Fight Rages Over Proper U.S. Tone On Iran

Washington Post: Republican Critics Want Tougher Rhetoric From Obama Administration; Debate Over American's Role In The World

(Washingtonpost.com)  This story was written by Scott Wilson.

---

Iran's post-election tumult has exposed the sharply divergent ways in which the Obama administration and its Republican opponents view the nature of American power and the president's role in speaking to political dissent outside the borders of the United States.

The debate over how far Obama should go in encouraging the protesters who returned to the streets of Tehran amid clouds of tear gas Monday has emboldened Republicans, who see an opportunity to criticize his foreign policy as too timid. In recent days, GOP leaders have invoked the unambiguous Cold War rhetoric of Ronald Reagan as the model for the message Obama should be sending to the demonstrators, citing the inspiration it provided to millions of dissidents behind the Iron Curtain.

During a single weekend interview, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) invoked the 1956 Hungarian revolution, the Prague Spring, the Solidarity movement, and Reagan's 1982 "evil empire" speech on the Soviet Union to argue for more explicit U.S. criticism of the Iranian government, which the Obama administration has made clear it will engage in, no matter who ultimately emerges as president.

"A direct parallel is now being drawn between the fight for freedom from Islamist tyranny in Iran and across the Middle East and the fight decades earlier for freedom from Soviet tyranny," said Nile Gardiner, director of the Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom at the conservative Heritage Foundation.

"It's almost as if the president lacks confidence in the greatness of his own nation," he added. "He seems unwilling to aggressively project American global power, as if it were something to be ashamed of."

But Obama's shades-of-gray approach rejects comparison to an era when Communist bloc dissidents had virtually no access to the Western media and the world was more neatly divided between a pair of superpowers, not complicated by the set of ambitious regional powers such as Iran that the Obama administration is seeking to manage.

Since taking office, Obama has argued that reclaiming America's moral authority by ending torture and closing the prison at Guantanamo Bay provides essential diplomatic leverage to influence events in such strategic parts of the world as the Middle East and Central Asia. The speech he delivered to the Islamic world in Cairo eights days before the June 12 Iranian election sought to do that by providing what the president saw as an unvarnished accounting of U.S. policy in Iran, Iraq, and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

"We're trying to promote a foreign policy that advances our interests, not that makes us feel good about ourselves," said a senior administration official who, like others, declined to be identified, citing the sensitivity of the issue.

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.

One senior administration official with experience in the Middle East said, "There clearly is in the region a sense of new possibilities," adding that "I was struck in the aftermath of the president's speech that there was a connection. It was very sweeping in terms of its reach."

The adviser said that "there is something particularly authentic about those who are carrying out these demonstrations," citing the fact that some are carrying symbols of the 1979 Iranian revolution as they march for new elections, including photos of the country's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

"The more you keep this in Iranian terms, the better the chances of change," the adviser said.

The administration's only direct intervention in Iran's post-election unrest was to persuade Twitter to delay planned maintenance that would have taken down the social-networking service during the prime organizing hours of Iran's opposition.

"Iran is not a country behind an iron curtain, and there's a much wider range of information that permeates, a much greater interaction with the world, and a much different view of American history," said Suzanne Maloney, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution's Saban Center for Middle East Policy. "There's a certain inevitability to these Cold War analogies. But the president has been right on the money in asserting the need to keep us out of this debate."

Obama has condemned the violence as "unjust" and endorsed the "universal principle" of peaceful protest, an approach informed by a sense that America's troubled place in Iranian history would undermine the demonstrators by coloring their cause as a U.S. interest.

His Cairo speech sought to clear the air -- in Iran's case, by acknowledging the U.S. role in the 1953 coup that toppled the democratically elected prime minister, Mohammad Mossadegh. Translated into Farsi, the speech was delivered to Iranians in real time through a State Department-sponsored text-messaging service.

Obama's advisers say the outreach may have contributed to the defeat in Lebanese elections a few days later of a coalition led by Hezbollah, an Iranian-backed party, that had been predicted to win. In recent days, administration officials have pointed to the Iranian demonstrations as further evidence of Obama's possible influence in the region.

Asked Friday whether the administration believes Obama's outreach to Iran and the Muslim world is affecting events on the ground, press secretary Robert Gibbs said, "You're witnessing something that many people might not have presumed or imagined . . . just a few -- even a few weeks or a few days ago."

Obama's supporters on Capitol Hill have argued that the Iranian demonstrators, some of whom do not favor a change in the Islamic nature of the government, should have no doubt the administration supports their cause.

But Republicans clearly see Obama's approach to foreign policy as a potential weakness. On Sunday, Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) called Obama's response "timid and passive" on ABC's "This Week." He cited Reagan's 1987 speech at the Brandenburg Gate, where he called on Russia's Mikhail Gorbachev to "tear down this wall," in urging Obama to "speak truth to power."

In his appearance on CBS's "Face the Nation," McCain compared Twitter, Facebook and YouTube to the printing presses that the United States provided in the early 1980s to the Solidarity leaders in Gdansk, Poland, to help them spread their anti-Soviet message. He recalled his meeting with Natan Sharansky, the former Soviet dissident, who told him that Reagan's "evil empire speech" had "spread like wildfire throughout the gulag."

"We've seen this movie before," McCain said. "And I don't consider it meddling when you stand on the side of principles that made our nation the greatest nation in history."

[kansas1946]

"We've seen this movie before," McCain said. "And I don't consider it meddling when you stand on the side of principles that made our nation the greatest nation in history."

**************************
I find it really interesting that some forty odd years ago a group of black AMERICANS were brutalized on a bridge peacefully marching for democracy and I don't remember a lot of Republicans standing up for them. Obama has already said that the brutal oppression of Iran's citizens is abhorrent, but there is not much else he can do. I am sure the Republicans would just love to invade Iran and get another few thousand of our soldiers killed. Republicans have lost all credibility and act like a bunch of children scared of the boogey man.

[rafterman1]

Well...now that cries for freedom and democracy fell on deaf ears (no more "tear down this wall" events from America), I guess our liberal leader can now continue his diplomacy efforts with the Mullahs, Supreme Leaders, and "Axis of evil" around the world. Hopefully he has not offended any of these guys by what he said so far and can still cozy up to them. His experience with Bill Ayers and Rev. Wright should help in this case. WAKE UP AMERICA!
--------------------
by TryTakingMyMoney June 23, 2009 9:29 AM PDT


Conservatives - 230 years and they *still* haven't learned a thing from their mistakes.

[actornaught]

I like the part where the neo-conned posters STILL believe the mythic joke that ronnie had more than a peripheral effect on the fall of the Soviet Union.

"Tear down this wall" was just empty sloganeering correlating with a much later event.

Bush 41 was prez when the wall fell, why not pretend it was his doing instead?...

[fhunter]

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) invoked the 1956 Hungarian revolution to argue for more explicit U.S. criticism.
What did he invoke? That we got a lot of exhortations, went to the streets to fight, buried 35,000 of our friends. Meanwhile the exhortators were nowhere! McCain should learn the history before he tells his nonsense. Is he sponsored by Rush Limbaugh?

[government_control]

obama = weakness

obama = cowardice

obama = appeasement

obama = moral failure

obama = wrong side of history

[gravyboat3000]

What is a,"moral", superpower?

The President's comments thusfar, including today's, have been perfect.

The protests in Iran are IRANIAN. And any encouragement they recieve from ANY western power will just be turned against the protestors by the theocratical regime.

The protests must be seen as NOT having anything to do with the U.S. or Europe.

This isn't Berlin, and there is no,"wall", coming down, as such.

However, this movement among the Iranian people is a positive one, and I believe the world can help, just by continuing to offer proxy servers so these people can continue to communicate with the outside world.

Nothing more is needed from the American President, at this time.

[lloydbest1]

"In recent days, GOP leaders have invoked the unambiguous Cold War rhetoric of Ronald Reagan as the model for the message Obama should be sending to the demonstrators, citing the inspiration it provided to millions of dissidents behind the Iron Curtain."

What inspiration?? Communism fell in eastern Europe through it's own corruption and abysmal lack of transparency in governance. We had nothing to do with it. The Soviet empire fell because of blistering incompetence of its leaders, it's wretched infrastructure, it's lack of economic opportunity, its mismanagement of its resources and the blatant inequality in their distribution. It did NOT fall because we asked Gorby to "tear down this wall".

""He [Obama] seems unwilling to aggressively project American global power, as if it were something to be ashamed of." Said Nile Gardiner, director of the Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom...."

Given our invasion and occupation of Iraq over a blatant lie that the Bush administration KNEW was a lie from the start, our defening silence over real human rights abuses in Burma and the Sudan, our broken promises (ones we never should have made) to the Republic of Georgia and our lack of understanding of how self centered "leftists" as Chavez and Morales can gain such popularity in Latin America - to name just four....I think "shame" is not merely appropriate but obligatory. Obama's toughest foreign policy objective now is to make American "global power" someting that is meaningful and something to be proud of rather than reviled. The extreme right wing of the GOP, with its gratituitous sabre rattling posture is making that task very difficult.

"Obama has condemned the violence as "unjust" and endorsed the "universal principle" of peaceful protest, an approach informed by a sense that America's troubled place in Iranian history would undermine the demonstrators by coloring their cause as a U.S. interest."

U.S. interests can not be ignored when conducting foreign policy. Our stake in the Middle East can be better managed if we have an Iran we can actually talk to. We have no such relationship now, and it is high time we resumed one. By staying on the sidelines and making sure the world knows we are keeping a steely eye on things over there, we can offer support to the dissidents without formally taking sides.

[Charlieot2]

by onesword June 23, 2009 9:30 AM PDT
In my opinion no statements needed by the President Obama concerning Iranian's affair.

Onesword...based on your grammar, I am guessing that you are not a native-born American. Let me give you one American's view...
This is precisely the time for President Obama to make a statement.
While it might be unwise for him to declare that the US government believes the election to have been invalid, it would certainly be appropriate for him to aver that the protestors must be heard and that the right to peaceful protest must be respected.
Doing otherwise simply shows US policy to be at once expansionary *and* isolationist depending upon the whims of political fancy. If we are to maintain a role as a moral superpower, then we must act in a consistently moral fashion and decry unjust actions or policies even if doing so causes us short-term disadvantages.
We cannot afford to be isolationist on any matters, if it affects the concept of democracy, it affects us and we must react accordingly.

[onesword]

Repeat, We should not interfere in anyone's internal affair. By the way, I am a native-born American.

[maddog0802]

"It's almost as if the president lacks confidence in the greatness of his own nation," he added. "He seems unwilling to aggressively project American global power, as if it were something to be ashamed of." (Nile Gardiner)

Yes, President Obama is 'unwilling to aggressively project American global power'. Because he has a BRAIN, something you Mr. Gardiner, obviously lack. I take it your words mean we should now invade Iran, or give them arms, or some other lunatic rightwing thing? Unless you haven't noticed, we've 'projected' our power in Iraq and Afghanistan, to the tune of at least 1 trillion dollars and over 4,500 American lives. Result: alienating all US allies, horribly expensive occupation of countries that do not want us there, and stirring up even more hatred of the US in the middle east. Not to mention the hundreds of thousands of innocent non-combatants who were killed. Your idiot kind wants to 'spread Democracy and freedom'. But how much freedom do the 3 or 400,000 dead Iraqi civilians have? Not so much, I think.

[ubrew12]

"Republican Critics Want Tougher Rhetoric From Obama Administration; Debate Over American's Role In The World"

If he offered tougher rhetoric, they would complain that its just words, and words are cheap. They have no interest in his getting it 'right'.

Why should America be 'hands off' on Iran, while Europe feels free to criticize freely?
1. We overthru their democracy in '53, replaced it with a dictator, who killed 30,000 people and exhiled close to a million.
2. They finally got their country back in '79, imprisoned Americans for over a year, and installed a stringent theocracy.
3. We named them part of the Axis of Evil, said we would attack such countries without prior provocation, and proceeded to invade Iraq. If Iraq had gone as the neocons wished it would, we'd be involved in a war in Iran today.

Throughout ALL this anger and hatred, the Iranians remain one of the most civilized, most advanced peoples in the Middle East. One of its first genuine democracies (which we overthrew), and fully capable of independently mounting a resistance to the theocracy they've outgrown. Hands off is the right policy.

[onesword]

In my opinion no statements needed by the President Obama concerning Iranian's affair.

[TryTakingMyMoney]

Well...now that cries for freedom and democracy fell on deaf ears (no more "tear down this wall" events from America), I guess our liberal leader can now continue his diplomacy efforts with the Mullahs, Supreme Leaders, and "Axis of evil" around the world. Hopefully he has not offended any of these guys by what he said so far and can still cozy up to them. His experience with Bill Ayers and Rev. Wright should help in this case. WAKE UP AMERICA!

[creeper00]

Obama's just doing what he's always done...nothing.

[onesword]

That's a good thing.

[CLoverNYC1]

by docpeter1953 June 23, 2009 9:18 AM PDT
(1) Think for a minute.
(2) We are already in two wars, Iraq and Afg.
------------------------------------------

(1) One of us is thinking... hint... it's not you.

(2) The second 'endless war' is courtesy of President Obama.

We're the USA. We're involved in what's happening in Iran and we're driving the bus in this current world system, whether you like it or not.

President Obama has been talking out of both sides of his mouth since his campaign days. The problem seems to be his inability to actually take a side and stick to it.

It's not a matter of diplomacy. It's a matter of acting like the Commander-in-Chief, not the Teleprompter in chief.

[maddog0802]

oh give me a break, ye of the microscopic-brained far right. Please quit invoking your pitiful 'teleprompter' comments to assuage your guilt in following an imbecelic moron for 8 years, who could not even read from a teleprompter, let alone answer questions at a press conference, which is why Dumbya held fewer press conferences than any president in US History. You're right, we don't need diplomacy in the middle east... just nuke all of them, right? idiot.

[fedup12]

Im just glad that Obama looks at these things carefully thoughtfully and asks for and accepts advice from experts in these situations.

Unlike the cowboy from the previous administration who didn't listen to anybody cept maybe Cheney made quick and oft times bad decisions then stuck with them like a tick especially when they were found to be bad decisions.

[dubya_luvr]

The fact that Republicans are demanding a confrontational demonstrates they have learned nothing from their prior diplomatic failures.

Republicans and their non-diplomacy have given us a stronger Iran, a stronger North Korea, and an unstable Iraq. Why in the world would anyone listen to them now?

[actornaught]

The 'pubs refuse to properly deal the fact that they have been losing elections, and are just doing the best they can get that coveted 15% approval mark.

And then go lower...

[egghead48]

U know fedup12, I was sitting here trying to figure how to respond to this article and then I came across ur comment. These GOPs sound like some stubborn old white men that still don't get the point. Look at all the mess their hero got us into in Iraq, just because they cannot sit down and listen before they jump to conclusion. Nobody know the full detail about what happen, so we cannot make judgement without the fact. The GOPs have a rough road ahead trying to convince anyone to follow them.

[johndevinejr]

I think it is called KNEE JERK Diplomacy.

[johndevinejr]

During a single weekend interview, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) invoked the 1956 Hungarian revolution, the Prague Spring, the Solidarity movement, and Reagan's 1982 "evil empire" speech on the Soviet Union to argue for more explicit U.S. criticism of the Iranian government,.......

What should be evoked is the comments by George Bush Senior in 1991 when he encouraged the Iraqis to rise up, then refused to support them.
Sadaam Hussein killed 10,000 Iraqis to put down the revolt.

Lindsey Graham and John McCain are seeking to gain political advantage,(with their 17% base) the fact that following their advice will harm the protests is immaterial to them, political gain is all they are interested in. They have not had anything to say about what should be done if our comments cause more violence. They are the party of NO. Whatever decisions are made by President Obama they will oppose.

[docpeter1953]

President Obama wants to be viewed as a 'friend' of muslims everywhere as part of his Global New Order.

By cultivating the perception of evenhandedness toward the Iranian regime on one hand, and Israel its hated enemy on the other, President Obama will be liked and accepted - his primary goal in life.

President Obama smiles as the camera moves in for yet another meaningful closeup, while America's defenses are weakened and our enemies develop enhanced nuclear capabilities.

by CLoverNYC1 June 23, 2009 8:47 AM PDT
________________________________

Been reading McCain's book "Diplomacy for Idiots" I see.

Think for a minute, this is very important, think about the six Ps (Prior Planning Prevents Pis Poor Performance).

Even if Amaj were to lose the election and Mous wins, it is still the Iranian Islamic clerics that run and control the show. If the USA isn't prepared to go in and settle the entire mess then we should keep out.

Think for a minute. We are already in two wars, Iraq and Afg., we are monitoring NK and may have to fight there, Pakistan is likely to need additional help ridding themselves of Taliban, we are likely going to need to send military personnel to our Southern borders to ensure the Mexican drug cartels don't cross our border with their murders of citizens and police. Do we really need to have another war? Napoleon, Hitler, Mussolini would be so proud of you folks that want to start another war.

[Stevenapoli7]

Who wrote this article? Let's give Obama's Cairo speech credit for causing the sun to rise every morning.