Posted by
Andrews on Monday, June 22, 2009 11:07:56 AM
As everyone on earth has opined about Iran and events there, I suppose I should offer my own thoughts. I had originally refrained, as the situation is so uncertain it really is foolish right now to try to predict what will happen, but when has that stopped me before?
Let me start by saying I hope the uprising in Iran does bring about real change, though I also worry what form that change might take. On the other hand, I really doubt I will have to worry about he direction the revolution will take, as I don't see it succeeding.
Perhaps history will make me eat my words, and I know I have often said in the past that Iran is ripe for revolution, and that the US should have been supplying covert aid to dissidents all along throughout the Bush presidency, but I still think that the time is wrong for Iran to overthrow the current government.
Why?
I know it sounds facile to blame Obama, but in this case it is true. And no, it is not because Obama refused to intervene, though I am sure the left will caricature any criticism that way. What makes Obama a problem for Iran is his lack of a clear message. Right now the biggest worry for the revolutionaries, obviously, is the government, and how far they will go in putting down any revolt. And it is in that regard that Obama plays a huge role.
The president of the US sets the tone for much of the world response. At one time the premier of the Soviet Union did as well, but his successor int he Russian government wields only a shadow of that influence, and only in certain parts of the globe. The same for China. Only the president of the US really has the ability to shift world opinion. And, in this case, Obama's unclear, shifting position is sending the wrong message.
The problem isn't so much what Obama has said, whether it was support for Mousavi, or finding Mousavi no different from Ahmadinejhad, it is clear Obama has no real position at all, and is responding entirely based on public opinion, with an eye to his own political advantage. Nor am I alone in finding this true, critics on both the left and right have found him less than inspiring in his handling of Iran.
But it is not his blatant triangulation, nor his political opportunism which is harmful to the prospects of revolution in Iran. What si harmful si the message that opportunism gives, that the US is unlikely to step in and intervene, no matter how bad the situation may become. And if the US, with tens of thousands of troops within driving distance of Iran is not going to intervene, then what are the chances of any other nations stepping in to stop even the most egregious acts by the government?
And that is the real reason I despair of any real change coming from the riots we have been seeing. I am afraid, for all the noise, this may be yet another Tienanmen Square, an iconic moment with value more symbolic than real. It is possible the government may concede, make some token changes, to appear the "good guy" on the world stage, but even in that unlikely event, I think the chance of any lasting reform is small or nonexistent.