Popdose: Political Culture: How Do You Solve a Problem Like Mahmoud A.?
DwDunphy
· 5 months ago
It's a smart move because I think Obama and his staff always knew it was gonna be Mahmoud. Think about it. He speaks the language the Supreme Leader likes. Mousavi was campaigning with his wife arm-in-arm, for heaven's sake. It was a thunderclap. It was, dare I say it, almost Clintonesque. It was also a whole lot more change than that regime could ever want coming to power and so, surprise surprise, it didn't.
The recount, such as it was, was the fox in the hen house being asked to find in favor of the chickens. It just wasn't ever going to happen. Anyone who thought it would was either drunk with the spirit of democracy or painfully naive. That's not to say it wasn't important because it certainly was. I suspect that had this election been recounted on the up and up (provided the ballots weren't magically whisked away to happy hunting ground) it would have been a Mousavi landslide. I know Iranians here in New Jersey and they were absolutely positive that their home community was ringing the bell for him alone. But now they have a taste of the real flavor going on, that their "elections" have truly been a dog & pony show staged by clerics to ameliorate the masses, and whatever is going to happen now is in their hands.
Obama shooting the verbal moose does nothing in either case. If things go well on the ground in Tehran, the people have already set their sights on better foreign relations. It is, in fact, a driving goal for them. If, on the other hand, Ahmedinejad goes all Kent State on the protesters while Obama stirs them to action, he can now turn the tables and say that the influence of The Great Satan was the real agent of bloodshed.
You're dead on target. Loose lips sink ships.
Arend_Anton
· 5 months ago
People need to remember that Mousavi isn't exactly the cure-all for American-Iranian diplomacy. But then again, he's not Ahmadinejad.
StandingDamaged
· 5 months ago
Amazing - a country where 90% of the people speak AND (if they read) read in Farsi, yet somehow when we see signs in the protests, the ones that make the images are in English,,,,,, Pre election polls had Mousavi at 13 % or so tops, so once again I suspect 1953, but then neing Shawnee and familiar with American government from a different view maybe I am biased. And then lets move on to their supposed 'nukular ambitions' - oh yeah - signatorys of the NonProliferation Treaty ALLOWING inspectors in etc. their centriffuges can, at BEST, enrich to fuel rod levels NOT weapons grade. But hey, let those AIPAC words roll right on, I'm used to it. Speaking of AIPAC why no screams from the crowd about the ONE REAL nuke power in the mideast? You know, the one that is NOT an NPT signatory and REFUSES to be inspected? ooops And while we're at it, why didn't we see this level of outrage during Operation Cast Lead? Or about the war crime of blockading Gaza at all? hypocricy - makes me wonder who owns and manipulates American media - oh wait ... And when did transparency become - use states secrets to continue to cover up the illegal wiretaps, or refuse access to White House visitors logs? oh well Won't Be Fooled Again SD
Alex
· 5 months ago
"When Kurds and Shi’ites attempted to do just that in the war’s aftermath, Saddam’s troops brutally slaughtered them by the tens of thousands … while Bush sat by and watched, having no intention of committing American forces to their rescue."
And if he had intervened, the left would have criticized him for jumping into a situation that he had no busines of being involved with.
"But, surprise surprise, it’s not nearly good enough for conservative hawks, who lately seem overcome with echoes of “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!” as though it’s the bravest and most erudite phrase ever uttered."
Maybe not the bravest thing ever said, but, isn't that what eventually happened, in no small part from the policies of Ronald Reagan?
jefito
· 5 months ago
Reagan had something to do with it, but for the most part, the USSR simply rotted from the inside out. Corruption, resources spread too thin, crumbling infrastructure, that sort of thing. I fear we're going to get a more personal perspective of how that works before too long.
DwDunphy
· 5 months ago
I'd say Reagan had less an effect on Communism than the sucking financial chest wound that was the Soviet-Afghanistan War.
JonCummings
· 5 months ago
Bush's 41's mistake wasn't in declining to invade Iraq--events of the last six years have borne out the wisdom of his decision--but in so clearly encouraging rebellion at a moment when Saddam's pride was hurt and his opposition expected our quarter-million troops to have their back.
I will give Reagan credit for this: His escalation of the arms race was a huge gamble, but it succeeded in bankrupting the Soviets when piled atop the expense of their Afghan occupation. (Never mind that it nearly bankrupted us as well...a situation that Bush 41 would pay for when he had to raise taxes.) By the time Reagan spoke in Berlin in June '87, Gorbachev was already well on the way to opening up Soviet society, and the fractures in the Soviet economy were already apparent. It was a stirring speech, of course -- but it's one that would have been laughed at had Reagan made it in the early years of his tenure, before the Soviets' misadventure in Afghanistan had driven the government toward ruin.
It's striking how different that situation was from Obama's. Reagan addressed a Soviet leader who had already done much we were happy with, and encouraged him to do more; just this morning, Khamenei made it clear that no such unclenching of the totalitarian fist is likely in Iran--and, despite Obama's relative silence, blamed American meddling for the protests anyway. Obama's path forward from this moment is a lot trickier than Reagan's was then.
Ted
· 5 months ago
The signs of the Soviet collapse -- mostly due to the internal inefficiencies of their economy, it's profligate military spending, and the general dreariness of the socialist reality -- were predicted in the '70s. The Soviet hardliners (also known as conservatives) were driven by that one thing all ideologies have in common: the need to gain and maintain power. Attempts to redirect the priorities of the party either to improving the quality of life for the people of the USSR, or take less of an iron fist approach to foreign policy were thwarted by the powers that be so the "good times" for the few could continue.
Iran is no Soviet Union, but Obama is playing this one the way it should be played. There are consequences to words and actions, and, as you highlight here, when modern presidents are more inflammatory in their rhetoric toward governments they don't like, the consequences of their tone creates repercussions that are often opposed to what they say they desire.
All Comments
The recount, such as it was, was the fox in the hen house being asked to find in favor of the chickens. It just wasn't ever going to happen. Anyone who thought it would was either drunk with the spirit of democracy or painfully naive. That's not to say it wasn't important because it certainly was. I suspect that had this election been recounted on the up and up (provided the ballots weren't magically whisked away to happy hunting ground) it would have been a Mousavi landslide. I know Iranians here in New Jersey and they were absolutely positive that their home community was ringing the bell for him alone. But now they have a taste of the real flavor going on, that their "elections" have truly been a dog & pony show staged by clerics to ameliorate the masses, and whatever is going to happen now is in their hands.
Obama shooting the verbal moose does nothing in either case. If things go well on the ground in Tehran, the people have already set their sights on better foreign relations. It is, in fact, a driving goal for them. If, on the other hand, Ahmedinejad goes all Kent State on the protesters while Obama stirs them to action, he can now turn the tables and say that the influence of The Great Satan was the real agent of bloodshed.
You're dead on target. Loose lips sink ships.
Pre election polls had Mousavi at 13 % or so tops, so once again I suspect 1953, but then neing Shawnee and familiar with American government from a different view maybe I am biased.
And then lets move on to their supposed 'nukular ambitions' - oh yeah - signatorys of the NonProliferation Treaty ALLOWING inspectors in etc. their centriffuges can, at BEST, enrich to fuel rod levels NOT weapons grade. But hey, let those AIPAC words roll right on, I'm used to it.
Speaking of AIPAC why no screams from the crowd about the ONE REAL nuke power in the mideast? You know, the one that is NOT an NPT signatory and REFUSES to be inspected? ooops
And while we're at it, why didn't we see this level of outrage during Operation Cast Lead? Or about the war crime of blockading Gaza at all? hypocricy - makes me wonder who owns and manipulates American media - oh wait ...
And when did transparency become - use states secrets to continue to cover up the illegal wiretaps, or refuse access to White House visitors logs?
oh well
Won't Be Fooled Again
SD
And if he had intervened, the left would have criticized him for jumping into a situation that he had no busines of being involved with.
"But, surprise surprise, it’s not nearly good enough for conservative hawks, who lately seem overcome with echoes of “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!” as though it’s the bravest and most erudite phrase ever uttered."
Maybe not the bravest thing ever said, but, isn't that what eventually happened, in no small part from the policies of Ronald Reagan?
I will give Reagan credit for this: His escalation of the arms race was a huge gamble, but it succeeded in bankrupting the Soviets when piled atop the expense of their Afghan occupation. (Never mind that it nearly bankrupted us as well...a situation that Bush 41 would pay for when he had to raise taxes.) By the time Reagan spoke in Berlin in June '87, Gorbachev was already well on the way to opening up Soviet society, and the fractures in the Soviet economy were already apparent. It was a stirring speech, of course -- but it's one that would have been laughed at had Reagan made it in the early years of his tenure, before the Soviets' misadventure in Afghanistan had driven the government toward ruin.
It's striking how different that situation was from Obama's. Reagan addressed a Soviet leader who had already done much we were happy with, and encouraged him to do more; just this morning, Khamenei made it clear that no such unclenching of the totalitarian fist is likely in Iran--and, despite Obama's relative silence, blamed American meddling for the protests anyway. Obama's path forward from this moment is a lot trickier than Reagan's was then.
Iran is no Soviet Union, but Obama is playing this one the way it should be played. There are consequences to words and actions, and, as you highlight here, when modern presidents are more inflammatory in their rhetoric toward governments they don't like, the consequences of their tone creates repercussions that are often opposed to what they say they desire.