only want their votes counted, would not deep-six the possibility of American-Iranian talks. Ahmadinejad and his partners in the clerical-military establishment will talk to us exactly when and if they think it’s in their interest. Right now, they don’t appear to. And the tens of millions of Iranians who voted for change and are the long-term future of that country will always remember what America said and did when they put their lives on the line for their values."
Packer does address the counterargument; many have urged caution in the aforementioned course, fearing that Khamenei and Ahmadinejad followers could then use the 'Great Satan' platform to taint and demand protests.
But are we still the Great Satan in the eyes of Iranians? Were we ever to most of those out in the streets? Moreoever, does it even matter in this scenario?? They out in the streets chanting "Down with the government" not "Death to America." I think it will difficult to twist their motivations and goals.
Also interesting to watch: Who will the military side with.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment