Less is More
By Amit Singh | Saturday, June 20th, 2009 | PolicyThe world is watching Iran during these delicate and important times. The White House is very wisely staying out of the rhetoric on the situation. Unfortunately, Republicans like John McCain are urging President Obama to get more involved in the election process in Iran. Inflammatory or antagonizing statements from the US Government is exactly what the Iranian Establishment wants to prove to their public that America once again is meddling in their affairs and the protests are a repeat of what we did to overthrow their last legitimately elected government with Mosedegh in 1953.
McCain stated “I’m disappointed, it is an American principle ever since our founding that we are dedicated to the principle that all are created equal and the fact is they have the right to free elections and to select their leadership”. Sadly, McCain does not understand the different between Non-Intervention and Isolationism and if he were President today would certainly get us involved in another entangling alliance we could not afford or manage.
So I say to my Republican friends, please let Iran solve Iran’s problems.
Tags:
Contribute for Conservatism!
Share this post
About the author
I'm left handed but right brained.
We're 75% there! Thank you to everyone who has so far contributed! Just $2000 to go!
Comments
14 Responses to "Less is More"
I would not rule out the possibility that at some point, American interests might be served by getting involved, but that time certainly is not now.
You’re 100% correct that it has been decades of colonial involvement followed by Cold War containment concerns that, in many ways, has brought us to this point.
It appears that Iranians have a popular movement that is being led by Iranians. We may want to just sit this one out…but only if it stays that way.
I think the American media should do all it can to report the facts on the ground the best way they can. but not sure under what circumstances and to what extent the US should get involved. if there was a regime change and the new government wanted assistance establishing a new constitution, etc, I could see that as involvement.
Just so I’m sure of what I’m reading, your recommendation is to sit back quietly and watch events unfold, regardless of their direction? And should the Iranian people rise up and overthrow the mullahs or if the Revolutionary Guard should start slaughtering these protesting crowds by the thousands, you’d like us to not utter a word one way or another?
I agree that it would not serve the democracy protesters well for us to be overtly involved.
What President Obama could do is to say that the United States will not negotiate with an illegitimate government. Obama could help these democracy protesters by pushing the pressure point that A-Jad is an illegitimate leader. Obama must walk a fine line and use international policy maneuvers, while simultaniously avoiding the perception that he is meddling in Iran’s internal affairs. That, in and of itself, is easier said than done.
Iranians must grab freedom for themselves. Unfortunately, sometimes the US only serves as an enabler. Are you really free if you didn’t do something to earn it? Its kinda like the eternally troubled and truly miserable “Trust Fund Baby” that never had to struggle for anything and never found the satisfaction of rewards gained from honest work. How many lives of US soldiers should have to be shed for something they won’t be responsible enough to claim for themselves? I say zero!
All the protesting In Iran is a good sign. Maybe they’re ready. Who are we to take away that growth. We don’t need “Big Brother Government” here and they don’t need our form of it there either. Point blank, they don’t need us to be free. If they did, they would only lose it later. Let’s not patronize them by pretending to be their saviors.
Our intervention should only come when our interests, to include global stability, come into question. Until then, sanctions and isolation is as far as we should go.
There’s no assurance that Mousavi is really “regime change” anyhow. This guy was the one who prosecuted the Iran-Iraq war back in the 1980s — not exactly a lightweight or a reformer of the Islamic Republic. As has been mentioned in other circles, there’s no sense is supporting revolution for its own sake.
OTOH, I’m not certain that a code of silence from the United States is the best policy.
I’m with Hoeft on this: I wouldn’t rule out American involvement (diplomatically) just yet. I would certainly agree that some pressure from the United States about keeping the flow of information alive should be critical.
I agree with Shaun’s point.
It does disturb me that some on both the right and left are placing so much hope in Mousavi. How do we know that he will suddenly agree to dismantle the current form of government? The hope here is that the Iranian people will surpass Mousavi himself, and achieve freedom for themselves.
the protests as I see it is less about being pro-Mousavi but rather anti-Establishment. no doubt Mousavi has his own set of baggage.
Ric James, if the Iranian govt started killing thousands of their citizens then of course the US govt, as every govt in the world including the UN, would state their concern and sadness, but I wouldn’t send in troops to prevent the killings. we are not the policeman of the world. if we were, we would do something about ethnic cleansing in Darfur, slave camps in North Korea and prostitution rings in Asia
Unfortunately John McCain represents everything wrong with our government. Elected “leaders” who have either no knowledge of history or complete disdain for it.
50 years ago the United States overthrew a democratically elected leader in Iran. The message is clear. You should only have democracy when you elect the leaders we like.
It’s not of our darn business. Follow the Constitution and stop legislating the morals of other countries. We are losing the freedom and democracy in our own country and all we can do is lament about the need for freedom in Iran. We would be well served to focus on our own loss of liberties.
Amit, I’m glad the French didn’t feel the same way about us around 200 years ago. I’m also not in agreement with you that prostitution rings in Asia are morally equivalent to police states that issue regular threats of annihilation against allies of ours.
I am also of the opinion that military intervention isn’t the correct course for now but your original post read more like you were advocating that we not only *do* nothing, but that we *say* nothing. I think it’s perfectly fine to make our position clear on the matter of sending in armed militias to fire upon people peaceably assembling for the purpose of petitioning their government for a redress of grievances. That’s something we value and there’s no shame in saying so. If you’re ok with that then I’ve misunderstood your stance.
actually the French did officially stay neutral in the American Revolution. the assistance received was largely voluntary (i.e. Lafayette) and/or covert.
as far as what we say, I think it is fine to express sorrow for the lives lost and the desire for a peaceful resolution but if we start lecturing Iran on how to resolve the crisis will only fuel the fire. overall saying less is better. the more we say, the more the Iranian establishment will justify their forceful actions as a response to American meddling
What history books are you reading? The French fleet that cut off Cornwallis’ egress from Yorktown wasn’t just a bunch of French volunteers. The forces under General Comte de Rochambeau were French soliders not farmers and they numbered more than 5000 troops. Hardly a “covert” force.
You want to argue in favor of American isolationism or try to suggest that if only Americans would sit down, shut up, and never lift a finger to help anyone who might share the same values as we do that all would be rosy and wonderful in the world, go ahead. But if you honestly believe this tripe you’re masquerading around as history then your education in this field is sorely lacking.
Enough of this. I’ve seen your arguments enough from enough people to know where you’re headed and I disagree strongly even as I agree that military action against Iran is, at this time, not called for. Good luck selling your story.
the French gave open moral support and behind the scenes logistical support in addition to the volunteers. they did this amid having an economy in shambles. the added expense of their American support was one of the contributing factors to the eventual French Revolution. so, our economy is in the crapper and while you are not advocating immediate military action you think it possible to perform a quick strike with no consequences?
and there is a huge difference between non-intervention and isolationism. another nuance McCain and others big govt champions are unable to grasp
While we should encourage the pro-democracy forces in our public statements. We should genrally stay out of this. It isn’t about US. If we make it about us, that won’t help the pro-democracy side. Internal strife and dissent in Iran, serves US interests, if you believe that the current Iranian government is our enemy. As we did when the Iron Curtain fell, we should watch and cheer from the sidelines. I’m certainly don’t think we should water the tree of Iranian liberty with American blood, as we did in Iraq.
Leave your response