“140 characters is a novel when you’re being shot at #iranelection”
I haven’t really posted anything in a few weeks due to lack of internet, but I’m posting this from Gabor’s wireless card.
So, we have the Iranian election. On the one hand we have Ahmadinejad, who plays as a populist demagogue, and on the other hand we have Mousavi who campaigned as a reformer despite having a long history within the Iranian governmental apparatus. It’s pretty clear this election was stolen. It remains to be seen what actually comes of this Green Revolution which is taking place on the streets of Tehran and the Twittersphere. But I’m appalled by President Obama’s conduct in this entire affair.
I appreciate that American support could harm rather than help Mousavi within the anti-American elements of Iranian politics. But Mousavi’s anti-American credentials are impeccable. He helped overthrow the Shah. He was a top adviser to Khatami, who – while a moderate reformer – was certainly not any sort of American puppet. There is little risk to people thinking him an American proxy for the Middle East; certainly, students and shopkeepers flooding Tehran with protest will not imagine this to be some sort of American plot.
The belief that American support is some kind of albatross around the neck of reformers is patently ridiculous. This belief stems from the same soft bigotry which has lead Realists to proclaim that some sorts of people can’t really have democracy. The Iraqis didn’t have a vibrant middle class and were too ethnically divided. The Iranians are too religious and too faithful to their Supreme Leader. Look at what the stupid Venezuelans did by electing that madman Chavez.
The belief that cultural differences make it impossible for people to share in the common values of self-determination and popular sovereignty is laughably old. In another time, this same logic was used to justify slavery and segregation in this country. (It’s still used by people who eschew the notion of the melting pot in favor of a single homogenized set of values – as they continue to forget that democracy is great because people overcome their diversity. E pluribus unum – out of many, one – can’t function without the pluribus)
The argument made by President Obama’s supporters suggests that were he to simply say “I join my counterparts in France and the Czech Republic in condemning the stolen electoin, violence against protesters, and usurpation of the popular will by the Iranian government”, the Iranian people would be simpleminded enough and stupid enough to immediately hate whatever Obama endorsed. This raises two questions. First, wouldn’t this ludicrous notion suggest that – in direct contradiction to Obama’s campaign suggestions – diplomacy would be completely ineffective with the Iranian people since their hatred of the US is strong enough to make them reject a candidate they’ve rallied, protested, and died in support of? Second, didn’t the US elect Obama specifically so this wouldn’t happen? That Obama would be able to stand up and say “I have a Muslim middle name – I feel your pain”? (or something to that effect).
Nor does stating our opinion infringe on the sovereignty of Iran. First, a mere statement cannot infringe on a country’s sovereignty. We have an opinion on literally everything else that Iran does, but on the issue of elections, we are silent? It’s absurd. Second, American principles state that sovereignty rests with the people. The first revolution in Iran was borne of similar predilections. This new revolution is the will of the people in opposition to a governmental tyranny that they cannot tolerate. Supporting the Green Revolution means supporting Iranian sovereignty in the most proper sense of the word.
The ironic thing is that George W Bush would have – as President – immediately spoken out in favor of the Green Revolution. Obama’s support – which could have far greater an impact than Bush’s – is not as forthcoming, mainly because he does not believe in the neoconservative principle of spreading Democracy. But Obama – with his image as a change agent and reformer – could have a great effect on the Iranian political process by stating clearly and firmly the US’s support of the Green Revolution. Remember, after September 11th, we were consoled by the sympathies not only of France and Britain, but also of Cuba and Libya. We appreciate all support in our times of need.
Instead, he does nothing, promises to negotiate with Ahmadinejad if he succeeds in stealing the election, and looks weak on the world stage. Obama has never indicated that he cares about the freedom of the Iranian people – George W Bush made it a regular talking point. Obama wants – for better or for worse – to focus on domestic issues. He wishes that this issue would just go away; it would be easier for him at a time that he’s making a big push on health care. He just wants to work out a deal with the simplistic and despotic Ahmadinejad on the nuclear energy – it would be easier than dealing with a cagey, well-educated, and highly popular veteran politician in charge of Iran. Many things would be easier than having to address what has the potential to either be the next Tienanmen Square or the next Velvet Revolution.
No, it is not easy to support the Green Revolution. But it is the right thing to do.
title widely attributed to an Iranian twitter user
Tags: #iranelection, iran, obama, twitter