Iranians Detonate Reality Bomb
[Posted by Karl]
The seemingly stolen Iranian election (though by whom remains an open question) is a reality bomb that exploded in the faces of the Obama administration, and much of the Left. If this was a Chuck Jones classic, their faces would be blackened and hair blown back in a spiky mess, in the grand tradition of Daffy Duck or Wile E. Coyote.
After floating the fanciful notion that Obama’s outreach was remaking the Muslim world, they have been caught flat-footed:
A senior Obama administration official who did not want to be identified or quoted explained that the president was deeply conscious of appearing not to favor any side in the election. Officials had ruled out calling for a recount or a revote out of a concern for undermining the Iranian opposition. The official said it was important to have a policy toward Iran that advanced the administration’s desire for liberalization and human rights in Iran, not one that merely vented American outrage at Ahmadinejad.
Courageous Iranians face death in the streets for “reform” that was marginal at best, while Obama is trying to vote “present,” and the Euroweenie Union rolls over. The Germans have sounded a bigger alarm than the Man From Hopenchange. The US government refrains even from strong statements supporting free and fair elections, for fear of undermining the dissidents. This mode of thinking overlooks that Ahmadinejad’s thugocracy will deal with their opponents as they see fit, and blame the Great Satan whenever it suits them, regardless of what the US says or does. Indeed, Obama’s silence has not stopped Ahmadinejad from publicly planning a purge of his rivals.
The Obama administration sees approach this as part of their foreign policy realism:
[T]he primary concerns the White House has about Iran are not about free and fair elections. The concerns are: Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons and its support for terrorism.
“We have to deal with the Iran that we have rather than the Iran that we wish we had,” says the official.
Obama’s immediate problem is that the naked power grab ongoing in Iran has exposed to even the casual observer that “the Iran we have” is the Iran we have always had. Obama’s larger problem is that still seems to hold the notion that he can “deal” with Iran in the sense of “engagement,” even after the reality bomb has detonated. In a Chuck Jones cartoon, the effects of a bomb tend to vanish in the next scene, but things do not work that way in the real world. The notion that Iran’s policies are a function of US policy generally, and US diplomacy in particular is not foreign policy realism; it is foreign policy unrealism. Until Obama figures that out, events will keep exploding in his face.
–Karl
Karl: ““the Iran we have” is the Iran we have always had.”
Karl, you are now a domestic terrorist for poking a stick in the “eye” of the Obama administration. He truly has been caught flat footed as most thinking people knew he would.
GM Roper (85dcd7) — 6/15/2009 @ 6:40 amObama’s outreach to the Muslim world is reminiscent of George Bush’s “seeing into Putin’s soul” — a naive and dangerous belief in the efficacy of personal diplomacy, or at least an inflated regard for one’s own powers of persuasion.
When will they ever learn…
furious (a74982) — 6/15/2009 @ 6:56 amReality? What’s that? Let’s go play with the unicorns in the alternative reality where Obama has conquered evil!
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (0ea407) — 6/15/2009 @ 6:59 amRe – The Iran we have:
This reminded me of a certain outburst by former AZ Cardinals coach Dennis Green… Iran’s government is who we thought they were.
It really is a shame, given how pro-American most Iranian people actually are.
carlitos (84409d) — 6/15/2009 @ 7:18 amWe can just use he old Leftist foreign policy expressed here.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p3MiD_U4CHQ&feature=related
arch (45f0f9) — 6/15/2009 @ 7:52 amYou want Obama to declare events in Persia are beyond his control or influence?
That’ll help.
steve (60452b) — 6/15/2009 @ 8:14 amgiven how pro-American most Iranian people actually are.
If so, makes me think of the phrase of with friends like that, who needs enemies?
For people to be so comfortable having a modern-day Hitler leading their nation makes me wonder what exactly is behind their mindset, pro-American or otherwise.
Mark (411533) — 6/15/2009 @ 8:26 amRe Comment#7, the which country are you referring to? Dinnerjacket’s, or Obama’s? While Obama is a weaseling apologist overseas, here in the US he’s doing a pretty good job of playing the strong man, taking over everything he sees, rewarding his friends, and punishing or firing his enemies.
Mike Myers (674050) — 6/15/2009 @ 8:44 amMark,
Why the lack of skepticism with that “poll?”
1 – Published in Reuters, an organization that knowlingly publishes pro-Hamas and pro-Hezbollah propaganda.
2 – Telephone poll from a neighboring country, into Iran, a country with secret police, internet police and religious police who regularly beat citizens in the streets, secretly arrest them or openly execute them for crimes against the state. I would … question the honesty of the responses.
carlitos (84409d) — 6/15/2009 @ 8:47 am“While Western news reports from Tehran in the days leading up to the voting portrayed an Iranian public enthusiastic about Ahmadinejad’s principal opponent … our scientific sampling from across all 30 of Iran’s provinces showed Ahmadinejad well ahead,” the pollsters said.”
Well, if it’s scientific from Reuters and the WP we should just wait and let all the fuss die down. We wouldn’t want anyone to get their hopes up, since we’re taking the new sophisticated European-style high-road.
Vera (ac0e90) — 6/15/2009 @ 8:49 amI dunno, carlitos. If I were Iranian, and if I hated Khamenei, I think I would pick a strong man like Ahmadinejad for the job of taking him out.
nk (093b41) — 6/15/2009 @ 9:06 amWhy the lack of skepticism with that “poll?”
By the same token, why should a large percentage of the Iranian voters be given a lot of benefit of the doubt?
Here’s more data from the same group that conducted the survey described in the Reuters article and detailed in an op-ed piece in today’s Washington Post. I’d be far more skeptical of the pollsters’ findings if the portion about Iranians current view of the US suggested just the opposite—ie, if a greater number of Iranians had more of a feel-good view of the US now that the current guy in the White House was running things.
Mark (411533) — 6/15/2009 @ 9:14 amYes, his foreign policy is indeed unrealism, and it is also narcissistic and arrogant. I always wonder at the left, so conscious of “the other” in all things, seeing the world through the prism of Me. Iran has its own internal politics and geopolitical aims. It exists by and for itself, regardless of Obama’s myopic vision.
Patricia (2183bb) — 6/15/2009 @ 9:59 am[Iran] exists by and for itself, regardless of Obama’s myopic vision.
And his predecessors had events on a different track?
The U.S. did not abandon some viable military option here. Dennis Ross advocated squeezing the Iranian oil sector, cutting off credit, engaging the Saudis and other Arab states opposed to Iranian nuclear capability and pushing the Chinese to rely more on the Saudis than on Iran. And giving Tehran until the end of the year to engage in nuclear technology dialogue.
Propose a credible “or else” to that overture.
steve (97fb97) — 6/15/2009 @ 10:31 amHere’s something that you forgot to highlight from the AP article:
“Accurate public opinion polls are a rarity in Iran, whose Islamic rulers enforce strict rules of behavior and where dissidents are often imprisoned. “
Vera (ac0e90) — 6/15/2009 @ 10:54 amcarlitos,
As you know, the Bears were who Green thought they were.
steve,
In the current administration, Ross is isolated (and rumors abound that ppl want himout). Is that a step forward, or backward?
Karl (f07e38) — 6/15/2009 @ 11:15 amThe proposal to squeeze the Mullahs by using the “gasoline” option is no more popular in the Obama State Dept than it was in the Bush State Dept.
AD - RtR/OS! (0d8c81) — 6/15/2009 @ 11:23 amSome would think that perhaps a big part of our problem in dealing with the World is the State Dept, and not who is the President.
So your point is that the revolution now happening in Iran does not, in fact, mean remaking of the Muslim world. Really?? How so?
It’s like saying that the fall of the Berlin wall proved the failure of the Reagan’s Soviet policy — who, as you must remember, was criticized by his own Republicans for being too soft.
It’s the stereotypes of the right-wingers, who don’t even hide their preference for Ahmadinejad, and who try to convince the people that he was the rightfull winner, that are blowing in their faces.
Nikolay (76ec15) — 6/15/2009 @ 11:25 amYes, Bush spoke directly to the Iranian people several times and called the regime part of the “axis of evil.”
And Dennis Ross is out. Too confrontational for the new dialogue program?
Patricia (2183bb) — 6/15/2009 @ 11:30 amShould we not judge policy by the results? Eight years of Bush brought a complete crackpot of president in Iran and pro-Hezbollah anti-Israel ‘democratic’ government in Iraq.
Nikolay (76ec15) — 6/15/2009 @ 11:36 amHalf a year of Obama, and you have Iran’s 30 years-old regime crumbling into pieces.
Nikolay, this would be a good time for you to post a link or two that supports your assertion:
I am unaware of any “right wingers” in America that support this guy.
carlitos (84409d) — 6/15/2009 @ 11:41 amIt’s the stereotypes of the right-wingers, who don’t even hide their preference for Ahmadinejad, and who try to convince the people that he was the rightfull winner, that are blowing in their faces.
Comment by Nikolay
Say what ????
You’ve spent too much time at DailyKos. Why don’t you try reading Michael Ledeen and a few other conservative writers ? This is utter nonsense.
Eight years of Bush brought a complete crackpot of president in Iran and pro-Hezbollah anti-Israel ‘democratic’ government in Iraq.
Half a year of Obama, and you have Iran’s 30 years-old regime crumbling into pieces.
Comment by Nikolay
Oh Okay. I see where the nonsense is coming from. What time did the seminar end ? Should we expect more attendees soon ?
Mike K (2cf494) — 6/15/2009 @ 11:41 amKarl…TNR is reporting that Ross is gone.
AD - RtR/OS! (0d8c81) — 6/15/2009 @ 11:43 amHalf a year of Obama, and the defacit quintuples = Bush’s fault
Half a year of Obama, and Iran collapses = Obama foreign policy
Got it.
carlitos (84409d) — 6/15/2009 @ 11:47 amOk, here are some quotes:
Nikolay (76ec15) — 6/15/2009 @ 12:19 pmNikolay – It helps to not argue in public with the voices in your head.
JD (7dfca9) — 6/15/2009 @ 12:21 pmBoth of the examples cited were just examples of realpolitik, not at all good examples of a right-wing “preference” for Ahmedinejad, as Nikolay seemed to say.
Max Boot in context:
.
Pipes in context (not at all to be construed that I would defend everything this guy says)
carlitos (84409d) — 6/15/2009 @ 12:26 pmReading Ledeen was a good suggestion.
carlitos (84409d) — 6/15/2009 @ 12:28 pmI hate to feed trolls, but…The Islamic Republic of Iran is the result of Democratic appeaser Jimmy Carter, not Bush.
And yes, if both men are Islamic radicals, DinnerJacket is much more the true face of the regime and easier to mobilize against; should Moussavi eventually take over he could much more easily give cover to the radicalism of the theocracy.
Patricia (2183bb) — 6/15/2009 @ 12:32 pm[…] silence on this matter may want to rethink the offensive idea that he’s merely “voting ‘present.’“ I’m not saying we should take my student’s brother’s word on this as […]
According to an actual Iranian in Iran, the administration’s silence helps the cause. « The Edge of the American West (215e9b) — 6/15/2009 @ 12:33 pmOf course, they get their arguments from realpolitik, but that doesn’t change the fact that they are rooting for Ahmadinejad.
Nikolay (76ec15) — 6/15/2009 @ 12:39 pmAnd the context of their arguments is perfectly clear: the Iranian elections are totally incosequential, they only present the facade for the monolithic clerical regime (which is hell-bent on nuclear self-destruction).
I’d say that that what’s happening in Iran now shows that these arguments have nothing to do with reality whatsoever. Hell, it’s widely believed that Ahmadinejad tried commit a coup against the clerical establishment — so much for “the real power always rests with mullahs”.
carlitos – you should know better. Didn’t you get the memo that all of you wingnuts support Ahmedinnerjacket?
JD (29405c) — 6/15/2009 @ 12:46 pm“the president was deeply conscious of appearing not to favor any side in the election.”
… and therein lies all that is wrong with Obama. No compass, just platitutudes.
HeavenSent (1e97ff) — 6/15/2009 @ 12:48 pmnot at all good examples of a right-wing “preference” for Ahmedinejad, as Nikolay seemed to say.
Thanks for clarifying that. I was too lazy to click on his links and determine whether his point had some validity. I even thought the two columnists he cited perhaps had treated the Iranian elections in a manner too cynical and political, or partisan, even for my tastes. That’s because anyone who doesn’t consider Ahmedinjad a contemptible, frightening human being, a threat to peace in the Middle East — if not beyond — is the sort who’d say “well, Hitler did make the trains run on time!”).
Regardless, it’s far more of the left, and not the right, that loves playing footsies with fanatics like Iran’s current president.
Mark (411533) — 6/15/2009 @ 12:52 pmThis reminds me of when some people quit the State Dep’t back in 1980 to protest their lack of action on Russia’s interference in Poland.
carlitos (84409d) — 6/15/2009 @ 12:52 pmCompletely off-topic, but I get the disinct privilege/honor of taking out our friend Sxott Jacobs out for a celebratory slab of barely cooked and still bleeding dead cow tonite.
Carlitos – Thanks for clicking through on those. I suspected that their positions had a bit moren what’s the word I am looking for here … Oh yeah. Nuance. And my gut reaction that Nikolay’s characterization was not based in reality was confirmed.
JD (29405c) — 6/15/2009 @ 1:01 pmNicklay, your post #31 made more sense than the other one. The students may actually be more motivated now because they know that Obama will not help them. They are on their own. If that’s what you meant by Half a year of Obama, and you have Iran’s 30 years-old regime crumbling into pieces, you might have a point.
The fact is, the presence of a democratic Iraq next door, no matter how flawed, is probably a good deal more important.
Mike K (2cf494) — 6/15/2009 @ 1:01 pmCompletely off-topic, but I get the disinct privilege/honor of taking out our friend Sxott Jacobs out for a celebratory slab of barely cooked and still bleeding dead cow tonite.
Carlitos – Thanks for clicking through on those. I suspected that their positions had a bit moren what’s the word I am looking for here … Oh yeah. Nuance. And my gut reaction that Nikolay’s characterization was not based in reality was confirmed.
JD (29405c) — 6/15/2009 @ 1:01 pmAnd the fact that most of the Iranian activists are unequivocally against Obama voicing his support doesn’t bother you in the least? Don’t you think that the opinion of the people who are actually risking their life at the moment fighting for their freedom is more important than the opinion of the people that not so long age were blaming Obama for even suggesting that who’s elected in Iran makes any difference?
Nikolay (76ec15) — 6/15/2009 @ 1:01 pmThe same MSM who after the fact self flagellated themselves for not being more curious in the run up to the Iraq war can start beating themselves up again. Had any of them, ANY of them asked in depth and follow up questions of Obama regarding his views on foreign policy perhaps some of his mea culpa and appeasement philosophy would have gotten out to voters before it was too late.
elizabeth (57a179) — 6/15/2009 @ 1:05 pmJust f*ckin’ worship Teh One, people. Dammit, get with the program. No matter what happens, it is good, and Teh One deserves all credit. If anything bad happens, blame Bush.
JD (29405c) — 6/15/2009 @ 1:08 pmHere is an interesting counterpoint to Nikolay’s (and SEK;s, via the link above) perspective – a comment from the Corner blog.
carlitos (84409d) — 6/15/2009 @ 1:11 pmNikolay, they know he will do nothing. He even addressed his remarks to the regime, rather than the people as Bush did, and as Reagan did to the Soviet Union. If you have ever read anything by Sharansky, who was in prison at the time, you will know that Reagan’s words, including “Evil Empire” gave them great hope that someone knew the truth.
It was the great brilliant moment when we learned that Ronald Reagan had proclaimed the Soviet Union an Evil Empire before the entire world. There was a long list of all the Western leaders who had lined up to condemn the evil Reagan for daring to call the great Soviet Union an evil empire right next to the front-page story about this dangerous, terrible man who wanted to take the world back to the dark days of the Cold War. This was the moment. It was the brightest, most glorious day. Finally a spade had been called a spade. Finally, Orwell’s Newspeak was dead. President Reagan had from that moment made it impossible for anyone in the West to continue closing their eyes to the real nature of the Soviet Union.
Of course, you have not read anything by Sharansky.
Obama could do something like that, but he won’t.
Mike K (2cf494) — 6/15/2009 @ 1:18 pmAnd yes, if both men are Islamic radicals, DinnerJacket is much more the true face of the regime and easier to mobilize against; should Moussavi eventually take over he could much more easily give cover to the radicalism of the theocracy.
Good point, especially as far as Israel is concerned. They clearly know the crazy of A-jad; Moussavi is an unknown quantity.
“the president was deeply conscious of appearing not to favor any side in the election.”
I would say the problem with this is he is too often deeply conscious of how he appears. Stand on a principle, man, and don’t worry about how it appears. Just make the stand, firmly and decisively because you believe it to the best thing for the country you are charged with protecting.
Dana (be9504) — 6/15/2009 @ 1:18 pmJD – I would say that this isn’t about President Obama, and this isn’t about President Bush; this is about the Iranian people and their government, and using it as a proxy in our internal political debate is beneath us.
aphrael (9e8ccd) — 6/15/2009 @ 1:23 pmThe only result of the Obama’s voiced support would be giving Ahmadinejad ability to paint Mousavi as an American puppet. Thankfully, he’s not going to make such a gift to Ahmadinejad. Thankfully, McCain is not a president — he makes it perfectly clear that he would immediately commit this blunder.
That said, the scenario of the green revolution in Iran is very similar to what happened in Yugoslavia, Ukraine and Georgia. All the “colored revolutions” in those countries had strong backing from NGO’s sponsored by George Soros, and I find it very unlikely that he’s not involved in this as well.
As for the Corner’s idea that it would be a good idea for Obama to talk about Iraq now, a country that killed countless Iranians two decades ago, a country that bought its ‘democracy’ with terrible bloodshed, try as I may, I can’t imagine anything more wrong-headed.
Nikolay (76ec15) — 6/15/2009 @ 1:32 pmaphrael, that is a good point. Except that another commenter above noted:
As if Bush somehow caused the Iranian election, and Obama is somehow changing another Iranian election.
Here is another counterpoint to the argument that Obama shouldn’t say anything. Students tell CNN that, if Obama accepts election, “we are doomed.”
carlitos (84409d) — 6/15/2009 @ 1:34 pmThis post is one of the lamest I have read in awhile. It is internally inconsistent. One the one hand, the author claims that American policy is effectively impotent in changing Iran, but that Obama’s supposed failure to actively support the protesters is a failure. And the rationale behind this suggestion that he has been caught “flat footed” escapes me. Was he supposed to know about the protests? What was he unaware of? The degree of discontent among many Iranians? Any serious observor of foreign policy knows that is a silly claim. I think Obama is trying to avoid a situation where American support for the protestors becomes counterproductive. I agree that the EU made a serious error in recognizing the results of the election, but this post says more about the author’s obsession with Obama than about American policy or Iranian politics.
mvatty (99d646) — 6/15/2009 @ 1:37 pmNikolay, have you ever heard of the post hoc fallacy?
Steverino (69d941) — 6/15/2009 @ 1:39 pmCarlitos: regardless of whether it is being done to score points against President Bush or to score points against President Obama, it’s inappropriate.
We are not the primary actors here. What is happening in Iran is not about us. It is about an enormous number of brave men and women, and it is about their government, and is about the struggle for control within Iran. This is their moment, for good or for ill.
aphrael (9e8ccd) — 6/15/2009 @ 1:45 pmSo your point is that the revolution now happening in Iran does not, in fact, mean remaking of the Muslim world.
This initial comment betrays the poster’s extreme ignorance on the ME in general. For the last time, the Iranians do not, and have never (and never will), consider themselves part of the greater “Muslim World.” They’re not Arabs either, they’re Persians. They consider their neighbors to be inferior and substandard as opposed to their cultural heritage and citizenry’s general educational levels. While a democratic Iran would of course be a seismic shift in the ME, to include it in some kind of greater “Muslim World” is ridiculous.
Dmac (f7884d) — 6/15/2009 @ 1:46 pmOh really?? The regime change in the country that is a primary sponsor of Hamas and Hezbollah, the first country to go through Islamic revolution, the only real Islamic theocracy, the center of the Shia religion, would not mean a radical remaking of the Muslim World because they are not Arabs? That’s a mighty nonsense.
Nikolay (76ec15) — 6/15/2009 @ 1:58 pmThanks for the links, Nikolay. But’s include some of the context:
James Taranto:
Max Boot:
Daniel Pipes:
The President of Iran is a figurehead, a face man for the Mullah’s Regime. The only practical difference who fills that spot makes, is how easy it is for every one else to deceive themselves as to the nature of Iran’s Theocracy.
LarryD (243b3d) — 6/15/2009 @ 1:58 pmmvatty,
What Obama was — and is — clearly unaware of is the nature of the Iranian regime. What caught him flat-footed was that the election over which he was claiming some influence turned out completely the opposite of what he expected.
His cowardly failure to even condemn the beatings and shootings in the street afterward merely compounds contempt for him.
Karl (d826c5) — 6/15/2009 @ 2:17 pmAmazing, it was the LEFT like Nikolay who invited the POS Dinnerjacket to Columbia and the LEFT on Daily Kos who cheered with justo as he blasted America. It was LEFTIST like Nikolay who rage with glee as he slammed President Bush and the Israelis.
Yet these same LEFTIST try to claim now that conservatives want this POS to win. Now they slighly oppose him only because his “election” shames the naive boob Barry Obama and his Jimmy Carteresque “I have never met a dictator I would not do in a restroom” foreign policy.
LogicalSC (590b89) — 6/15/2009 @ 2:27 pmIn the current administration, Ross is isolated (and rumors abound that ppl want himout). Is that a step forward, or backward?
Based on Haaretz rumors?
The better guess is that his hand has been strengthened by the Iran elections.
http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/06/15/ross_staying_on_iran_policy
steve (c598ec) — 6/15/2009 @ 2:41 pm“…Of course, you have not read anything by Sharansky.
Obama could do something like that, but he won’t.”
Comment by Mike K — 6/15/2009 @ 1:18 pm
For he, the LiC, has probably never read Sharansky either – it doesn’t fit Teh Narrative.
AD - RtR/OS! (956a02) — 6/15/2009 @ 2:42 pmWhich is a gospel that the right repeats ad nauseam, and which is not true, as Patterico concedes in the next post
Obama, obviously, wanted Mousavi to win the votes. This is what happened, unless you believe Ahmadinejad’s propaganda. He could not predict that Ahmadinejad would attempt a coup, Ahmadinejad himself probably wasn’t certain about this. Anyway, the coup seems to be Ahmadinejad’s big mistake. If Obama keeps making the right moves (and not making the wrong moves you guys so desperately want him to do), we’re about to see the end of the Iran’s regime.
Nikolay (76ec15) — 6/15/2009 @ 2:47 pmOh really??
Good comeback, Nicky. So now why don’t you enlighten us about what exactly is the difference between Persians and Arabs, since you seem to know so much…stuff? Perhaps also you can tell us about how Iran’s constitutional monarchy came into being in the first place, and also detail how the 1953 Iranian coup d’état deposed the democratically- elected government of Iranian Prime Minister Mohammed Mosaddeq?
You must’ve been aware of Iran’s previous history as a democracy, right, Nicky? Time to do some more research, Nicky – a lot more.
Dmac (f7884d) — 6/15/2009 @ 2:51 pmObama, obviously, wanted Mousavi to win the votes.
Of course he did – because Nicky says so! So let’s recap Nicky’s logic here:
– whatever Obama said previously he obviously didn’t mean, and;
– if the Iranians succeed in transforming their country into a democracy again, Obama will be entirely the reason for it.
How do we know all this? Because Nicky knows stuff, and can also split atoms with his mind.
Dmac (f7884d) — 6/15/2009 @ 2:56 pmYou made a claim that Iran in no way does belong to the Muslim world. That claim was absurd. I did not profess to be some great expert on the Iran history (of course, I know the basics), but you only need minimal understanding to know that Iran is, indeed, a quite important part of the Muslim world.
Nikolay (76ec15) — 6/15/2009 @ 2:57 pmWhat I take most issue with is this meme, promoted today by none other than Andrew Sullivan, that Iran is like Bush / Cheney / Rove’s America. Rural Iran is supposedly like “red state” America, and the Iranian president is like Bush, pulling their strings to win re-election by taking advantage of the uneducated rubes and their religion. By this model, and this model only, you have “conservative” Americans rooting for Ahmedinejad and “Obama wanted Mousaui to win the votes.” I’m not buying it.
carlitos (84409d) — 6/15/2009 @ 3:06 pmHere’s a quote:
I don’t know how can you claim that this doesn’t mean that Obama prefered Mousavi to win. BTW, you seem to be the only guy to even dispute this obvious fact. But you also don’t think that Iran is related to the Muslim world, so it’s kind of natural for you.
BTW, I first found this quote on Rush Limbaugh’s site. Of course, he was scolding Obama for even caring about the results of these sham elections.
Nikolay (76ec15) — 6/15/2009 @ 3:09 pmaphrael – You are correct, but people like Nikolay, Sullivan (as noted in carlitos’ link above), etc … seem hell bent on making it so.
JD (9df895) — 6/15/2009 @ 3:09 pmConservative Americans (not all of them, of course — but some of the most influential) wanted Ahmedinejad to win not because he’s a red-state kind of guy, but because they think that he presents the true face of Iran, while Mousavi could lure naive Obama with his sweet talk.
Obama made it perfectly clear that he wanted to talk to Iran. Mousavi made it perfectly clear that he would be more open to talks. What in the world would make Obama prefer Ahmedinejad’s win???
Nikolay (76ec15) — 6/15/2009 @ 3:18 pmSee?
JD (9df895) — 6/15/2009 @ 3:24 pmNicky only sees what he wants to see – it’s called projection, but of course those in the grips of it are rarely aware of the condition in the first place. As the saying goes, we could explain it to him, but we couldn’t make him understand it.
Dmac (f7884d) — 6/15/2009 @ 3:53 pmBTW, I first found this quote on Rush Limbaugh’s site.
Uh, oh – he’s found out that Rush is the de facto head of the GOP! Quick, someone tell The Daily Kos about this new, breakthrough meme!
Conservative Americans (not all of them, of course — but some of the most influential)
Uh, but you just said a few moments earlier today:
It’s the stereotypes of the right-wingers, who don’t even hide their preference for Ahmadinejad
Do you even read what you wrote, Nicky? And you’ve yet to answer my question – what is the difference between Persians and Arabs? Come now, you’re quite strenuous with your opinions, surely you have a few gems to share with us on that subject.
Dmac (f7884d) — 6/15/2009 @ 3:58 pmDid I say something about that? How is it relevant?
Why do I have to answer your questions that are completely irrelevant? Should we talk about Iranian cinema now? Who’s the best-acclaimed living director in that country? Or maybe we should switch to the Persian poetry? Or Zoroastrianism? Or Herodotus?
Nikolay (76ec15) — 6/15/2009 @ 4:10 pmPersians are ethnically different from Arabs. Everybody knows that. They have different (and very ancient) culture. They are still part of the Muslim world. The claim that they are not is absurd.
Karl:
I’d be curious as to the basis for your assertion that Obama is/was unaware of the nature of the Iranian regime, other than his statements that he would engage the regime with diplomacy. I don’t think Reagan had any illusions about the nature of the Soviet dictatorship, yet he engaged in diplomacy with them. There is a difference between acknowledging the nature of a regime and how best to deal with that regime. There is a legitimate debate about whether to talk to Iran or not. But I would not argue that Obama’s willingness to talk to Iran suggests that he believes anything other than the Iranian regime is an authoritarian and dangerous government.
mvatty (99d646) — 6/15/2009 @ 4:40 pmWhere is the list of RW names that endorsed the re-election of the dinnerjacket?
AD - RtR/OS! (956a02) — 6/15/2009 @ 4:41 pmI don’t think Reagan had any illusions about the nature of the Soviet dictatorship, yet he engaged in diplomacy with them.
Last I checked, the Soviets never seized our embassy (an act of war) and took our diplomats hostage (another act of war) for 444 days.
Do you not understand that they have been at war with us for 30 years, whether or not we recognized it ? When you are at war, you don’t have diplomatic relations.
Mike K (2cf494) — 6/15/2009 @ 5:07 pmObama’s beliefs (or anybody else’s for that matter) have no consequences. Actions do. And Obama’s actions are those of a hapless, helpless, incompetent narcissist.
nk (2edafe) — 6/15/2009 @ 5:18 pmS__t. The Iranians have a leader who, whether we like him or not, took on America when he was a college student and won, and achieved the highest position in a country where one political misstep is death. And we have a spoiled, lazy, arugula-eating spawn of a hippie.
nk (2edafe) — 6/15/2009 @ 5:23 pmNikolay, Dmac made a point which you failed to understand. Your lack of understanding was demonstrated by your responses to it. A hint: your lack of comprehension does not make something “absurd”.
SPQR (26be8b) — 6/15/2009 @ 6:06 pmWell, you could care to clarify his point instead of making personal attacks? Do you believe that Iran doesn’t belong to the Muslim world? If you think it doesn’t, what are the reasons? Is it the fact that Iran’s people are ethically different?
Nikolay (76ec15) — 6/15/2009 @ 6:22 pmI think that they (Iran) are definitely part of the “Islamic world,” but that the are on the rise, and don’t much like the Shi’a. The fact that the current Iranian president made the streets of Teheran wider to accommodate the coming of the 12th Imam is not only frightening, it surely makes him a “polytheist” in the eyes of the Sunni. Wahabbis
carlitos (84409d) — 6/15/2009 @ 6:32 pmNikolay, my comments were not personal attacks. Dmac will have to explain his point, but I understood him to be saying that there was not a unified nor uniform “Muslim World” and that most Iranians have a lot of differences with other muslims – not least between the Arab and Persian cultures as well as between Arab Sunni and Shia versons of the islamic faith.
But hey, if all you know is “absurd” to cover your failure to understand his point, run with it.
SPQR (26be8b) — 6/15/2009 @ 6:37 pmCertainly, Shi’a are very different from Sunnies, just as Catholics are very different from Protestants.
Nikolay (76ec15) — 6/15/2009 @ 6:44 pmBTW, the largest Muslim country in the world is Indonesia, the second-largest is Pakistan, the third-largest Bangladesh — none of them have Arabic-majority population. In fact, less than 20% of Muslims live in the Arab world.
So this talk about Persians vs. Arabs has no relevance to the Muslim world whatsoever.
Nikolay, you are just getting sillier in your “lets miss the point” contest.
SPQR (26be8b) — 6/15/2009 @ 6:46 pmIt has to be intentional, SPQR, because random chance would not account for it missing the point this many times in a row on accident.
Off-topic – Scott Jacobs and I had huge slabs of bleeding dead cow for dinner. It was a pleasure to share a meal with this young man that will soon be enlisting in the service of the greatest country in the history of the world.
JD (9df895) — 6/15/2009 @ 6:53 pmIn this case he was arguing with the voices in his head, because I never implied that there is a uniform “Muslim World” nor that there are no differences between Iran and other Muslims. There was nothing in words that could be read that way.
There were huge differences (and a lot of bloodshed) between Catholics and Protestants in European history, but that doesn’t mean that they didn’t belong to the Christendom.
Nikolay (76ec15) — 6/15/2009 @ 6:54 pmUsing your logic, the words “Iran is a country that goes through a of changes now” should be understood as “Iran is a unified and uniform country with no internal differences whatsoever”, since the word “country” means “a uniform and unified entity”.
Nikolay (76ec15) — 6/15/2009 @ 7:10 pmSPQR – I am voting for overtly partisan, and aggressively ignorant. YMMV.
JD (9df895) — 6/15/2009 @ 7:18 pmDmac will have to explain his point, but I understood him to be saying that there was not a unified nor uniform “Muslim World” and that most Iranians have a lot of differences with other muslims – not least between the Arab and Persian cultures as well as between Arab Sunni and Shia versons of the islamic faith
I appreciate your patiently explaining to the learning – disabled what my point was, SPQR – but as the old expression goes, “I can explain it to you, but I can’t make you understand it.” Nicky’s proven to be either willfully obtuse or obviously brain – dead, as again evidenced by the following inanity:
So this talk about Persians vs. Arabs has no relevance to the Muslim world whatsoever.
Bad grammatical form + willful ignorance = Troll.
Dmac (f7884d) — 6/15/2009 @ 8:12 pmHey, Nicky…You forgot one VERY large Muslim population….India!
AD - RtR/OS! (956a02) — 6/15/2009 @ 8:21 pmDmac, your point was stupid, since I never talked about “unified Muslim world” to begin with.
I concede that my grammar is not good. This is because neither English is my first language nor do I live in the English-speaking country. Nevertheless, the point is perfectly clear, unless you want to keep playing stupid.
The point is, when you talk about “Muslim world”, the difference between Persians and Arabs is irrelevant, since Arabs are small minority in the Muslim world anyway.
As for trolling, your initial claim that saying that “revolution in Iran means remaking of the Muslim world” “betrays extreme ignorance about ME” was a perfect example of trolling. As were your further questions about Arabs and Persians, about Iran’s history etc.
Nikolay (76ec15) — 6/16/2009 @ 2:31 amToo bad some of the people here chose to side with a troll just because they have political views different from mine.
Ok, by some measures India, not the Bangladesh is the country with the third-largest Muslim country. That doesn’t change the fact that majority of the Muslims are not Arabs a bit.
Nikolay (76ec15) — 6/16/2009 @ 2:34 amThis is the best short comment on the event I have read so far. Congratulations, Karl
Harry Phillips (63afbf) — 6/16/2009 @ 3:59 amSupport Iran This Way
1. Print out a bunch of photos or symbols and have a bunch of people hold them as protest signs.
Use maybe 50 copies of this
photo.
2. Photo your crowd holding the signs in solidarity with Iran.
3. Send photos to Iran for them to print out. Make a flickr site for photos of international support.
Support from China, Africa, Los Angeles, would all have an impact…
Images should not use text. They must translate visually.
Send this idea to friends.
Fred (adc8d1) — 6/16/2009 @ 4:21 amOh but just think, if it were not for the One’s historic Cairo speech, the people of Iran would never have known that freedom and Democracy is a good thing and voted for the opposition to begin with. You know, just as the folks in Lebanon learned their lessons at the master’s knee.
/sarc
MJBrutus (fdc0cd) — 6/16/2009 @ 12:21 pmI”ve got a better and more accurate cartoon metaphor for you. It’s also from Loony Tunes. But in this metaphor I see Obama as the Roadrunner, basically a puff of dust speeding off all over the place (Meep! Meep!) and the right wing media and the hapless GOP is like ole Wile E. Coyote (“Genius”) always up to something with that crafty look on his face (Acme Rocket Sled etc…), but never fast or smart enough to pull some daring scheme up and catching that pesky roadruuner, so he’s off rushing into the void only to notice that not only is he no longer standing on solid ground, he’s not on any ground whatsoever, and that dread look comes over his face as the realization hits home that that it is a long long loooong way down that canyon (Whooosh!!!), and he drops like a bomb down down down, arms and legs spread eagled with that stupid look on his face..
Meep!! Meep!!
PettyPat_and his_PityParty (57f09d) — 6/16/2009 @ 5:21 pm5:21pm – What are you, four?
Good guys, bad guys and cartoons. Nuance.
Which ninja turtle would you be? How about which power ranger? If the Democrats are the Transformers, are the bad robots the Republicans?
I don’t have a problem with left leaning commenters such as aphrael and leviticus, because they have viewpoints that address consistent positions, and can argue those positions without a forest of logical fallacies. But then again, they aren’t stupid.
Apogee (e2dc9b) — 6/16/2009 @ 5:56 pmThe trolls want to talk about anything other than how cowardly our President is being.
JD (21ab8e) — 6/16/2009 @ 6:26 pm[…] has been apparent for some time already. Despite the prospect of arms races in Asia and the Middle East, Obama remains bent on appeasing Russia and Iran, with unilateral nuclear disarmament plans so […]
The Greenroom » Forum Archive » Obama: I, sir, am no Jack Kennedy (e2f069) — 9/21/2009 @ 12:18 pm