NEOAVATARA

Hundreds of thousands protest in Tehran

So far, we have seen no action or words  from the Obama Administration.  They seem to fear saying ANYTHING, in case it throws a wrench into their plans to negotiate with Ahmadinejad.

Again, this shows Obama’s inexperience, because I believe a confident Obama would never keep quiet.

Now, the Ayatollah and the Guardian Council has declared there will be a recount.  But everyone knows that is a farce.  Mousavi has already refused this as a political ploy.  The reformers plan to hold a large rally today, despite Mousavi pleading to cancel the rally.  Ahmadinejad forces held a rally, and apparently headed to the reformer’s rally for a confrontation.  Foreign reporters are now banned to join in rallies, and to send pictures or videos.

So what now?

The U.S. could take a stand with the Iranian public.  For years, I have heard liberal and conservative commentators talk about the ‘New Iran’…the 50% of the Iranian public under the age of 30, who want liberal reforms, both socially and democratically.

Well, great, except that change will not occur quietly.  Change that is that disruptive of the status quo is often messy and dangerous.

Look at the fall of the Warsaw Pact.  1989 was actually a frightening year.  The U.S. and NATO had no idea that the Soviet Union would come apart at the seams.  And for a few months, no one knew what kind of result would finally occur.  But at that time, regardless of the politics, we always stood with people’s individual right to speak for their own lives.

Obama should do that now.  He missed an opportunity this weekend, but an opening remains.  He should absolutely NOT endorse any candidate, and he should not take sides.  This is for numerous obvious reasons: we shouldn’t get involved in a sovereign state’s elections, backing Mousavi could damage him, etc.  And the reality is that Mousavi is unlikely to be dramatically better person to negotiate with than Ahmadinejad.

But a statement defending the rights of the Iranian people to choose the way they see fit to live their lives?  That is a true universal sentiment.  This is a moment to defend freedom.  Yes, our actual power within Iran is almost nil…but words have power, and consequences.

On one side, we have liberals saying that Obama speaking out at this time will make no difference.   However, just a few days ago, those same liberals were extolling how Obama’s singular speech in Cairo last week changed the world.  How can those two positions exist together?  If the Cairo speech was profound, that would be no comparison to the speech Obama could give on freedom.  An American President, for once in modern history, standing with Middle Easterners to defend their rights.  You don’t think that could have profound effect on the sentiments of those people toward America?

Again, why couldn’t Obama give a speech like Reagan did when the Solidarity movement was being punished in Poland?  Reagan in 1981:

The target of this depression [repression] is the Solidarity Movement, but in attacking Solidarity its enemies attack an entire people. Ten million of Poland’s 36 million citizens are members of Solidarity. Taken together with their families, they account for the overwhelming majority of the Polish nation. By persecuting Solidarity the Polish Government wages war against its own people.

I urge the Polish Government and its allies to consider the consequences of their actions. How can they possibly justify using naked force to crush a people who ask for nothing more than the right to lead their own lives in freedom and dignity? Brute force may intimidate, but it cannot form the basis of an enduring society, and the ailing Polish economy cannot be rebuilt with terror tactics.

I would argue that a speech like that could be a perfect bookend to the Cairo speech.  Obama talked about how we need to be honest, and speak truth to power.  What better moment to prove that than now?

Barack Obama still has a chance to make a powerful statement.  Yes, the West has misused power around the world.  In Iran specifically, we used the Shah for the case of political expedience.  But no more.  We should stand for freedom for all people.  We should make a statement that we respect the will of the Iranian people, whether it be for Ahmadinjad or Mousavi, but that we will always be vocal about the rights of people to speak out.  Will it cost us politically?  Who knows, but frankly, I doubt we could do much worse than how we are doing now.  The downside is minimal; what, Iran is going to talk to us less than they are now?  Are they going to push their nuclear program even faster than it is currently going?  Are they going to threaten Israel with destruction (again!)?  They already are ignoring us.  But the potential upside benefit?  That is as far as the eye can see.

UPDATE: Now, Obama is ‘really troubled…deeply concerned’…wooo…that will shake the world, it will.