NEOAVATARA

I have heard numerous commentators state that Barack Obama deserves a lot of credit for giving his Cairo speech, which in turn caused people in Lebanon, and then Iran, to move toward the more western candidates.  Heck, this week the White House themselves gave Obama credit for the Iranian protests.  From the Washington Post:

Obama’s approach to Iran, including his assertion that the unrest there represents a debate among Iranians unrelated to the United States, is an acknowledgment that a U.S. president’s words have a limited ability to alter foreign events in real time and could do more harm than good. But privately Obama advisers are crediting his Cairo speech for inspiring the protesters, especially the young ones, who are now posing the most direct challenge to the republic’s Islamic authority in its 30-year history.

Right.  They don’t want to meddle…but are now stating that their Cairo speech meddled enough to create the largest protests in three decades…I don’t really understand the logic in that. Addditionally, they were even previously meddling. Just released were letters Obama sent to the Mullahs prior to the Cairo speech.  I guess it is o.k. to meddle, as long as people aren’t dying in the streets for freedom.

O.K.  Forget the politics.  Let us look at this factually and intellectually.

First, Lebanon is much easier to discount.  Voting in that country was going on as Obama was talking.  I am not sure I understand how Obama effected that .  Additionally, you had a ruling coalition (who was elected when George W. Bush supported them, mind you) that got re-elected.  And polls there showed them slightly ahead all along.  The economy is good, Beirut is booming, there is relative peace, the Syrians are gone…what isn’t there to like.  So commentators that say Obama was responsible for the re-election of a relatively popular government…that doesn’t make any sense.

Iran is a much more complex situation.

I think there is a valid case to be made that Obama had some significant influence in the Iran election; and maybe more than some, maybe quite a lot.

First, Mousavi and Ahmadinjead used ‘Change’ as their calling card.  Mousavi openly said he would like to negotiate with the West, especially the new American President.  Of course, Ahmadinejad, the voice of the regime, said otherwise.  Mousavi is far from a reform candidate that the U.S. would have picked; he has even been linked to the bombing of the Marine barracks in Beirut in 1983.  So, in a relative sense, Mousavi may be better than Ahmadinejad; but not by much.  So if this is the case, how much influence did Obama really have?  The influence he had, I would presume, was more toward the Mullahs than the general populace, which would mean that the Cairo speech had a negative effect for the U.S..

Second, Obama’s Cairo speech came at least 4 days before voting occurred.  Information travels much slower in other parts of the world than in the West, remember that.  In many of these places, the bulk of older people still get their news from newspapers (remember those paper things we used to buy on street corners).  For news to go through Lebanon is not realistic.  For it to go through Iran, however, is reasonable.

When the Mullahs decided, obviously, to rig the election, you wonder how much of a influence the Obama Cairo speech had.  Did they fear that a Mousavi victory would appear to be a victory for the United States.  Very probable.  I am sure, almost positive, it had some influence.

And when protesters took to the streets, I believe that a stronger statement would have had more resonance.

So I think Obama deserves some credit (sorry conservative buddies, but it is true).

But here is the dirty little secret:  so does George W. Bush and others.  Why?  Do you really believe that the Iranian regime would allow this level of protests if Iraq were still a threat on their border?  Of course not.  They would have crushed the protesters in the first few days, killed or imprisoned the leaders and moved on…that may still happen.  The removal of Saddam has given space to countries who felt threatened, and now can accept some level of dischord, because there is no real external threat.

The same can be argued, to some degree, in Lebanon.  Pushing Syria out was the key.  Israel and Hezbollah made things worse with their stupid war in 2006, surely, which also was a byproduct of Bush.  But that said, the reason democracy has a chance their is because Bush was able to get the international community to push Syria out.

That said, I still believe that in Iran, Obama deserves credit.  Yes, I wish he had spoken more forcefully, and still do.  He (finally) used the word ‘condemn‘ on Tuesday, 10 days after the revolt started.  That said, I do NOT want him to side with any side, other than generally supporting the Iranian people.  His press release on Saturday did that, but I would like to hear it from his own mouth.  At least, the word ‘condemn’ should come from his lips, don’t you think? (PLEASE NOTE:  Obama did use the word ‘condemn’ in his press conference today…)

An aside…it seems like the few days are the only ones of his presidency that he has been misssing on TV, by the way.

Finally, one last point.  I am willing to give Obama credit, but with that comes responsibility.  If the Iranian protesters win, Obama will deserve even more credit for providing a positive result in the Middle East.   If the protesters are crushed, however, Obama will deserve the same level of blame as the level of credit I am giving him now.  That is just rational.  Hopefully, I will be here in a week congratulating Mr. Obama, and not partially blaming him for a slaughter.

Michael Ramirez, IBD Editorial

UPDATE:  Doesn’t it seem like Mr. Obama is now meddling, considering that he basically supported Mousavi in his last few statements?  And how does the White House defend that hypocrisy?