NEOAVATARA

Mirhussen Mousavi called for his protesters to have a ‘day of mourning’ to display their sadness over the events of the Iranian election.  He asked people to where black, instead of the reformer’s now traditional green.  Demonstrators were planning rallies from mosques across the Iranian capital, converging in a city square Thursday afternoon, for what is expected to be one of the largest protests since last Friday’s disputed election.

The U.S continues to struggle with their response to this crisis.  Even White House officials behind closed doors admit the Obama response has been less than satisfactory.   Henry Kissinger, in an interview on Wednesday, basically said thta Obama could not have done less to support the Iranian people if he tried.

Even while supporting the president’s approach, the New York Times states that senior members of the administration, including Vice PresidentJoseph R. Biden Jr. and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, would like to strike a stronger tone in support of the protesters, administration officials said.  Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton told reporters yesterday: “We are obviously waiting to see the outcome of the internal Iranian processes, but our intent is to pursue whatever opportunities might exist in the future with Iran.”  Again, basically a nonanswer answer, but one she may be forced to give from the Commander in Chief.   Several administration officials acknowledged that Mr. Obama might run the risk of coming across on the wrong side of history at a potentially transformative moment in Iran.

Senator John Kerry, in an Op-Ed in the New York Times, states that we have to ‘think before we act’.  Yes, it always takes me one week to think enough to respond to someone.  First he argues that our words may be manipulated by the Iranian regime for their own use.  Second, he says the tough talk of the Bush era got us nowhere, so why restart that?  And finally he brings up the 1953 revolt that the US was involved in, that restored the Shah to power.

Kerry is the classic liberal moron.  First, Iran is already using Obama’s words for their own use…should Obama have said less than he already has?  The regime is known to lie, Mr. Kerry; what we say is not so relevant, unless we make ridiculously interventionists comments.  As for the Bush era, do you think that this type of open debate could have occurred in Iran while Saddam Hussein was still in power?  Iran, and Iranians, feared and hated Saddam, and would have allowed the regime to say whatever they wanted in order to protect them from that madman.  No, this democratic debate would never have occurred to this level with Saddam alive.  Finally, one last point:  Kerry’s arguments harken back to similar arguments from Demcorats…back in 1981, when Reagan spoke out against the ‘Evil Empire’, the Soviet Union.  At the time, Democrats such as Ted Kennedy lamented that Reagan was too harsh against the Soviets, and he would alienate them and turn them against us.  Surprise…the opposite happened.  How many times to liberals need to be wrong?

Obama’s last comment was even less helpful:

“Although there is amazing ferment taking place in Iran, the difference between Ahmadinejad and Mousavi in terms of their actual positions may not be as great as has been advertised,” Obama told CNBC on Tuesday. “We’ve got long-term interests in having them not weaponize nuclear power and stop funding organizations like Hezbollah and Hamas. And that would be true whoever came out on top in this election.”

This did not go over well with Iranian experts, both on the left and the right.  “Up until now, the president had very thoughtfully calibrated his remarks on Iran, but this was an uncharacteristic and egregious error,” said Karim Sadjadpour, an Iran expert with the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. “People are risking their lives and being slaughtered in the streets because they want fundamental change in the way Iran is governed. Our message to them shouldn’t be that it doesn’t make much difference to the United States.”

John McCain was just as unimpressed.  “To say there’s not a bit of difference between the two candidates is beside the point,” he said. “The Iranian people, obviously, think there’s some difference, or tens or hundreds of thousands of them wouldn’t be in the streets.”

The Obama policy is clear; they feel that Ahmadinejad will ultimately win this fight, which is a reasonable presumption.  So, they want to make friends with him.  The second part is ludicrous.  I don’ t care how nice they are, it is not going to make the Iranian regime look at Obama anymore positively.  They don’t understand; the U.S. is a foil for the Iranian regime.  A White House staffer commented, “We can’t lose sight of the fact that they are enriching uranium every day,” he said. “They were a threat before the election. They are a threat today, and the clock keeps ticking.”  Right.  But for them, Barack Obama is not much different than George W. Bush.  Ultimately, the Iranians have a goal in mind:  to go nuclear.  Why would they stop that just beccause Mr. Obama would not speak out?

Why is the American political left so scared to speak truth to our enemies?  Natan Sharansky, a former political prisoner in the Soviet Union, explains the importance of Ronald Reagan during the Cold War for freedom activists behind the Iron Curtain:

When Ronald Reagan called the USSR an evil empire he was fiercely criticized by many in the West who saw him as a dangerous warmonger. But when we in the Gulag heard of Reagan’s statement, we were ecstatic. We knew that once there was no moral confusion between the two types of societies, once good and evil were kept separate, the Soviet Union’s days were numbered. Soon, the most fearsome totalitarian empire in human history collapsed without a shot being fired and the cause of peace and security was advanced. I have no doubt that moral clarity will have the same effect today and equally serve the cause of peace, stability and security around the world.

How about a comment like this, now, as protesters are being beaten and dying?  Is this too interventionist?

“We are excited to see what appears to be a robust debate taking place in Iran,” Obama told reporters when asked about the Iranian election during an event at the White House.  Whoever ends up winning the election in Iran, the fact there has been a robust debate hopefully will advance our ability to engage them in new ways.  The election is ultimately for the Iranians to decide.  We have, and always will, stand with the Iranian people.”

Think that is too extreme?

That was words excerpted from Obama himself, the day before the Iranian election ended. That was a stronger statement than anything he has made since.

Again, this is NOT about harsh criticism.  There is a difference between just blatantly speaking out against the Iran regime, which would be totally unhelpful at this point; versus giving a strong statement about America supporting the will of the Iranian people, whatever that may be.  Obama cannot make friends with the regime…he should understand that.  He can no more make friends with them than Reagan made friends with the Soviets.  They need to respect us, not like us.

If America won’t stand for freedom around the world, let me ask you:  Who will?