What Should Obama Do About Iran?

This is the best you guys could come up with?!?
.
.
This is almost as mailed in a piece as Tim's "interview" with Lieberman.
.
.
The issue of Obama's reaction has already been handled in Swampland.

Have a cold shower and stay tuned!

I am somewhat of a critic myself of the Obama Administration but I am not having a field day with their treatment of the Iran situation. Its a complicated situation that deserves attention but at the same time not rash or implusive desision making either.
.
Its a commentary. A blog. If you dont care for Butters writing then dont read this blog. What do you want? Everything that could be discussed, despite having to deal wtih the foreign media black out and control in Iran, has been discussed. If there is something that you feel hasnt been discussed at all then suggest it. There is plenty of coverage on CNN and Time homepage and other blogspheres. Perhaps some patients would be advisable.

Hey Jacob Blues, some things are consistent. You are inexplicably testy as ever...so why not go tweet your negative bile elsewhere? I am curious how come you figure the interview with Lieberman is "phoned in", as it seems obvious that it was a sit down talk, face to face, with 2 Time reporters. Maybe the comments from Lieberman are what gall you.

No one in either party has been asking for Obama to intervene militarily. Republicans and some Democrats (even some in his administration) have just wanted Obama to voice his support for the protestors. I understand Obama's hesistancy, but I think his reasoning, not wanting to provoke the current regime b/c we will probably still have to deal with it, is weak.
•
First, there are cracks in the regime itself. The situation in Iran is not solely a grass-roots movement. The protests are indicative of the dissatisfaction with many things in Iran, not just sham democracy, and there are those in the regime who share that dissatisfaction. Unfortunately they are in the minority. An Obama statement in strong support of Iranian democracy and the protestors could add even more energy to the effort for change. Certainly Khamenei will demonize Obama's statement as Western meddling, but the regime blames Western meddling so often that's it's like crying wolf. And it's quite obvious that many Iranians don't believe antyhing their government says.
•
Second, Iran's nuclear program and what effect Obama's statement may have on negotiations about that program really isn't the issue right now. Presidents from both parties consistently criticized the Soviet Union, a nation that actually had nuclear weapons. So criticizing a country that may be developing nuclear weapons wouldn't be abnormal or provocative. The real issue is forcing the regime to either compromise with the protestors or (best-case) rewrite the Iranian constitution to decrease the influence of the Ayatollahs. And even if the current regime holds on, it will be severely weakened in the eyes of the world. This will either make it intransigent (which is the status quo) or more pragmatic and open to negotiation.
•
Third, Obama's reticence is short-sighted. Again, the current regime will probably maintain power. But it seems likely that in the future even more Iranians will distrust their government and force change. If Obama makes a strong statement in support of those Iranians, it could birth a lot of goodwill down the line. Take Poland and the Czechs as an example. While under the heel of the Soviet Union, U.S. presidents constantly championed the cause of freedom in those countries. Now that the Soviet Union is a memory, those two countries are two of our biggest allies in Europe. They sincerely appreciate the U.S.'s stand against the USSR. The same could happen with the Iranians who finally shake off the iron fist of the Ayatollahs.
•
Lastly, and off the topic of Obama's statement, we can now dispose of any pretence that the Iranian president is a different element of the regime and that his statements, outrageous or provocative, can be divorced from the policies of the true power in Iran, Ayatollah Khamenei. These elections have made it clear that the Iranian president is just a proxy for the regime--a sophisticated good-cop/bad-cop routine.

In regards to Irans nuclear program, if the current system of Iran remains in place I wouldnt be surprise the Iran becomes more asertive in developing nuclear weapons due to N.Koreas asertiveness.

Andrew,
Thank you for posting. This has given us, now, a forum to discuss some important matters in the Middle East. In America, most foreign policy issues were treated as black or white (or red/blue, if you will). It's either done one way or the complete opposite. Either we support Israel or we don't. We're friends with Iran or enemies. However, now we are blessed with a president who is impeccable at surfing the gray (or purple).
.
It's important that any stance towards Iran be rendered within a context of the totality of the circumstances. Most of the dissenters of the current approach have the right idea in mind, but fail to see beyond the short-term gains. Obama, for the first time in decades, is a President who sees beyond the first-step and is planning accordingly.
.
Your assessment is correct and in line with his view that the Mullahs will use any American overture as a political football. This has been their modus operandi for decades. However, I think that this was the case with past foreign policies germinated under that all-or-nothing prism. My recommendation, and I have been in touch with the State Department, is to eventually render an equal ultimatum to the Iranian regime that if they violently crush the opposition in ways more drastic than now, that we will give the green light to Israel to render whatever attack it deems necessary to its survival, in addition to providing the freedom fighters with whatever means necessary for political asylum, amnesty, and escape from the regime.
.
Yes, this is that overture that we know the Mullahs will love to use against the opposition. But we have the advantage of knowing their playbook ahead of time. So, in anticipation, we will do what the Mullahs have been doing successfully for the last 4 years: we will call them out on it ahead of time. In essence, this will put America back into the moral high ground we should have been in post 9/11. Rather than bombing a country into "Democracy", we should be defending fervently those who are fighting for it with their lives.
-----------
CGTX wrote:
"Lastly, and off the topic of Obama's statement, we can now dispose of any pretence that the Iranian president is a different element of the regime and that his statements, outrageous or provocative, can be divorced from the policies of the true power in Iran, Ayatollah Khamenei. These elections have made it clear that the Iranian president is just a proxy for the regime--a sophisticated good-cop/bad-cop routine."
Well said, CGTX. However, the provocative statements must be accurately translated to show actual intent, not assumption. Also, there are other factors that dictate why Khamenei has strongly sided with Ahmadinejad. That factor being his long-standing feud with Moussavi and his power-struggle with Rafsanjani. These illustrate that the regime is not altogether homogeneous in ideology.

Dizzy, its not an interview, but a few sound bites and quotes strung together in between Tim's usual opinions.
.
.
We have no context to the structure of the interview or even a minimal flow of Q&A. The way it reads, seems more like Tim emailed a few questions over to the FM and cut and pasted the various responeses in between his own comments.
.
.
This is especially notable since the bulk of the interview is made up of Tim's comments rather than Lieberman's, which account for only about a third of the content.
.
.
What's worse, is that this was billed as an 'exclusive first'. You would think that such a headline would offer something more substantial.
.
Instead, we get the usual caricature. A "burly outspoken individual who has been muzzled". We then get the old "Go to Hell" comments on Hosni Mubarak, and wrap it up with the epitath 'racist', with a whole paragraph written on the reactions by the Israeli-Arab community, but amazingly enough, nothing of detail by the man who Tim is actually meeting with.
.
The reference to the 'Russian accented' English of the "Moldavan Native" is another nice dig. Perhaps Tim thought about conversing in Hebrew?
.
.
So yeah, I think it reads like it was mailed in.

Yawn. Goes to show how off your perception is, Mr Blues. The online piece cuts to the meat of a substantial Q & A with the Israeli FM. ALmost all is either direct quote or paraphrase of Lieberman's remarks, with some context for casual readers included. Pro writers have space considerations.
Your spiteful caricature and carping against Time's bloggers is getting tiresome and predictable, too.

Sorry you see critique as spite Dizzy. Some of us just expect more from the so-called professionals.

zzzzzzzzzz

So unsubscribe rather than be a constant debbie downer, homefry

@persianadvocate: "debbie downer" lol. I am sorry that was just too funny. I am in agreement. I think we can and should be critical thinkers but if the blog lacks what you think it should have, stop subscribing. I dont subscribe to OMG because I really don't think Brad Pitt's hair or Megan Fox's tattoos is concern or influential to my life.

I agree with persianadvocate.

"Americans can add little directly to the ideological battle taking place in Iran; but if we really want to see change in Iran, we can start by changing ourselves."

AMEN!!!!!!!

This is a touchy subject that might be a win win or lose lose situation.

I still side with giving some kind of support to those opposing tyranny.