Barack Obama’s Robust Debate Taking Place in Iran


By: Jim Byrd

I think there was one serious mistake made by the Reagan administration, and that was the idea that you could deal and temporize with and negotiate successfully with terrorists who were running Iran. And that was a mistake, as President Reagan was courageous enough to admit and agree to later on. He was misled by some very wrong advice and it had very terrible consequences in the [Beirut] Airport. —Caspar Weinberger

Two of the most ludicrous and perplexing statements regarding the Iranian elections came, poignantly, from Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. Unfortunately, they occupy the top two positions within the hierarchy of American foreign policy.

Ludicrous and perplexing statement number one from Obama: “We are excited to see what appears to be a robust debate taking place in Iran. 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.”

Ludicrous and perplexing statement number two from Clinton: “It’s a very positive sign that the people of Iran want their voices and their votes to be heard and counted. And like many people inside and outside of Iran we are going to wait and see what the results are.”

Their statements are alarming, considering the naivety of their unsophisticated expectations of the probable outcome of the Iranian elections. A senior State Department official even had the callowed audacity to state that there might be the possibility of a run-off in the Iranian election. No one, and I emphasize, no one possessing a modicum of knowledge regarding Iran, its history, and this regime, other than our elected and appointed leaders, expected anything different than the result this election produced. The one variable that was not foreseen before these fraudulent election results were announced, was the overwhelming breadth of the protest and public dissent by the opposition to the current regime; but the retaliatory violence by Ahmadinejad and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, very predictable.

Barack Obama, America’s first celebrity president, is reacting in the same fashion as he did during the majority of his short tenure in the senate, by voting “present” on the situation in Iran. Perhaps Obama is in a state of bewilderment since he has declared that he tried to send a clear message to the Islamic world during his speech to the Islamic world in Cairo that his administration sees a possibility for a change in relations. That message, that dynamic dialogue, should have prevented the Iranian election fraud and ensuing bloody aftermath, and thus, bestowed more glorious adulations onto Obama; but reality interfered with that fantasy, again.

Obama may have wagered on a perverse form of a trifecta: Could he actually believe the hype circulating in the leftist media that his Cairo speech influenced the victory of a pro-Western majority in the Lebanese election? Did he honestly believe there would be a Democratic election in Iran that would run as smoothly as an election in the U.S. under ACORN’s supervision? And finally, did he believe there would be robust and honest dialogue with the winner of the Iranian election about their vexatious nuclear aspirations?

Unfortunately, Obama’s Cairo speech, after digestion, was a vacuous fantasy filled with dishonesty and aspersions of America, with very little reality-based substance. There has been somewhat of a positive transformation in the Middle East, especially in Iraq, with Libya removed from the terror list; the Democratic advancements in Iraq; the pro-Western election winners in Lebanon; and especially, sans electoral thievery, the probable victory of moderate, Mir Hossein Mousavi, in Iran over Ahmadinejad. But this process was started while Obama, when not campaigning for president, was occupying a Senate seat in Illinois, railing against the Iraq war; and these positives can be attributed not to the current administration, but to U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East during the Bush administration.

While the streets of Iran are covered by the blood of people hoping for change, Obama’s hope of taking credit for the wonderful outcome of a Democratic election, made possible by robust dialogue, was derailed by the bloody crackdown conducted by a murderous regime he refuses to completely denounce, and with which he will, without pre-conditions, have future dialogue.

It has become unbearable to listen to the sycophantic left of this country, especially the media, after the Cairo speech, who are so fanatical about Obama succeeding at all costs, that they truly believe that this man, this mountebank, can stand in front of a teleprompter in Cairo regurgitating lies, deceit, unintelligible history, and make fantastic claims, that his speech, his words, are going to restructure the 1,500-year precarious relationship between the Middle East and the rest of the world, forever altering the politics of the Middle East.

Obama’s Middle East trespass is threefold: an absurdly adolescent understanding of the world we occupy; believing that Iran has a legitimate right to nuclear energy; and not having the political, nor personal courage to make a definitive stand against the current regime in Iran. Obama is not being asked to charge into Iran with the cavalry, but there is a distinct line between right and wrong, and unfortunately, as a leader, when that choice presents itself, a decision has to be made as to which side one is on, and doing nothing is choosing sides–the wrong side. Obama’s naive and anemic calls for Iran to pursue a “peaceful path” to the election resolution and making clear that it is “not too late” for Iran to do so, is, quite frankly, morally repulsive. The damage is done; it was done immediately after the election results. Bolstered by Iran’s refusal to stop their nuclear proliferation, the blatant support of terrorist organizations, and now this barbarity with the elections, there is no excuse not to banish Iran to the status of Somalia: a government devoid of international recognition. As opposed to Obama, and with clear and decisive moral authority–a character trait Obama has demonstrated time and again he does not possess–Germany’s Merkel has unequivocally and officially sided with the protesters in Iran, along with France’s Sarkozy.

Yes, Obama, there will be change in Iran; there will be change the day they consummate their quest for nuclear weapons, then there will be change, indeed.

About The Author Jim Byrd:
Jim Byrd's website is A Skewed View.
Website:http://www.jimbyrd.com

No Comments

No comments yet.

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.