by Michael Muskal
It is no secret that the situation in Iran represents a knotty problem for policymakers within the Obama administration. But pity the poor Republicans facing the same questions -- yet lacking the unity that comes from being in power.
The demonstrations in Iran have caught the Obama administration between wanting to uphold traditional Western, democratic values, (such as freedom of speech and elections free from scandal) and the realpolitik of having to negotiate with Iran over its nuclear plans.
The Obama administration has tried to maintain some distance, by saying it was deeply concerned by events, but it was up to Iranians to choose their own leader. President Obama has said the United States remains prepared for tough bargaining with Iran over the nuclear issues no matter who is president.
This approach has pitted two senior Republicans on opposite sides in the Iran debate.
Arizona Sen. John McCain said today that Obama is not taking a tough enough approach on the Iranian elections.
McCain, interviewed on NBC's Today show said the United States should support the Iranian people "in their struggle against an oppressive, repressive regime." He said that Iran "should not be subjected to four more years of (President Mahmoud) Ahmadinejad and the radical Muslim clerics."
Obama "should speak out that this is a corrupt, flawed, sham of an election and that the Iranian people have been deprived of their rights," McCain argued.
McCain represents one wing of the GOP on foreign affairs, a conservative group that has been faithful to supporters of popular attempts to unseat rulers in countries with which the United States has problems. In the recent presidential campaign, McCain was very quick off the mark to condemn Russia's military actions in Georgia, not pulling any punches:
"Russia should immediately and unconditionally cease its military operations and withdraw all forces from sovereign Georgian territory," McCain said then.
Obama was more temperate. He also condemned the Russian invasion, but was more deliberate -- critics said slower off the mark (partly because he was on vacation at the time.) "I think it is important at this point for all sides to show restraint and to stop this armed conflict," Obama said then.
That less forceful approach also has supporters among the GOP. (Perhaps because of the memory of the Hungarian uprising, publicly backed by the U.S. but crushed by Russian tanks).
Sen. Richard Lugar of Indiana, ranking Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said he thought it would be unwise for the United States to get any more involved with Iran. Interviewed on CBS's The Early Show, Lugar said a greater role by Washington could worsen the U.S. image in Iran. The clerics "are in charge. They are the government. The election is interesting, but not decisive."
The split among Republicans is just one interesting facet of the current Iran situation. Another type of war is being waged across the Web and Twitter as everyone struggles to get their message out.
Twitter, of couse, is increasingly becoming a tool in the newsperson's arsenal as well.
Here is a transcript of ABC's Jake Tapper interviewing McCain via Twitter:
TAPPER: @SenJohnMcCain what would u say were u president? how much of a concern wd it be that "the west" supporting protestors cd be demonized? Thx
MCCAIN: @jaketapper we heard that during the Cold War when the left didn't want us criticizing the Soviet Union b/c we could have been "demonized"
TAPPER: @SenJohnMcCain i had a feeling the memory of jailed russian dissidents hearing Reagan speak about them wd be something u were thinking about
MCCAIN: @jaketapper USA always stands for freedom and democracy!!
TAPPER: @SenJohnMcCain WH says it needs to focus on Iran's nuke program/support for terror, must deal w Iran we have not 1 we wish we had. response?TAPPER: @senjohnmccain to translate from twitterese: WH says "We have to deal with the Iran we HAVE, not the one we WISH we had"MCCAIN: @jaketapper that's revisiting the cold war arguments on how we dealt with the Soviet Union
MCCAIN: @jaketapper - we must stand strong for democracy in Iran as we stood for Democracy in Poland, Germany, and Czechoslovakia
TAPPER: @senjohnmccain So if President Obama called u and asked your advice what would u tell him?
MCCAIN: @jaketapper speak up for these young Iranians who deserve a free and fair election.
TAPPER: @senjohnmccain Possible that would hurt w/efforts to bring Iran to negotiating table re: eliminating nuke weapon program?
MCCAIN: @jaketapper again, same old argument by the left during the Cold War - we've seen this movie before.
TAPPER: @senjohnmccain so bottom line, u think a stronger rhetorical show of support from PresObama -- would that include a call for new election?
MCCAIN: @jaketapper Absolutely!! Funny, how history repeats itself...
TAPPER: @senjohnmccain Any prediction for what happens in Iran? Mousavi asked his followers to stand down from today demonstration,fearing violence.MCCAIN: @jaketapper no prediction, but if we are steadfast eventually the Iranian people will prevail. But this regime has tight control.
TAPPER: @senjohnmccain How do you think Ahmadinejad/Khamanei see the response from the WH so far?
TAPPER: @senjohnmccain FYI @Change_for_Iran bills self as Iranian student + sends this pic http://bit.ly/z5nNH "Ashora platoon" 5 killed by this man
MCCAIN: @jaketapper Iranian resistance tweets to help spread the message against violence and the corrupt election
TAPPER: @senjohnmccain What say u on North Korea? PrezObama meets w South Korean President today
MCCAIN: @jaketapper this is a half measure - those ships should be stopped and searched...if there is probable cause
Comments
Being out of power, the GOP has the political cover to make such statements. It is easy to dictate policy from an armchair but the international implications of a formal show of support for either side would be catastrophic. The admin. has handled this delicate situation the right way. As great as it would be for Obama to call for elections, a public statement would hurt not only U.S./Iran relations and the cause of all of protestors. For more on the U.S. position check this out: http://www.newsy.com/videos/same_old_same_old
Posted by: @robotsoul | June 16, 2009 12:38 PM
WTF? We have TWO WARS ALREADY . We can't jump in any other countries business right now. These cocky, crazy a $$ white men need to STFU ! McCain only wants war. Let President Obama do his job. He knows what he is doing.
Posted by: buggey | June 16, 2009 2:02 PM
So glad McCain lost. What a fool he is. The worst thing Obama could do for the protestors in Iran is to speak loudly in support for them. Such a statement would immediately be jumped upon by Ahmadinejad and his supporters as an excuse to further crack down on the protestors. It would provide him ready made rhetoric that the protestors were unpatriotic and under the influence of western agents. It would also probably dissuade some sitting on the fence in Iran from supporting the protestors if they were seen to be "tools of the west". McCain's plan would immediately recast this situation from an internal Iranian problem, into a US vs. Iran problem. While McCain is right that we must learn from history, he is taking all the wrong lessons. The example we should be looking at is how George H. W. Bush handled the fall 1989 protests in Eastern Europe. Bush handled those protests much as Obama is handling the Iran situation. He remained largely quiet, and was very careful not to be seen directly intervening in any way, since that would have played into the existing governments hands. He was smart enough NOT to make it a US vs. Warsaw pact confrontation. McCain appears to not be that smart.
Posted by: Lou | June 16, 2009 2:05 PM
The Neocon psychopaths, like John Bolton, are supporting Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's stolen election victory in Iran. They need him around as a boogie man to scare people into believing their warmongering theories and to keep the big dollars flowing into the whack-job Conservative "think tanks" that they scare people for, like A I E.
Posted by: bubba Porter | June 16, 2009 2:35 PM
Thank the Lord we listened to the Republicans and bombed the crap out of Iran, at the cost of many billions, while shedding more American blood and further decimating our standing in the Muslim world!
I mean, honestly, had we not heeded the sage consul of such mouth-breathing Conservative intellectual luminaries as Karl Rove and Rush Limbaugh and That Smirky Dude™ (y'know, the one who was President for the few minutes between the Clinton and Cheney administrations)....we would never have successfully traumatized a generation of Iranians (like we did their next door neighbor Iraq), because without doing so... without intimidating them with a well branded death march like "Shock And Awe II, Nucular Boogaloo"... we know it would be impossible for change to ever come to such a backward, insular region of the world, where the people have been so completely brainwashed by religion, that they're unable to stand-up for themselves and make their voices heard.
Seriously, I bow to President John "Beach Boys" McCain who has faithfully continued the War In Iran (and, before you say it, OF COURSE, I'm as disturbed as anyone about the awful but unavoidable photos of dead children and the rape scandal currently coming out of the detention camp in Tehran), because we now see that without such senseless loss of human life it'd not be possible for us to see images like THIS.....coming out of Iran.
.
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2200/2459163303_ef4a6c697a.jpg?v=0
Posted by: Republicans hate democracy | June 16, 2009 2:38 PM
In contrast to McCain’s position, earlier Republican presidents would have opted for the realpolitik approach. Richard Nixon’s foreign policy under Kissinger was nothing if it wasn’t realpolitik. If Nixon was as determined as McCain is to shun every nation that doesn’t live up to our vision of democracy and freedom (or what was left of it) would he have opened the doors to Mainland China or negotiated an end to American involvement in Vietnam? Probably not. Similarly, if Eisenhower had been as ideologically fossilized as McCain, would he have sought détente with the Russians? I don’t think so.
.
Realpolitik - i.e. to do what is practical to preserve a nation’s interests - doesn’t mean Americans must give up their ideals. Nor does it mean that one disagrees with those who wish to spread freedom throughout the world. It does mean, however, that one can disagree with some of the means proposed to carry out that vision if they aren’t practical. It means that one can disagree with the militant Wilsonianism of the neo-cons, to spread democracy and freedom by the sword (if that isn’t a contradiction).
.
As applied to the situation in Iran, it means that one can be interested in protecting freedom and democratic values without antagonizing those with whom we must eventually do business. Presidential elections in Iran don’t effectuate any real difference in either the policies or power structure of the country - like they do here. Regardless of who gets elected President, Iran is still run by the Ayatollahs. Even if McCain doesn’t know it, Obama has to know that Iran’s decision to end or postpone its nuclear program will ultimately be made, if at all, by the Ayatollahs. Thus, if we seek to deal with Iran in a practical manner, Obama will not spout off about their election. He may voice his concerns over the violence and loss of life (as he has), but to attack the integrity of the election process (as McCain advocates) would register there as so much hostility. The Ayatollahs view us as hostile already. We would then be simply promoting the view of us that helps them justify their nuclear program. Rather than being practical, it would be self defeating.
Posted by: John W. | June 16, 2009 3:14 PM
John McCain is always looking for a fight. To overtly accuse them of being corrupt is to declare that we will only focus on antagonizing them. By questioning the legitimacy of the government will give them an upper hand in negotiations
Yes, John McCain they are a corrupt regime. But unless you are prepared to open up a military front in Iran, it is best to use that fact as a bargaining chip and not as a club.
Posted by: Basso | June 16, 2009 3:32 PM
Good lord John W,
This is a message board/blog, it's not a place for you to write chapter long screeds all the time.
I'm worried about you, do you have a wife or any sort of home life to speak of?
Posted by: Vicky K | June 16, 2009 4:04 PM
* * * * *
Posted by: Vicky K | June 16, 2009 4:04 PM
.
Only John E. describes my writings as “chapter long screeds.” That’s because a comic book is the limit of John E’s ability to read. No one else comments on the length of my writing.
.
So now you call yourself Vicky, JohnEEEE-boy? Did you get a sex change to go along with all your other idiotic accomplishments? Or are you just being your normal, fraudulent self?
Posted by: John W. | June 16, 2009 4:32 PM
Notice that Ahmadinejad was supposed to stay in Iran instead of going to Russia? Guess where he went once all the trouble started...
Posted by: lochnessmonster | June 16, 2009 5:14 PM
Isn't it great that McCain finally decided to be outraged about something outside of Capitol Hill? In the aftermath of all of the recent rightwing political assassinations, McCain has remained silent. But a comedian makes a stupid joke and suddenly McCain is compelled to speak? Pffft.
Is he desperately missing the limelight or just a cranky old man? You make the call ...
Seriously, someone needs to pull Grandpa McCain aside and let him know that the campaign is over and he lost.
Posted by: Dave Rexmoore | June 16, 2009 5:18 PM
There are many reasons that McCain lost the election and one of them surely was his knack for immediately overreacting to a situation (suspending a campaign ring a bell?), not to mention the fact that everyone knows that there's nothing McCain would like more than to "bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran," so his .02 is overpriced.
Posted by: Hamburglar | June 16, 2009 6:24 PM
THE REPUBLICANS? LOL, why don't you write about the incompetent president we got that's blowing a slam dunk here?
And isn't this what George W Bush told you was going to happen in the Middle East?
Maybe that's why Barack Obama has so little apparent interest in finishing the job in Iran... no matter how much it benefits the US and free world.
Anyone who expected him to act in the interests of the United States -rather than for his own political security- hasn't taken a serious look at how Obama got this far in the first place.
http://reaganiterepublicanresistance.blogspot.com/
Posted by: Reaganite Republican Resistance | June 16, 2009 8:28 PM
Posted by: Reaganite Republican Resistance | June 16, 2009 8:28 PM
Would the "slam dunk" you speak of be for Obama to secretly sell arms to the Iranian government, like your hero Ronald Reagan?
Posted by: Reagan was an appeaser | June 17, 2009 6:39 AM
Reaganite Republican- Enlighten us about your superhero and his Beirut Lebanon episode where 241 U.S. Marines were blown to pieces. The next day he invaded Grenada. The next week he pulled all the Marines out of Beirut. Sending unarmed Marines into a combat zone is about Reagan's level of thinking. The most overrated President in U.S. history...a fraud and a failure, like yourself.
Posted by: Doug R. | June 17, 2009 9:04 AM