Obama On Iran

obama- haloPresident Obama’s public position on Iran and the results of the Iranian presidential election debacle is essentially a non-position. The President of the United States of America has been largely silent on the matter of the probably election fraud and the massive protests within Iran.

He’s caught more than a little flak over his silence on the issue of Iranian democracy and freedom.

A large contingent of both those on the Left and on the Right have been voicing their outrage over President Obama’s non-position on the Iranian election results and aftermath. This seems to me to be the only recent example of real bipartisanship I’ve seen in America recently.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, President of Iran & UsurperMir-Hossein Mousavi Khameneh, Rightful President of Iran

 
 
 
Ahmadinejad
vs.
Mousavi
 
 
 

It’s a shame that much of this outrage is flawed and based upon false beliefs and misunderstanding of the world as it stands today.

American Interests

It is better in a political sense for America, Israel, and the rest of us our titular allies if the mad dog, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad remains as President of Iran for the moment – much, much better though these words taste bitter upon my tongue.

Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Supreme Leader of Iran, Enemy of MankindNo matter who is called the President of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or Hossein Mousavi, neither is the true Head of State of Iran. The Supreme Leader, currently Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, holds that position and he, along with the Ayatollahs on the Guardian Council, decides foreign policy and all other important matters.

The current crisis doesn’t seem to change that.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is a vermin out of nightmare given flesh in the vague and imperfect semblance of Man. The bulk of the Civilized World loathes him and are willing to work against him. Even the Arab Nations – admittedly for their own far less than savory or worthy reasons – are willing to side against Ahmadinejad.

Hossein Mousavi, though no pro-Western “saint” or foreign policy “reformist,” is is man possessed of charisma and reason. He would put a “kinder and gentler” face upon the Ayatollahs’ regime. This would make it far harder for the American government to convince the rest of the world to enforce the sanctions – and possibly sterner measures – needed to convince the the Ayatollahs to abandon their doomsday project of nuclear weaponry.

~*~

So I must ask my fellow Conservatives who have chosen to deride President Obama over his effective silence on the matter of the Iranian election and its aftermath if they are willing to put their love of Democracy over what is best for America and her allies.

If you say Democracy and the ideals of our constitution comes 1st, I must then ask you what your stance on renditions, Miranda rights for enemy combatants in Afghanistan, and Torture are.

I must also ask the Liberals who have chosen to deride President Obama over his effective silence on the matter of the Iranian election and its aftermath if they are willing to put their love of Democracy over what is best for America and her allies.

If you say Democracy and the ideals of our constitution comes 1st, I must then ask you what price you are willing to impose upon America and Civilized World for the sake of your ideals.

As is so often the case the ideals of people are cast into the crucible of reality. It would be best if we all used this an example of the conflict between protecting one’s own from destruction and adhering to our personal ideals. We just might have more understanding and less hate for each other.

Related Reading:

Ahmadinejad: The Secret History of Iran's Radical Leader
Blood Feud: The Clintons vs. the Obamas
Dreams from My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance
The Last Living Slut: Born in Iran, Bred Backstage

Tags: | | | | | | | | | | | | |

7 Responses to “Obama On Iran”

  1. jobs Says:

    Obama is weak on this issue because he’s not sure of it’s outcome yet. Sad how diplomacy trumps morality here.

  2. zhann Says:

    Well said. I am also curious why Obama has been so quiet. I have been under the impression that something is going on behind the scenes that we aren’t supposed to know about … like maybe these Iranian riots are CIA financed … but, what do I know?

    Stolen

  3. jonolan Says:

    Thank you, zhann.

    I think Obama has been silent largely because “behind the scenes” he’s been told by his handlers that he needs to just shut up on this issue. I’d imagine that people with actual experience have come to the same conclusion on the Iranian matter as I have done and are keeping the Orator and his Teleprompter in check as it were.

    Also remember that on June 4, 2009, Obama’s own tongue silenced him on the issues in Iran when he said to the Muslim World,

    In the middle of the Cold War, the United States played a role in the overthrow of a democratically-elected Iranian government.

    The stupid git! He admitted our involvement and set up a situation where it’d be near impossible for to be involved in Iranian freedom.

    As for any though that the CIA is involved in the protests – that rather laughable. One, the CIA has a lousy track record for infiltrating Muslim nations. Two, they’d focus in the provinces, not the major cities. Three and finally, if the CIA had been involved there’d have been more calls for the end of the Guardian Council then there have been.

  4. zhann Says:

    I don’t think you give the CIA enough credit. They get a lot done without the people of the USA even suspecting. For example, how much do you know of their involvement in Ukraine during the Orange revolution? While I can’t provide you CIA documentation on this, I can point out a great deal of interesting facts that would definitely make you think.

    While the CIA may not be the direct cause of the protests, believe me … they have a role to play, however minor it may be.

  5. jonolan Says:

    Oh I give them their proper amount of “credit,” but the Middle-East is an area where their efforts have consistently failed them and America.

    Ukraine and the Orange Revolution are another story. While none of us can actually know what their involvement was, we can surmise through secondary and tertiary sources that they lent “aid” somehow.

  6. zhann Says:

    Actually, with regards to the Orange revolution, I can provide quite a bit of information. Some interesting facts …

    President Yushchenko’s wife is ex-CIA. Yushchenko was awarded $65 million during the Orange revolution to help ‘support’ his cause (money was used to pay people to join the revolution at $20/day and to feed everyone there for free … numbers are easy to accumulate when people are being paid to protest). Yushchenko’s wife is still a US citizen (can you name another country that would allow that?)

    … there is actually a great deal more … a GREAT DEAL MORE … but, I don’t want to cross the line on a public forum. The Rose Revolution (Georgia) was very similar as well. My information about this is more limited than the Orange revolution, but there is plenty of that to share. You would be amazed to what lengths the USA will go to put their man in power, or better yet to cause trouble for the man they don’t like. Just look at South America ;)

  7. jonolan Says:

    When I said, “none of us can actually know what their involvement was,” zhann, I meant just that. We can’t know; we can only guess, surmise, and extrapolate from the unsubstantiated data that we’re allowed to receive.

    But, irregardless of the CIA involvement in Ukraine and/or Georgia and their desire to be involved in Iran, the Green Revolution – if one can call it that – is very unlikely. Desire does not equate to ability.

Leave a Reply