by Mark Silva
While some Republicans criticize President Barack Obama for not standing up more forcefully for the opposition in Iran's disputed elections, the president insists that Iranians must settle their own fate - and inserting the United States into the debate will merely provide a "foil" for embattled Iranian leaders.
"This is not an issue of the United States or the West versus Iran,'' Obama said in an interview with CBS News' Harry Smith that aired on the Evening News tonight. "This is an issue of the Iranian people. The fact that they are on the streets under pretty severe duress, at great risk to themselves, is a sign that there's something in that society that wants to open up....
"And, you know, we respect Iran's sovereignty,'' the president said, "And we respect the fact that ultimately the Iranian people have to make these decisions. But I hope that the world understands that this is not something that has to do with the outside world. This has to do with what's happening in Iran. And, I think ultimately the Iranian people, will obtain justice. ''
In the interview conducted today - with more of it airing Monday morning on the CBS Early Show, and a softer side of it airing Sunday morning in a segment about Obama as "First Dad'' on Father's Day - Obama maintained that he does not want to hand Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad fodder for any argument that the U.S. is stirring foment inside Iran.
"First of all, let's understand that this notion that somehow these hundreds of thousands of people who are pouring into the streets in Iran are somehow responding to the West or the United States - that's an old distraction that I think has been trotted out periodically,'' Obama said. "And that's just not gonna fly.''
"What you're seeing in Iran are hundreds of thousands of people who believe their voices were not heard and who are peacefully protesting and - and seeking justice,'' the president said of the post-election protets in Iran. "And the world is watching. And we stand behind those who are seeking justice in a peaceful way.
"And, you know, already we've seen violence out there. I think I've said this throughout the week. I want to repeat it that we stand with those who would look to peaceful resolution of conflict, and we believe that the voices of people have to be heard, that that's a universal value that the American people stand for and this administration stands for...
"I'm very concerned based on some of the tenor and tone of the statements that have been made that the government of Iran recognize that the world is watching,'' Obama said. "And how they approach and deal with people who are, through peaceful means, trying to be heard will, I think, send a pretty clear signal to the international community about what Iran is - and is not. ''
Smith asked about critics here saying that Obama has not done enough, "that you haven't been forceful enough in your support for those people in the street...
"Ro which I say the last thing that I want to do is to have the United States be a foil for those forces inside Iran who would love nothing better than to make this an argument about the United States,'' the president said. "That's what they do. That's what we've already seen. We shouldn't be playing into that. There should be no distractions from the fact that the Iranian people are seeking to let their voices be heard.
"Now, what we can do is bear witness and say to the world that the, you know, incredible demonstrations that we've seen is a testimony to, I think what Dr. King called the the arc of the moral universe,'' Obama said. "It's long but it bends towards justice. ''
Comments
The warmongering right-wingers in the America are already comparing the Iranian unrest to Hungary, 1956, and calling on the United States to give its full support to the Green Wave. Nothing could be stupider. What they miss is that President Obama's outreach to Iran, including his Cairo speech---which got a word-by-word exegesis prepared for Khamenei and was widely viewed by many Iranians---is in part responsible for the sudden upsurge of support for Mousavi. And it happened not because President Obama called for military action in Iran, and not because Obama backed Mousavi, but precisely because he didn't.
Posted by: sit down & shut up, Repugs | June 19, 2009 11:35 PM
The Republican party has failed time and again. But, like the Islamic terrorists they continue along the same destructive path. From slavery to temperance, from women's rights to abortion, they have shown that their issues are repressive, to a group of people, and amoral. All along they are fighting for a morality they, themselves, can never meet (enter Ensign, Vitter, Craig...). When their leaders take their direction directly from a god, according to them, then it is bound to fail because humans are fallable.
The hearing from a "god" is a theme common among the christian right and also in mormonism. In mormonism their leader is the prophet. The prophet has a hot line to god. The christian right, does not espouse a prophet, because supposedly god talks to all of them equally. Some just "hear" better than others...
Posted by: bubba Porter | June 19, 2009 11:46 PM
This Mahmoud Ahmadinejad guy, who is claiming victory Iran. He is very unpopular. And the danger is this: he could ruin the political career of his brother, Jeb."
Posted by: Hey Joe | June 20, 2009 12:42 AM
One reason why Cantor and Pence and the rest of the Republican morons have been demanding that President Obama take a stronger public line in support of the protesters in Iran is that supporting Mousavi’s voters openly is the emotionally satisfying, easy, almost mindless thing to do, so it is very appealing for opposition figures (Republican) who have no ideas. But there is more to it than that. All of this comes back to the problem of Republican denial about why they lost power. They are supremely confident about their views on national security and foreign policy, and they cannot conceive that a majority of the country would reject them because of the policies they advocated and enacted. Worse still, they remain wedded to the hectoring, moralistic and aggressive approach of the last administration (BushCo), in which sanctions and condemnation are the only "soft" tools they understand. They are so wedded to this approach that they think this is not only the best kind of foreign policy, but that anything other than this is fecklessness and surrender. To a disturbingly great extent, replacing the current leadership in the Republican party may not have much of an effect on shoddy foreign policy thinking on the right, because the rot is so deep and widespread, but it is particularly important that Republicans in positions of responsibility at least attempt to play the role of credible, informed opposition, which may sometimes mean acknowledging that the President has handled an issue correctly.
Posted by: former Republican | June 20, 2009 1:27 AM
Obama is going to get blamed by Iran for meddling whether he actually does it or not. I agree with Obama that the opposition challenger in Iran is not much different with regard to relations with the US, but that is not the issue. The issue is not who won, but the lack of transparency in the election, the crack down on protesters, and in my view, the biggest aid to a tyrant, government control of information/media. I think someone with Obama's extraordinary oratory skills could make these points without appearing to take sides in the election. The US should absolutely not meddle in who the Iranians elect as their president, but should speak out about what I consider universal freedoms, such as freedom of speech, freedom to protest, and freedom of the press.
Posted by: Herbie H. | June 20, 2009 1:52 AM
Guess they are on their own (except for British and Brown is speaking out). Maybe is all for the better, to let the voice for democracy falter and be quashed and America not "meddle" in the world anymore. The bad guys of the world love this new "smart diplomacy" of not meddling, allowing them free will to do their thing. Wonder if they see this as a sign of weakness or just goodwill from Obama? Works for North Korea. Maybe he should apply this to the Israeli/Palestinian mess, lets not meddle anymore, let the Iranian backed terrorists do their thing. Israel, the only democracy in the Middle East, is tough enough to survive on her own. While we at it, lets get out of that Afghan quagmire that Bush started. Let them do there thing, these dudes who foster man made disasters. Whatever, Obama inherited these messes form Bush, so lets wipe our hands, apologize, and back-off, case closed, end of problems that Bush caused. Let them fight out among themselves, when the dust settles, Obama can take credit for not meddling and show the world what a innovative leader he is. Works for me.
Posted by: bubba Porter | June 20, 2009 4:26 AM
The power in Iran right now is in the streets, with the courageous demonstrators who are demonstrating that the regime has lost what legitimacy it ever commanded.
Here in America, contrary to the dreams of Republican/Neocon apes like Charles Krauthammer and Co., however, America does not have the ability to determine events in Iran. More important than what America does is what it does not do. Iran is too important to posture for cheap political points. Obama understands that. His Republican "critics", not surprisingly, don't.
Posted by: ComeAsYouAre | June 20, 2009 4:47 AM
We should keep in mind that Tehran, Iran, is Birmingham, Alabama. .........
http://thefiresidepost.com/2009/06/20/tehran-iran-is-not-birmingham-alabama/
Posted by: Ohg Rea Tone | June 20, 2009 12:35 PM
Yes indeed...how would the Iranian protesters ever guess America supports their idea of removing Imadinnerjacket unless Obama tells them.
Posted by: bill r. | June 20, 2009 1:03 PM
He's applying the "let's not meddle" motif to I and Pie. He said the two state solution can only be reached by the two parties involved. The US can only stand by to assist, or to respond to an attack on Israel.
.
I kind of like his foreign policy. I think it might be his strength. He's not making harsh overtures towards Iran; as long as the people are being allowed to peacefully protest. I think we all learned a valuable lesson from Iraq. You can drag a horse to water but you can't make him drink. Whether we take this opportunity to espouse (or grandstand) what the US stands for, whether we make good on our condemnation with actions (sanctions), or whether we use hard power to back our words-- when it comes to the self-determination of a people.... our action or inaction is only as good as what they themselves were capable of doing on their own accord.
.
I think, to put it simply, he's a pragmatic and cautious diplomat. Dubya was more simple and straight-laced; making good on this great country's values (we tell you what will and will not stand for)= speak for the protesters. As opposed to OB, making good on this country's values (we tell you what we will and will not stand for)= let the peaceful protest speak for itself; before you speak for the protesters. I don't think that either one is missing out on telling the world what we will and will not stand for. It's just a matter of different ways to do the same thing. Obama's road is considerably longer just because he's taking that extra step. If things escalate or become grim he will end up making a stand for the people of Iran.
.
Sometimes speaking up for universal freedoms is letting those freedoms speak for themselves--when it's possible. Otherwise, it's just double-timing, hence compounding, a good thing rendering the whole stand useless.
Posted by: well | June 20, 2009 5:33 PM