It certainly seems that way according to this New Republic article.
To the people in the streets, to the middle class and to the students--the only hope for Iran--he has shown them, frankly, his behind. Not a statement of solidarity. Certainly not material support. He is still apologizing for the overthrow by the C.I.A. of Iran's prime minister, Dr. Mohammed Mossadegh, in 1953. That was 56 years ago, for God's sake. Still, his apologies have gotten him nowhere and will get him nowhere.
I think there was an opportunity there that a JFK, Hillary Clinton, or a Truman would have seized in a minute. If he came out four-square for the protesters and gave them some kind of firm support we had the opportunity to see the Fall of the Mullahcracy in Iran.
Obama seemed so disengaged at the time while millions of people from the left and the right had their eyes on Iran. If he quickly said a statement like "I see in those protesters the same courage that filled the hearts of the people that founded our nation and we stand with them 100%" it might have gone a long way.
I think Truman might have even steamed a carrier group nearby or leaked satellite photos to make Iran know that any genocide of protesters would be broadcast to the world. I would bet JFK may have even had CIA agents in place to turn the protesters movement into a full scale rebellion.
I can understand that Obama was hedging his bets because he figured he would still have to negotiate with the hardliners over their nuclear program if they held onto power. But times like that would have called for an all-in gamble that a fall of the Iranian government would have solved the nuclear issue once and for all.
In any case is was just embarrassing to see a US President side with the Mullahs over the kids protesting in the streets of Tehran for actual "change they could believe in." It just seemed so unlike a Democratic President that is supposed to care about protesting and "radical change" to be so aloof and disconnected like that.
No comments:
Post a Comment