There has been some interesting commentary on the different reactions to the so-called 'Twitter Revolution' in Iran in the US from both Republicans and Democrats.

President Obama is staying low key on this. He is 'deeply troubled' by the violence in Iran.  On Meet the Press, Vice President Biden was cautiously skeptical of the results and expressed concern over suppression of speech. He said the White House is 'going to withhold comment until we have a, you know, a thorough review of the whole process and how they react in the aftermath'.

Ok then. A piece in Politico surveys the GOP response. Senators McCain, Graham, and Cornyn are upset with Obama's decision. Senators Lugar, Martinez, and Alexander are not. McCain wants to back the anti-Ahmadinejad crowd. So does Rep Mike Pence.

The Wall Street Journal, not surprisingly, denounced Obama's approach and praised French President Sarkozy's forceful critique of the election. The editorial closes with a biting allusion to the infamous Hillary Clinton primary ad:

The Iranian rebellion, though too soon to call a revolution, is turning out to be that 3 a.m. phone call for Mr. Obama. As a French President shows up the American on moral clarity, Hillary Clinton's point about his inexperience and instincts in a crisis is turning out to be prescient.

Ouch.

Is Obama making the right call or is he blowing it? There is something to be said for standing up for the rights of others around the world. It is an inherent part of the American ideal. Michael Leeden of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies takes this approach, saying:

If America stands for anything it stands for freedom. We should have supported the Iranian people a long time ago. The current silence from the White House is shameful.

However, for the White House, the central question seems to be this: Would a forceful denunciation of the election and praise for Mousavi's supporters help?

They seem to think it wouldn't. In fact, it might even be the kiss of death. Obama said on CNBC, 'The easiest way for reactionary forces inside Iran to crush reformers is to say it's the U.S. that is encouraging those reformers'.

Robert Kagan, in a provocatively titled piece in the Washington Post, 'Siding With the Iranian Regime', argues that Obama has other reasons. Namely, the current upheaval complicates Obama's original plans for rapprochement with the Islamic Republic. This means the president is 'objectively on the side of the government’s efforts to return to normalcy as soon as possible'. It's not that Obama the Realist wanted Ahmadinejad to win, the neo-con intellectual argues, 'but once Mousavi lost, however fairly or unfairly, Obama objectively had no use for him or his followers' as antagonizing the regime is the last thing he wants to do. But Kagan says this approach is doomed to fail.

Matt Duss at Think Progress, in a frosty open letter to Kagan, sees this rhetoric in the same vein as tarring those who were against the Iraq War as pro-Saddam.  Slate's Dickerson places Obama's choice in the context of future negotiations over the nuclear question. As he puts it, 'the president needs to save his meddling for a bigger problem'.

Are we having fun yet?

Mir Hossein Mousavi, isn't exactly pro-American. Mousavi is for Iran's nuclear program and has been consistently supportive of Hizballah. It follows that at least some of his supporters in the streets and fence-sitters might be turned off by any blatant support from the American government.

Regardless, It would be well worth your time to watch this video by Iranian Artists in Exile, (h/t Washington Independent – read their analysis of the video).

I'm willing to bet that Mousavi, who is calling for another election, is hoping that Obama stays the low-key course.

What do you think?

UPDATE: Check out these links

With Turmoil in Tehran, Obama’s Policy in Flux – The Cable Key quote?: 'Obama is dedicated to diplomacy in a manner that is almost ideological,' one Iran hand in touch with the administration said. Obama has a longer term vision, he continued. 'He wants to do some stuff in the Middle East over the next eight years. He may not be able to achieve half of them unless he gets this huge piece of the puzzle [Iran] right.'

Five Ways Obama Could Promote Freedom in Iran – WSJ from Dan Senor and Christian Whiton (formerly of the Bush Administration). They had some experience in trying to 'promote freedom' in Iraq and N. Korea respectively.

Obama Sideline Strategy May Signal Shift in US Democracy Policy – Washington Independent

Should the CIA Meddle in Iran Now? - SpyTalk

Is Bob Kagan Wrong? – The Compass, RCW

A short guide to Iran’s security forces from the Guardian

Comments

As Ahmadinejad is trying to depict the protests as directed against the Islamic Republic itself, I agree that it's far wiser for the US to remain low-key. In fact, in a region where Western (i.e, American and British) intervention has rarely yielded positive results for the local population, this seems to be a very appropriate step. No doubt thinks look far easier in the hallways of the Weekly Standard, that refuge of the morally righteous. But I guess the last couple of years have shown that “moral clarity” is rarely accompanied by sound political judgement. No need to give the Iranian regime all the arguments it needs to crush that feeble “revolution”.

TCHe - 18 Jun 2009 (22:13)

Meddling would be utter madness, but when as that ever prevented foreign policy, secret or otherwise? The present events in Iran are not a revolution, but a stage in the process whereby power bases within the regime are struggling for dominance. The state hasnt unleashed anywhere near its capapbility at physical repression on the street demonstrators, who all seem to be crying out for a change but not a revolution. Iranians and the regime all have a somewhat nationalist perspective on relations with the US & UK, and with some good reason. Meddling in any way, and that includes excessively zealous media reporting merely helps propogate and sustain this mindset and allows the regime to justify its actions.

me - 23 Jun 2009 (12:34)

I8k1A2 <a href="http://rmgnvigbjekg.com/">rmgnvigbjekg</a>, [url=http://wbcluzggtbgx.com/]wbcluzggtbgx[/url], [link=http://wsremnqkikrp.com/]wsremnqkikrp[/link], http://wfuiejxrbqwv.com/

lrzgpyeuuq - 24 Jun 2009 (11:26)

Wut up?,

Waisenhant - 27 Jun 2009 (3:27)

lol...,

Schlaback - 27 Jun 2009 (3:38)

xox, Sandee,

Temporal - 27 Jun 2009 (16:13)

Obama: Iran must open secret nuclear facility PITTSBURGH — President Barack Obama and the leaders of France and Britain will demand Friday that Iran open to international inspectors a secret nuclear facility it has tried to hide from the world for years, a senior White House official told The Associated Press. The three leaders — Obama, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown and French President Nicolas Sarkozy — will open the G-20 economic summit with their demand that Tehran allow the International Atomic Energy Agency to inspect the facility for producing nuclear fuel, officials said. Iran has kept the facility, 100 miles southwest of Tehran, hidden from weapons inspectors, but the U.S. has long known of its existence, the official said. Obama decided to go public with the revelation after Iran learned that Western intelligence agencies were aware of the project. The officials spoke on grounds of anonymity because Obama's announcement was still pending. Meanwhile, a diplomat in Vienna and another European government official told The Associated Press on Friday that Tehran has informed the IAEA of a previously undeclared uranium enriching facility. The officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the information was confidential, said Iran revealed its existence in a letter sent Monday to Mohamed ElBaradei, the head of the atomic energy agency. Iran's president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, made no mention of the facility this week while attending the U.N. General Assembly in New York, but said that his country had fully cooperated with international nuclear inspectors. Administration officials said the disclosure would make it easier to make the case for imposing sanctions if Iran blocks inspections or refuses to quit its nuclear program. Iran is under three sets of U.N. Security Council sanctions for refusing to freeze enrichment at what had been its single known enrichment plant, which is being monitored by the IAEA. The officials in Europe said Iran's letter contained no details about the location of the second facility, when — or if — it had started operations or the type and number of centrifuges it was running. But one of the officials, who had access to a review of Western intelligence on the issue, said it was about 100 miles southwest of Tehran and was the site of 3,000 centrifuges that could be operational by next year. Iranian semiofficial new agency ISNA on Friday confirmed reports on the country's second enrichment plant. Iranian officials had previously acknowledged having only one plant — which is under IAEA monitoring — and had denied allegations of undeclared nuclear activities. An August IAEA report said Iran had set up more than 8,000 centrifuges to produce enriched uranium at its underground facility outside the southern city of Natanz. The report said that only about 4,600 centrifuges were fully active. Iran says it has the right to enrich uranium for a nationwide chain of nuclear reactors. But because enrichment can also produce weapons-grade uranium, the international community fears Tehran will make fissile material for nuclear warheads. The revelation of a secret plant further hinders the chances of progress in scheduled Oct. 1 talks between Iran and six world powers. Does this mean that the International community ie 5 permanent members of the UNSC plus a few chosen nations are upping the pressure on Iran after Iran admitted the existence of a second enrichment plant? Is this plant where the second generation on P2 centrifuges are located? and what other facilities are hidden across Iran? It seems that if one follows the conspiratorial trend and examines the VIPs flying between Russia & Israel since the mysterious pirate ship incident, one could suggest that Russia has finally been 'persuaded' to agree to increase the pressure on Iran. The US and its western allies are pressing ever harder to implement strenuous sanctions against Iran and this latest revelation may be enough to allow a far stronger consensus to be created. Iran does have a history of 'lying' to the IAEA and effectively escaping severe and effectice sanction. Iran is also proud of its ability to side step international sanctions and develop the technolgy it seeks via alternative means. What will be different this time? Other questions are to what level of advancement had the Iranians got to before they ceased development in 2003 & will the advancing solid fuel space programme be adapted for ballistic weapons? The Iranian reactor is so far empty of radioactive fuel and the S300 SAM system has not been delivered. Once this changes, then the military options are dramatically reduced. What next?

me - 25 Sep 2009 (14:04)

The Iranian reactor is so far empty of radioactive fuel and the S300 SAM system has not been delivered. Once this changes, then the military options are dramatically reduced. <strong><a href="http://www.edhardysalemall.com/">ed hardy</a></strong> <strong><a href="http://www.etruereligionjeans-store.com/">true religion jeans sale</a></strong> <strong><a href="http://www.jeansclothingstore.com/">cheap true religion jeans</a></strong> <strong><a href="http://www.linksjewelleryin.com/charms.html">links of london charms</a></strong>

yudanjiao - 29 Jul 2010 (6:28)

The Iranian reactor is so far empty of radioactive fuel and the S300 SAM system has not been delivered. Once this changes, then the military options are dramatically reduced. <strong><a href="http://www.edhardysalemall.com/">ed hardy</a></strong> <strong><a href="http://www.etruereligionjeans-store.com/">true religion jeans sale</a></strong> <strong><a href="http://www.jeansclothingstore.com/">cheap true religion jeans</a></strong> <strong><a href="http://www.linksjewelleryin.com/charms.html">links of london charms</a></strong>

yudanjiao - 29 Jul 2010 (6:29)

Add Comment

Name
Email
Comment
Updates	Notify me of any comments and updates to this blog
Security Code:	Please enter the security code you see on the left in the text box below.