Skip to main content

I've never been a big fan of Hillary Clinton's Foreign Policy. I thought she was a war-monger during the campaign just a couple clicks toward sanity compared to McCain and his "Bomb, bomb, bomb, Iran." I wish that Obama would have found a position for her on the domestic policy side of the cabinet. She is at State to stay, however, and in the wake of the most significant protests in Iran since December of 2009, the US should just keep quiet.

Ever since the election fiasco of June 2009, the current government has been saying that protesters are directed by foreign agents etc. There is a history there (1953) that does not exist for Tunisia or Egypt. The language that Secretary Clinton is now using only reinforces this view, and I'm sure that Iranian opposition leadership do not like it. She's not helping. On some days--I think that's the intent.

“What we see happening in Iran today is a testament to the courage of the Iranian people and an indictment of the hypocrisy of the Iranian regime, a regime which over the last three weeks has constantly hailed what went on in Egypt..” Secretary Clinton

There is some truth to this. The current wave of unrest has riled the discontent that was successfully bottled by the Iranian Regime in 2010. However, even if this is true, the US and its' representatives are the last people who should be making a point of it. First there was our decades long support for the Shah, a petty dictator and torturer. Then, when the Shah fell, we doubled our Embassy staff in 1979 and tried to establish as many connections as possible with the new moderate Bazargan-led government. In the 80s we supported Saddam's invasion with weapons and satellite photos of Iranian troop positions. More recently, Bush brazenly and publicly advertised $400 Million in expenditure for "Regime Change" in Iran. That money was spent somewhere--most likely it found it's way to MEK lunatics and Jundallah--the Baluch separatist group that has successfully terror bombed inside Iran on numerous occasions in the last few years. Do you have any idea the domestic political gold that was for the ruling clique? They have been using it to this day to brand any dissent as purchased by America. If the US really wants to help the Green Movement we should not say anything about what is going on there right now.

Will these protests lead anywhere? At this point, I doubt it. The largest protests by far and the most widespread throughout the country were after the 2009 election mess. The Ashura protests of December 2009 were larger than this recent outburst as well. Iran is not Egypt. The current authoritarian regime is not US backed--it is home grown. It is not really a dictatorship. Power flows from numerous, and in many cases, unseen sources and institutions like the Revolutionary Guard and the ancillary Basiji. These groups involve millions of people. In a worst-case scenario the Ahmadinejad/Khamenei coalition still has substantial support. I do not want to re-hash the election debate, but this coalition garners the support of at least a third of the country. It is likely larger, because the Islamic Republic has done a great deal to provide education and higher living standards for all. The successive regimes, Khatami excepted, have done a great job of playing the poor against the middle to maintain support. They have combined this economic populism with an intense regional nationalism to maintain their hold on power. It has worked, and bellicose US rhetoric, lecturing and actions have only helped them continue to pose as defenders of Iranian independence.

If we really want to see change in Iran, we need to significantly alter our approach.

Update: I wrote this mostly last night. I finished it early this morning. I see now that Obama is saying the same things, and things are also getting worse in Iran. A contingent within Iran's Parliament--the Majlis has called for the arrest, trial and execution of the opposition leaders Mousavi, Karroubi and Khatami. There is no way to know how this particular chapter is going to turn out, but serious repression looks to be in the works. Since 2009, the ruling clique in Iran has grown less tolerant of dissent, and they managed to keep a lid on things for pretty much all of 2010. If the administration really wants to help, they might try getting Turkey involved--a neighbor to which the current regime might actually pay heed. I don't think that further public statements of condemnation from the US will help much here. It is impossible to predict how this might turn out, but a great deal of force still remains in the hands of the government. This could go on for some time.

Originally posted to FrankCornish on Tue Feb 15, 2011 at 02:50 AM PST.

Also republished by Community Spotlight.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Agreed (4+ / 0-)

    if we participate in this, it needs to be with a fairly extreme amount of caution and very much behind the scenes.

    "Goodnight world. Goodnight wife. I love you both. In, you know, different ways." --Neil Gaiman

    juliewaters.com

    by Julie Waters on Tue Feb 15, 2011 at 03:03:47 AM PST

  •  Loose Lips Sink Ships (21+ / 0-)

    Yesterday we learned that Obama was very angry with comments Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton made about Egypt that were contrary to his policy decisions.  Apparently, from what we read, he put the clamp on and told them to cease and desist.  I hope what I read was true, and that his administrators will be more reflective of the President's policies in the future, which includes, keep your mouth shut about Iran.  

    Iran isn't looking good as it is now being reported that the people are being fired upon.  This will not be a 'soft revolution' I fear.

  •  If we wanted to signal support (12+ / 0-)

    for reform in Iran, we would make a public announcement supporting the opening of the Egypt/Gaza border for the movement of people and goods, but restricting arms.

    I fear we are doing the opposite, applying quiet pressure to keep the Rafah crossing closed.  

    Those who hear not the music-think the dancers mad

    by Eiron on Tue Feb 15, 2011 at 03:34:46 AM PST

  •  It's always a good time for Hillary to remain (9+ / 0-)

    silent...

    she's worthless, and so is Obama's foreign policy which she is in charge of.

    EPIC FAIL, the Obama WH and the State Dept.

    "History is a tragedy, not a melodrama." - I.F.Stone

    by bigchin on Tue Feb 15, 2011 at 04:07:48 AM PST

    •  I don't know if I would view it that (10+ / 0-)

      extremely. I think Obama has found himself more at odds with State both in Egypt and here. I think his penchant is to re-establish the US a country that tries not to intervene and instead supports national self-determination. I think if Secretary Clinton's course is maintained there will be a rift.

      You may find yourself in a beautiful house, with a beautiful wife, and you may ask yourself, "How did I get here?"

      by FrankCornish on Tue Feb 15, 2011 at 04:20:00 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  He's the boss. As such I truly (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        suejazz, FrankCornish

        don't get why so many here are so comfortable giving him  a pass on everything done by his administration that would be thoroughly, appropriately, and roundly condemned if done when GWB was in the WH.

        •  You are right, (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Marie

          and I'm watching.

          I'm not terribly thrilled with the position regarding Iran for some time.

          I just have a gut feeling that Sec. Clinton has a tendency to act a bit rogue--speak and do first and ask permission later.

          You may find yourself in a beautiful house, with a beautiful wife, and you may ask yourself, "How did I get here?"

          by FrankCornish on Tue Feb 15, 2011 at 12:20:22 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Not rogue so much as (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            FrankCornish

            tone-deaf, literally and figuratively.  In response to a question that pointed out here failure to condemn the much higher death and injury body count to protesters in Egypt compared with Iran, she sort of said, "that's ridiculous."  Then proceeded to speak of how much Egyptian protesters have accomplished while Iranian protesters haven't accomplished anything.

            Also must keep in mind that Hillary and Biden are generally tasked with playing bad cop to Obama's good cop on big issues.

  •  I was wondering if she made that (4+ / 0-)

    pretty over-the-top statement due to criticism of her previous comments and the tension between Obama and the State Department during the Egypt protests.

    movin' to DK4 soon, gonna be a dental floss tycoon ...

    by alliedoc on Tue Feb 15, 2011 at 04:12:34 AM PST

  •  it was not just Hillary, Biden (11+ / 0-)

    was also shooting from the lips, in an animated speech he was seen talking intently to his prompter says "let your people GO"..for a moment he was channeling Moses.

  •  The way to Regime change in Iran is (5+ / 0-)

    through Qum and the religious hierarchy......not by hip 20 something with twitter counts. There are true believers in Iran who will safeguard the revolution. What you need a counter revolution with a Mullah figure leading it.

  •  Maybe add to your title the following: (6+ / 0-)

    Or, Things that Go Bump in the Night

    Actually Hillary does a great job of making it deafeningly obvious what the real US Foreign Policy interests are. She'll do just fine, making herself come across as ridiculous.

  •  Pres Obama and Clinton were (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mrblifil, Mother Shipper

    criticized in 2009 for not speaking out in sooner in support  for the people demonstrating in the streets of Iran. Now after Egypt overthow of Mubarak and other street protests throughout the mideast, how can they not speak up for Iran protesters?  Down with the Iranian mullahs!

  •  Frank (9+ / 0-)

    good to see you post on this subject.
    I believe the diaries you write covering Iran are excellent.

    Plastic ocean: The Great Pacific Garbage Patch

    by eeff on Tue Feb 15, 2011 at 05:46:28 AM PST

    •  I have not been writing much lately... (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      eeff, mrkvica, Terra Mystica, Joieau

      too much S going on, on all fronts.

      I've been meaning to scratch off a few things--but I just can't find the time to dot all the i's and cross all the t's.

      Hopefully, Spring will be better. Thanks for your support and encouraging words.

      You may find yourself in a beautiful house, with a beautiful wife, and you may ask yourself, "How did I get here?"

      by FrankCornish on Tue Feb 15, 2011 at 05:56:09 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  One Reason to Clam Up On Iran: (9+ / 0-)

    because the entire mess there is totally the fault of the United States.

    Mohammad Mosaddegh or Mosaddeq (Persian: محمد مصدّق, IPA: [mohæmˈmæd(-e) mosædˈdeɣ]  ( listen)*), also Mossadegh, Mossadeq, Mosadeck, or Musaddiq (19 May 1882 – 5 March 1967), was the democratically elected[1][2][3] Prime Minister of Iran from 1951 to 1953 when he was overthrown in a coup d'état backed by the United States Central Intelligence Agency.

    Again, folks, we've a long history of the wrong sort of meddling in the middle east.

    and BTW, we still are. didn't I just read the state department started a Twitter feed in Farsi?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/...

    "I don't feel the change yet". Velma Hart

    by Superpole on Tue Feb 15, 2011 at 06:00:46 AM PST

  •  Bush "pro-democracy" funding for the ME... (7+ / 0-)

    I wonder if this:

    More recently, Bush brazenly and publicly advertised $400 Million in expenditure for "Regime Change" in Iran. That money was spent somewhere--most likely it found it's way to MEK lunatics and Jundallah--the Baluch separatist group that has successfully terror bombed inside Iran on numerous occasions in the last few years.

    is the "pro-democracy" funding that the Rs are trying to beat Obama over the head with for cutting.  

    My suspicion, and that's all it is, is that Bush's "pro-democracy" funding for Egypt was channeled through Omar Suleiman for suppression of dissent ("stability"), as opposed to actual institution building.  

    I think Rs view the path to democracy very differently than the ideal Dem.

    "Dega dega dega dega. Break up the concrete..." The Pretenders

    by Terra Mystica on Tue Feb 15, 2011 at 07:04:26 AM PST

  •  I'm glad she pointed it out (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mrblifil, Mother Shipper, Loge, sweatyb

    The Iranian regime are religious thugs.  

    Like it or not, the USA has to speak up.

    The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only legitimate object of good government. - Thomas Jefferson

    by ctexrep on Tue Feb 15, 2011 at 07:22:26 AM PST

    •  Her comment is no more original or (9+ / 0-)

      revealing than saying that, "The sky is blue."

      Further, for reasons I already pointed out--it serves no useful purpose--unless your purpose is to keep the current rulers in power.

      They are far less "religious thugs" than they used to be. Actually, I would posit that many in the Revolutionary Guard leadership are hardly religious at all. Khamenei and the hard liners Jannati and Yazdi may be accurately described as religious thugs, but the most effective criticism against the government over the last 20 years has come from religious leaders.

      You may find yourself in a beautiful house, with a beautiful wife, and you may ask yourself, "How did I get here?"

      by FrankCornish on Tue Feb 15, 2011 at 08:11:55 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  What about Saudi Arabia? (0+ / 0-)

      Do you not see how it badly it reads to malign the religious thugs of Iran but ignore those of Saudi Arabia?  

      If you're advocating that we speak against ALL atrocity ALL the time, then I would agree with you.  I actually would fully support a policy like that.  But if we're going to pick and choose, then we need to think carefully about what we say.  

      ctexrep, I think we're all on the same side here in wanting to support the Greens.  The question is, how do we help them best?  Who knows, maybe you're right.  I just have a hard time seeing that at the moment since the regime gets so much traction from using us as the bogey man.

  •  This is unpersuasive. (6+ / 0-)

    Clinton’s comment is hardly the first to highlight Iranian government hypocrisy re the Egyptian protests,  even from within Iran.  It also seems curious you would object to the U.S. speaking out because of a 53 year old policy decision with which the current U.S. administration has zero connection – indeed which they would never execute themselves, as the Iranians well know. I also don’t see how your appellation of the Shah as “a petty dictator and torturer’ doesn’t apply equally to the current Iranian regime, and should not be the subject of legitimate protests. One also notes the Iranians are not adverse to supporting and funding those seeking violent regime change in Palestine.

    Additionally, I think you have this

    If the US really wants to help the Green Movement we should not say anything about what is going on there right now.

    exactly backwards. Silence helps only the Iranian regime in successfully “bottling” up Iranian protesters.
    •  More than 53 years ago, (10+ / 0-)

      read the diary:

      Then, when the Shah fell, we doubled our Embassy staff in 1979 and tried to establish as many connections as possible with the new moderate Bazargan-led government. In the 80s we supported Saddam's invasion with weapons and satellite photos of Iranian troop positions. More recently, Bush brazenly and publicly advertised $400 Million in expenditure for "Regime Change" in Iran. That money was spent somewhere--most likely it found it's way to MEK lunatics and Jundallah--the Baluch separatist group that has successfully terror bombed inside Iran on numerous occasions in the last few years.

      US Support for any movement inside Iran is counter productive. Silence by a US government is not consent--nor does it mean that it won't be reported.

      When a regime is not a US client, like Egypt, US pronouncements have little real effect, and instead give the current Iranian regime cover for the lie that the US is actually behind the protests.

      You may find yourself in a beautiful house, with a beautiful wife, and you may ask yourself, "How did I get here?"

      by FrankCornish on Tue Feb 15, 2011 at 08:33:47 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Cover for the lie? (0+ / 0-)

        Are you serious? They shoot their own people without compunction and flip the bird at international diplomacy and world opinion in general. You seriously believe that the Iranian regime require "cover" for their actions?

        •  Yes, because of the diverse population (0+ / 0-)

          Iran has many different strains.  Some are pro-regime, many are anti-regime, but there are also a lot of people ON THE FENCE.  This middle ground thinks the regime is too harsh but also fears America and becoming like Iraq.  The '09 elections in Iran were genuinely close, whatever the true results were.  We need to let the Greens convert the people in the middle to their cause instead of giving the regime some kind of evidence they can use to scare them.  Does any of this sound familiar to you?

          •  Anti-Corruption and (0+ / 0-)

            Anti Colonialism  are the big drivers in moving the electorate .   Religious freedom is probably a close third.  

            Those who hear not the music-think the dancers mad

            by Eiron on Tue Feb 15, 2011 at 01:33:10 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  That process is presumably ongoing (0+ / 0-)

            and if it is so weak as to not withstand comments from a hated opponent of the regime, then those efforts require revising. I have a really hard time believing that Hillary's comments about peaceful protestors is getting a lot of wide distribution throughout the Iranian populace.

            Why do I get the feeling that US State in general, and Hillary in particular, would be criticized here for not having said anything? Holding Hillary accountable for somehow slowing the democracy process is just bullshit, she has nothing to do with it, and no one here has even attempted to put forward evidence that her statement has ever caused a rubber bullet to be fired, or a single person to be jailed who wouldn't have been rounded up anyway.

        •  How may people has Iran killed in the (0+ / 0-)

          last 10 years?  How many people has the US killed in the last 10 years (don't forget those 1,000,000 Iraqis . . . .)?

          "we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex" Dwight D. Eisenhower

          by bobdevo on Tue Feb 15, 2011 at 01:27:13 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  Furthermore, if you think that 53 (8+ / 0-)

      years ago is irrelevant, you need to talk to more Iranians.

      You may find yourself in a beautiful house, with a beautiful wife, and you may ask yourself, "How did I get here?"

      by FrankCornish on Tue Feb 15, 2011 at 08:35:48 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Depends which ones you talk to (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        sweatyb

        I think the burden of proof is on someone who claims that Iranians--with a massively youth-skewed age pyramid--are fixated on 1953 or even 1979.

        Todo tiempo pasado fue mejor. I don't believe that, but I hear this sig is permanent.

        by Rich in PA on Tue Feb 15, 2011 at 10:27:45 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Being aware of and "fixated" are not the (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          SLKRR, mrkvica, capelza, Eiron

          same thing. Iranians are very nationalistic, and they support their independence. See Shirin Ebadi in Iran Awakening--she's not friendly to the current government but very suspect of US motives and "help."

          You may find yourself in a beautiful house, with a beautiful wife, and you may ask yourself, "How did I get here?"

          by FrankCornish on Tue Feb 15, 2011 at 10:39:16 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

  •  The best diplomacy is quiet (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    FrankCornish

    If we really want to influence events in Iran we should be working behind the scenes. If we don't have any influence then I guess HRC is free to spout whatever she wishes to spout.

    In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice; but in practice, there always is a difference. - Yogi Berra

    by blue aardvark on Tue Feb 15, 2011 at 09:43:02 AM PST

    •  Oh she's free to do it, (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      PeterHug, mrkvica, JFinNe

      but I think it's counterproductive.

      Just today members of the Majlis are calling for the execution of Mousavi, Karroubi and Khatami.

      Ideologically, the Green Movement is winning--but the ruling clique still holds nearly all the power. It is a difficult situation for the foreseeable future.

      You may find yourself in a beautiful house, with a beautiful wife, and you may ask yourself, "How did I get here?"

      by FrankCornish on Tue Feb 15, 2011 at 09:52:22 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  If we can't influence events (0+ / 0-)

        we should not pretend we can.

        It's Bush-style dick-wagging.

        In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice; but in practice, there always is a difference. - Yogi Berra

        by blue aardvark on Tue Feb 15, 2011 at 10:03:17 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  We do influence events... (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          mrkvica, Eiron, blue aardvark

          Her statements make the lie that protests are paid for by the US seem plausible to some inside Iran. If the US took a more detached and less bellicose view the ruling clique's position becomes less and not more tenable.

          However, I  don't think the government is on the verge of collapse--they have too much power and support from a fanatic cadre of followers who believe everything they say and are ready to die for it. It will take time, and more of those 1.5 million university student graduating and more of the overwhelming youth of the country reaching adulthood.

          You may find yourself in a beautiful house, with a beautiful wife, and you may ask yourself, "How did I get here?"

          by FrankCornish on Tue Feb 15, 2011 at 10:09:01 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

  •  Hey (5+ / 0-)

    I know. Let's blame and hate on Hillary. That'll help ... lol

    When will our consciences grow so tender that we will act to prevent human misery rather than avenge it? Eleanor Roosevelt

    by IndyRobin on Tue Feb 15, 2011 at 10:14:41 AM PST

    •  I know she's not the only one, (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      capelza, lightshine

      and I don't hate Hillary. However, I have never been comfortable with her foreign policy. It was a big mistake putting her at State.

      In any number of positions she is better qualified, and I would be perfectly in line with her views.

      You may find yourself in a beautiful house, with a beautiful wife, and you may ask yourself, "How did I get here?"

      by FrankCornish on Tue Feb 15, 2011 at 10:22:22 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  It's the hypocrisy and inconsistency that gets me. (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    in2mixin, sirclown, Mother Shipper, Loge

    No, not from Hillary Clinton or the US government generally, but from progressives.  Show me someone who lambasted the US government for not getting out in front of the Egyptian protests but who now lambastes them for speaking up about Iran, and I'll show you someone who's the mirror image of what they decry.  

    I have a lot of sympathy for the view that we have nothing to offer, in word or deed, to people struggling for democracy outside our borders; but I also have a lot of sympathy for the view that we should project our values, at least in word and maybe in deed, wherever people struggle for democracy.  It's the old conflict, George Washington vs. Woodrow Wilson.  I have a lot less sympathy for the view that we should do a little, a lot, or nothing, according to some wider calculus, whether that wider calculus is neo-imperialism or reflexive anti-imperialism.

    Todo tiempo pasado fue mejor. I don't believe that, but I hear this sig is permanent.

    by Rich in PA on Tue Feb 15, 2011 at 10:19:23 AM PST

    •  By the way, lunacy is relative (0+ / 0-)

      The MeK has some bizarre period-piece ideas and an obnoxious cult of personality that's profoundly antidemocratic, but it's almost by definition less lunatic than a state that derives legitimacy from messianic religion and defers all significant decisions to religious leadership.

      Todo tiempo pasado fue mejor. I don't believe that, but I hear this sig is permanent.

      by Rich in PA on Tue Feb 15, 2011 at 10:25:57 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Egypt and Iran (7+ / 0-)

      present two distinct examples--one is a client state, the other is a virtual enemy. Different prescriptions may apply. US Government pronouncements are very counter-productive to the Greens of Iran.

      However, I was not at all for Obama getting out in front of the Egyptian protesters. I pretty consistently believe in non-intervention. When you intervene it has a terrible and long-term effects on the population. It takes away their ability to act for themselves and hatches a conspiracy culture where many will believe that nothing happens without foreign intervention.

      You may find yourself in a beautiful house, with a beautiful wife, and you may ask yourself, "How did I get here?"

      by FrankCornish on Tue Feb 15, 2011 at 10:28:32 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  But how does that argue one way or the other? (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Dragon5616, FrankCornish

        I could argue with equal apparent plausibility that we should be kind to our clients and harsh to our enemies.  In fact, at first glance that makes more sense to me!

        I should have been more clear that I don't think you (Frank) have been one of those inconsistent/hypocritical people; it more my reaction to some of the comments.  

        Todo tiempo pasado fue mejor. I don't believe that, but I hear this sig is permanent.

        by Rich in PA on Tue Feb 15, 2011 at 10:44:10 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I don't think there is an absolute, and that each (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Dragon5616, lightshine

          situation should be handled according to the specific variables and known information.

          Generally, I still shy away from intervention--and I consider rhetoric to often be intervention.  I think we have to protect our legitimate interests, but exploitative economic relations are not worth protecting--because they turn bad sooner or later. The degree of bad is usually proportional to the level of exploitation. It is for these reasons that the US has been on the wrong side in most instances in the 3rd world. NATO and Europe in the Cold War was mostly good--policy in the developing world has been a disaster.

          You may find yourself in a beautiful house, with a beautiful wife, and you may ask yourself, "How did I get here?"

          by FrankCornish on Tue Feb 15, 2011 at 10:55:57 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  It's not a harsh/kind dichotomy. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Dragon5616

          That's entirely missing the point -- it's that the policies that are effective for clients aren't effective for enemies.

          Boycotting an enemy state which doesn't trade with you is ineffective and self-destructive -- but boycotting an ally can be massively effective. It's not "kindness" to avoid boycotts of enemies -- it's just simply trying to be effective.

          It's simple -- you have a lot more tools to use on your clients, because they are only partially sovereign and independent. With your enemies, you're limited to war and covert means -- nothing overt is effective, because you have no influence over them. You have no carrot that you can take away.

    •  Way to disingenuously frame the issue. (0+ / 0-)

      Hillary Clinton voted to invade Iraq.  Her foreign policy with respect to Iran has been Iran = bad; Israel = good for years.

      She was clueless and out of step on her ill-advised pro-Mubarak musings.

      The idea that her criticism of Iran is made in good faith - rather than another opportunity to bash Iran - is absurd.

      Ditto for the Administration decrying the use of tear gas against protesters in Iran.  I've seen what the US does to protesters:

      Kent State

      "we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex" Dwight D. Eisenhower

      by bobdevo on Tue Feb 15, 2011 at 01:17:48 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  If she's bashing Ahmadinejad, (0+ / 0-)

        I'd be all for it.  I don't know what "bashing Iran" means in the context of an internal dispute involving two opposed sets of Iranians.

        Kent State was state, not federal.  And it was 42 years ago.  And Hillary Clinton was on the side of the protesters on that one.

        Not to mention that voting to invade Iraq was the biggest gift to Iran imaginable.  

        "This world demands the qualities of youth: not a time of life but a state of mind[.]" -- Robert F. Kennedy

        by Loge on Tue Feb 15, 2011 at 01:27:39 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  ANd that's why she voted for the use (0+ / 0-)

          of force against Iraq? Please.

          You may find yourself in a beautiful house, with a beautiful wife, and you may ask yourself, "How did I get here?"

          by FrankCornish on Tue Feb 15, 2011 at 01:41:48 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I thought the whole discussion (0+ / 0-)

            is about how things look from the Iranian perspective, not Secretary Clinton's.  At least that's the cogent point you're advancing.  

            The non-cogent point you're also advocating is that because of certain past comments she made, it therefore must follow that yesterday's comments are ill-advised.  While I'm not going to defend her Iraq war vote, I'm also not going to make arguments based on it when they're not relevant, which I don't think they are.  She bought the WMD line.  All of her "bellicose" comments about Iran are in the context of Iran's nuclear program.  This has to do with internal Iranian policy.  No doubt the U.S. feels a change in government would be more receptive to our views on nukes, but that's hardly our only interest in the region.  The U.S. under Obama does care about human rights, and the fact that it has an imperfect record on that score doesn't mean that it isn't a vast improvement over Nixon, Ford, Bush, and Eisenhower.

            "This world demands the qualities of youth: not a time of life but a state of mind[.]" -- Robert F. Kennedy

            by Loge on Tue Feb 15, 2011 at 01:57:11 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  Ahmadinejad is a figurehead without any power... (0+ / 0-)

          the clerics hold all the juice.

          "we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex" Dwight D. Eisenhower

          by bobdevo on Tue Feb 15, 2011 at 02:05:34 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

  •  Disagree (5+ / 0-)

    1.)  Sunni governments will welcome criticism of Iran.

    2.)  Iran's current President holds that role by virtue of ignoring an election.  The U.S. has already taken a position on that fact, and there's nothing good that can come of backing down.

    3.)  Supporting protesters in Egypt, even after the fact, and silence in Iran just makes the U.S. look silly.

    4.)  Anyone predisposed to thinking the student protesters are U.S. plants are not going to be on the side of change anyway, so there's no practical loss of influence.

    5.)  The best way to rectify past errors in Iran, like support for the Shah, is to align firmly with modernizers in that country.  

    "This world demands the qualities of youth: not a time of life but a state of mind[.]" -- Robert F. Kennedy

    by Loge on Tue Feb 15, 2011 at 10:24:22 AM PST

    •  Modernizers like the (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      capelza, lotlizard

      ones who want to control their nuclear fuel cycle? I'm all for that.

      You may find yourself in a beautiful house, with a beautiful wife, and you may ask yourself, "How did I get here?"

      by FrankCornish on Tue Feb 15, 2011 at 10:36:46 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Oh, so you object to HRC's position (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        mrblifil

        the U.S.'s national interest is counter to that of the regime.  Should probably disclose that up top.  

        "This world demands the qualities of youth: not a time of life but a state of mind[.]" -- Robert F. Kennedy

        by Loge on Tue Feb 15, 2011 at 10:38:54 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Explain. nt (0+ / 0-)

          You may find yourself in a beautiful house, with a beautiful wife, and you may ask yourself, "How did I get here?"

          by FrankCornish on Tue Feb 15, 2011 at 10:42:26 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  "control their nuclear fuel cycle" (0+ / 0-)

            sounds like apologia for developing the capacity to develop nuclear weapons.  Having complete domestic production over all phases of nuclear development means it can bypass sanctions on importation of uranium.  I'd hardly call the people pushing for nuclear weapons in Iran "modernizers."  Nuclear power, maybe, but why not open the door to full inspectors?  

            I suppose criticizing Iran's nuclear ambitions, too, is "counterproductive," just like criticizing its human rights record is.  Indeed, anything short of allying with Ahmadinejad could just blow up in our face, right?  

            "This world demands the qualities of youth: not a time of life but a state of mind[.]" -- Robert F. Kennedy

            by Loge on Tue Feb 15, 2011 at 01:33:54 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  Someone has to control (0+ / 0-)

        the nuclear/military sector. Presumably you are not arguing for Ahmedinijad and the fundamentalist mullahs to remain in power, so you are therefore prepared that someone will eventually acquire control of that part of the country's operations. If not the modernizers, who?

  •  I diasgree. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mrblifil, Loge

    The Iranian government is going to blame us no matter what.  As you've pointed out, our diplomatic track record speaks for itself on Iran.  

    Given that reality, we might as well get out and front and express our support for the democratic forces early on.

    In the unlikely story that is America, there has never been anything false about hope.

    by Cixelsyd on Tue Feb 15, 2011 at 10:54:39 AM PST

    •  If we don't say anything (0+ / 0-)

      then Iranian News Agencies can't report it. When we do, we make their job easy.

      This has been their line since June 2009, and we keep singing it with them.

      Expressing our support has an opposite effect with many inside Iran. The Green Movement has never asked for our support in any way.

      You may find yourself in a beautiful house, with a beautiful wife, and you may ask yourself, "How did I get here?"

      by FrankCornish on Tue Feb 15, 2011 at 11:00:25 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I don't get your objections (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Loge

        Of course the Green Movement wouldn't solicit American support overtly, as we see the dictatorship already declaring them to be stooges of America, and agents of foreign intervention. Nevertheless, if they ever take power, they will likely be involved in unprecedented levels of engagement with their US counterparts, assuming an overthrow of the despots.

        Are you saying that repression will increase solely as a result of bland support for democracy as expressed by American officials a million miles away from Tehran? If that were true, the regime would have toppled long ago.

        •  I'm saying that this (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          bobdevo, Eiron

          current statement and US policy actions have had the effect of reinforcing the hardliners.

          It's a bit like Tug-o-war; I think we should drop the rope.

          You may find yourself in a beautiful house, with a beautiful wife, and you may ask yourself, "How did I get here?"

          by FrankCornish on Tue Feb 15, 2011 at 12:24:30 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  "unprecedented levels of engagement with US" (0+ / 0-)

          Well, I doubt if the levels will be higher than under our puppet monarch, the Shah of Iran, whose installation at the hands of the CIA is the cause of our present difficulties . . .

          "we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex" Dwight D. Eisenhower

          by bobdevo on Tue Feb 15, 2011 at 01:19:22 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  The Iranian hardliners (0+ / 0-)

        are now calling for the execution of the opposition leaders.  Do you propose we keep quiet because the hardliners might use our statements as propaganda, or does the US speak up and keep the pressure on the government to ensure they can't just stomp the opposition into the ground?

        In the unlikely story that is America, there has never been anything false about hope.

        by Cixelsyd on Tue Feb 15, 2011 at 03:18:33 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Interesting Connection (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    lotlizard, FrankCornish

    Frank Wizner Jr., the former ambassador to Egypt and lobbyist for the Mubarak regime is the son of Frank Wizner Sr. who was an architect of the overthrow of the Mohammed Mossadegh government in Iran.

    The future will be better tomorrow. -D.Quayle

    by word player on Tue Feb 15, 2011 at 11:05:00 AM PST

  •  This is what silence brings ..... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Loge

    Iran executions three times last year's rate: U.N.

    http://www.reuters.com/...

    Are we going for a new record here ?

  •  People in Iran are not stupid (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Loge, sweatyb

    They understand that Obama was not president for the past 50 years and may have a different foreign policy.  As long as our words condemning violence against protesters in Iran are consistent with what we said to an ally like Egypt, I assume the only people who would fall for the Iranian regime's propaganda are those who would no matter what, even if we said nothing.

    •  People in Iran can see the US (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      FrankCornish

      killing Muslim civilians with predator drones on a daily basis . . . and you're right . . . they're not stupid.

      Perhaps the words condemning violence would ring truer if we weren't responsible for about 1,000,000 dead Muslims in the neighborhood . . .

      "we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex" Dwight D. Eisenhower

      by bobdevo on Tue Feb 15, 2011 at 12:54:54 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  I don't believe she says anything unauthorized (4+ / 0-)

    any strong statement has to be cleared with the Administration.

    •  Maybe. I'm not so sure. nt. (0+ / 0-)

      You may find yourself in a beautiful house, with a beautiful wife, and you may ask yourself, "How did I get here?"

      by FrankCornish on Tue Feb 15, 2011 at 11:44:23 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  If she is saying this sort of thing without (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        FrankCornish

        aurthorization from the President, and she's still Secretary of State tomorrow, he deserves all the headaches he will get from her.

        •  Yeah, I know. That is (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          PeterHug

          why I knew it was a mistake to put her at State. he would regret it, and he really can't fire her--that would ignite the primary war all over again.

          You may find yourself in a beautiful house, with a beautiful wife, and you may ask yourself, "How did I get here?"

          by FrankCornish on Tue Feb 15, 2011 at 12:25:41 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  "Obama Hails Egypt, Condemns Iran" (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        FrankCornish, Loge

        From today's press conference:


        From USA Today:

        We have sent a strong message to our allies in the region saying, 'Let's look at Egypt's example, as opposed to Iran's example,'" Obama said. "You know, I find it ironic that you've got the Iranian regime pretending to celebrate what happened in Egypt, when in fact they have acted in direct contrast to what happened in Egypt by gunning down and beating people who were trying to express themselves peacefully in Iran."

        Other Obama comments about Iran:

        "We are clear now that what has been true in Egypt should be true in Iran, which is that people should be able to express their opinions and their grievances and seek a more responsive government.

        What's been different is the Iranian government's response, which is to shoot people and beat people and arrest people.

        And, you know, my hope and expectation is is that we're going to continue to see the people of Iran have the courage to be able to express their yearning for greater freedoms and a more representative government, understanding that America cannot ultimately dictate what happens inside of Iran any more than it could inside of Egypt; that ultimately these are sovereign countries that are going to have to make their own decisions.

        What we can do is lend moral support to those who are seeking a better life for themselves."

      •  if you're not sure then why write (0+ / 0-)

        A whole diary on it?

  •  alter our approach (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Loge

    Surely if Clinton released statements about how dreamy Ahmadinejad's eyes are, then the Iranian people would know that the US is on their side.

  •  My takeaway from this debate (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Loge

    "Shut up bitch."

    The statement was hardly a controversial or even compelling statement. And the diary is self contradictory, as on one hand it posits that the Iranian people need to let the events unfold with no outside influence, while on the other hand US statements one way or another are to be regarded as important to the outcome.

    I think the lesson State learned from Egypt is that nothing they say or do will be determinative, so there's really no danger in speaking out against a recognized Fascist. Do you think the dictatorship will go easier on protestors if Hillary simply sticks a sock in it? Elsewhere on this thread Hillary is being called a neo-con! Pathetic! How many more years are we going to have these tired attacks and attempts at demonization?

    •  Actually this recent statement is (0+ / 0-)

      just the latest example of a failed policy. I have contended and I will continue to contend that the US needs to seriously alter their approach. We've been getting the same results from the same bellicose threatening and hypocritical grandstanding.

      Advising to remain mum is not saying "Shut up bitch." I do not appreciate the jump there either. Those are your words not mine.

      In the foreign policy realm, she's got a record of being pretty bellicose. I would not put her with John Bolton, but I think I stated pretty clearly where I would place her.

      You may find yourself in a beautiful house, with a beautiful wife, and you may ask yourself, "How did I get here?"

      by FrankCornish on Tue Feb 15, 2011 at 12:31:33 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Look at the tone of the criticisms here (0+ / 0-)

        The focus is on Hillary Clinton to the exclusion of anyone else. I don't notice anywhere in the diary or comments where you cite "bellicose" statements from her. And according to you the proper policy is to "say nothing," as opposed to saying...something. Speech of whatever variety constitutes failure and silence will win the day because ponies.

        If you don't recognize there is a context for critiques of women in high office, than that's not my fault. It is not fair to offer a critique from a "post-feminist" perspective when the right to adopt that position hasn't been earned. The diary and especially the tone of the discussion it has set in motion sets my teeth on edge, and that is an occasion for which I am similarly not appreciative.

        •  Then don't read it. (0+ / 0-)

          Did you see the update? Also note this is what I stated in the diary after the quote :

          There is some truth to this. The current wave of unrest has riled the discontent that was successfully bottled by the Iranian Regime in 2010. However, even if this is true, the US and its' representatives are the last people who should be making a point of it.

          I stand by criticism of Clinton's foreign policy as a Senator, in the primary campaign and as Secretary of State. I wish she was not Secretary of State. However, I do realize that Obama is virtually indistinguishable at this point. Again--notice the change of title as well. I wrote the piece on what was said at the time.

          If you recall last spring--Obama wrote a letter to Erdogan and Lula encouraging them to try to get a deal on the nuclear material swap with Iran. They subsequently did, but Secretary Clinton dismissed it out of hand immediately and publicly. I don't think this was what Obama wanted, but once she spoke publicly he could not correct her without undercutting her credibility. It was a critical policy mistake. I still harbor hope that Obama might push policy in a direction different from how Clinton appears to be shaping it. I'm not holding my breath.

          Now, I make this analysis without prejudice. I have little doubt that I would have been quite happy with Clinton as Secretary of Health or Transportation or even Defense, but State--I don't like.

          And finally, yes, silence is better--because regarding Iran, just about anything said by the US government is hypocritical. Stuxnet was an act of war. Our policies have the effect of strengthening the most bellicose elements in Iran. The current administration is not at all the worst offender in this regard, but policy has changed very little nonetheless.

          You may find yourself in a beautiful house, with a beautiful wife, and you may ask yourself, "How did I get here?"

          by FrankCornish on Wed Feb 16, 2011 at 12:54:17 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

  •  people are still hilary bashing on this site? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    thestructureguy, Loge

    Ugh.

  •  The Iran government is hostile AND repressive (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    thestructureguy, Loge

    AND already shown what it thinks of dissent and protesters.

    I don't think there's much to be gained by holding back.

    "It's too soon to tell". Mao, when asked about the consequences of the French Revolution.

    by Inland on Tue Feb 15, 2011 at 12:46:13 PM PST

    •  Since we're responsible for the (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      elliott

      government they've got . . . perhaps we should STFU.

      "we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex" Dwight D. Eisenhower

      by bobdevo on Tue Feb 15, 2011 at 12:52:23 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Well we did support the Shah and he was (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        bobdevo

        as bad as Mubarak to his people.  That support caused the Iranian revolution, which gave Iran the awful government it has today.

        Whenever we interfere it always backfires.  So yeah, our government should stay out of this, especially because of the hypocrisy, since we were slow to support the democracy movement in Egypt, whose repressive government is on our payroll.

        •  Exactly. It's not like they've forgotten (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          elliott

          HOW and WHY they got stuck with the Shah and SAVAK .

          SAVAK (Persian: ساواک, short for سازمان اطلاعات و امنیت کشور Sāzemān-e Ettela'āt va Amniyat-e Keshvar, National Intelligence and Security Organization) was the secret police, domestic security and intelligence service established by Iran's Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi . . . with the help of the United States' Central Intelligence Agency and Israel's Mossad

          "we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex" Dwight D. Eisenhower

          by bobdevo on Tue Feb 15, 2011 at 02:11:05 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Ahmadinejad is already blaming the protests (0+ / 0-)

            on foreign agents.  The worst thing our government can do is publicly support the protests.  

            Besides, it should have been our policy to support democratic movement everywhere, but our friendship with too many dictators threw a wrench in that politik.

            In a live interview on state television, Ahmadinejad said: "It is evident and clear that the Iranian nation has enemies because it is a country which wants to shine and achieve its peak and wants to change relations (between countries) in the world.

            "Of course there is a lot of animosity, even against the government. But they (protest planners) will not achieve their goals," he replied when about Monday's demonstrations in the capital.


            http://nz.news.yahoo.com/...

            Iranian lawmakers call for harsh punishments as Obama decries Iranian government for use of force
            http://www.salon.com/...

  •  Seeing as how the last time Iran (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Eiron

    actually had a truly democratic election, the CIA - at the behest of John Foster Dulles (Standard Oil and Bush family lawyer & the Secretary of State), and Allen Dulles (Standard Oil and Bush family lawyer & the Director of the CIA) - overthrew the guy they elected, installed a morally bankrupt monarchical dynasty, and hired Norm Schwartzkopf, Sr.  to train their secret police, it seems unseemly for some clueless Clinton to opine about what the Iranians should or shouldn't do.

    "we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex" Dwight D. Eisenhower

    by bobdevo on Tue Feb 15, 2011 at 12:51:36 PM PST

  •  Hillary Clinton (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    sunshineonthebay

    Frank, did you ever think that this just might be President Obama's foreign policy?
    There never was much policy difference between them despite the ravings of Obama's supporters during the primaries.
    After all, he picked her to be Secretary of State.

    •  I thought it was a mistake putting her (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      elliott

      at State and at times I think they are at odds. There was a distinct foreign policy difference during the primaries, and Clinton came off as distinctly more bellicose, particularly regarding Iran.

      Last May Obama wrote a letter encouraging Erdogan and Lula to try to negotiate a deal on the nuclear fuel impasse with Iran. They did just that, and then Sec. Clinton denounced it immediately. Obama's letter surfaced later. I don't know what Obama's real position was there. I'd like to think he supported the deal--because it would have helped tone things down. Erdogan and Lula pretty much got what was asked for.

      I wrote this diary last night, and then put some finishes on it early this morning. It was published at 5:50 am East Coast. I see now, that Obama is pretty much saying the same thing.

      I really do believe, that we should limit statements in these circumstances. At this particular time, however, this is just another part of the larger failed policy. Within that larger policy framework--these statements reflect attitude more than anything more substantive, like sanctions or "all options being on the table..."

      You may find yourself in a beautiful house, with a beautiful wife, and you may ask yourself, "How did I get here?"

      by FrankCornish on Tue Feb 15, 2011 at 01:13:00 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  yep (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bobdevo

    this is not egypt. we have a unique and ugly history with iran, and it's imperative that we account for that. the president handled the previous iranian uprising just about as well he could have, even as tragic as it was that he couldn't say or do more- which he couldn't. someone needs to remind clinton of how well they handled the previous uprising, and why.

    The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

    by Laurence Lewis on Tue Feb 15, 2011 at 01:10:13 PM PST

  •  Agh............... (0+ / 0-)

    Really......seriously????  No matter what she or Obama says you are going to criticize.  Last week it was they did say enough, or soon enough or in exactly the way you would like them to.  This week it is that they are saying anything at all.  Issuing a statement like this or answering a question stating that we support the right for citizens to peacefully assemble and protest really can not be construed in a negative light......except of course here on dkos.  

    I do think the patriotic thing to do is to critique my country. How else do you make a country better but by pointing out its flaws? Bill Maher

    by gtghawaii on Tue Feb 15, 2011 at 01:17:27 PM PST

    •  Egypt is a different situation from Iran; (0+ / 0-)

      Egypt is a client state. We have direct relationship with them. Iran is a country which we broke diplomatic relations with 30 years ago and they have not been re-established.

      That being said, I have said, and I continue to say that I think Egypt was handled well. It is up to Egyptians to determine their course. Obama did not seem to want to push too hard in any direction, and I think that is the proper course. Iran is different--for reasons described in the diary.

      Obama has my vote and my full support, but I have not be at all thrilled with our policy toward Iran. I think it has been largely counter-productive.

      You may find yourself in a beautiful house, with a beautiful wife, and you may ask yourself, "How did I get here?"

      by FrankCornish on Tue Feb 15, 2011 at 01:40:25 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Please learn more about Iran (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bobdevo, Eiron, FrankCornish

    First I want to thank Frank for this well-thought out diary.

    Second, I want to ask everyone to please take some time to read and learn about Iran -- politically, culturally, historically.  I think one thing that's clear is that we Americans have a profound lack of knowledge about Iran. I also encourage you to speak to Iranian or Persian (as some prefer to be called) people about their culture and their views.  You will find an astonishingly wide variety of opinion.  Iranians are very much like Americans in so many important ways.  

    I feel one that's impossible to convey in these discussions is just how complicated and multi-faceted these countries we discuss are.  

    I also encourage you to do something quite simple and delightful and pick up some verses of Rumi.  It will give you a starting point in discussions with Iranians, many of whome adore this great poet.

    At the end of the day, I believe Iranians want democracy but they also want to feel respected and secure.  IMO, if Iranians can be made to feel that we are not a threat to them as long as they are peaceful, then maybe the pro-democracy elements in Iran will prevail and help create a truly free and liberated Iran.

  •  Good point -- no payoff in sounding off now (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    FrankCornish
  •  Sound advice, Frank. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    FrankCornish

    The fact is the US voicing its support for Iranian protestors (and in protestors in any unfriendly regime) only give the government yet another pretext to go after them.

    I really like your idea about getting Turkey involved. PM Erdogan had some really good things to say during the Egyptian uprising. I wonder how much influence Turkey has over Iran at this point.

    If the people one day wish to live / destiny cannot but respond / And the night cannot but disappear / and the bonds cannot but break. -- Abu'l-Qasim al-Shabbi

    by unspeakable on Tue Feb 15, 2011 at 04:53:45 PM PST

    •  Well, Turkey has an Embassy (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      unspeakable

      and Erdogan seems like a real cool head to me who understands the region's fault lines and history.

      Many people may wish a speedy demise of the Islamic Republic. I do not. I have no love for Khamenei or Ahmadinejad, but any quick unraveling will likely result in military government with someone from the Revolutionary Guards on top. I think it would be better to get actual recognition of minority political parties and a more transparent electoral system out of all this. A transition over ten years could result in a much better Iran, with the least amount of mayhem. It is my firm belief, that only the psychotic benefit from quick collapses and mayhem.

      You may find yourself in a beautiful house, with a beautiful wife, and you may ask yourself, "How did I get here?"

      by FrankCornish on Tue Feb 15, 2011 at 05:14:47 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  While it is true that (0+ / 0-)

    we installed the Shah, the American people, taken as a whole, seem to be very popular among younger Iranians.  

    Voicing a form of solidarity with young people who are protesting the rigid autocratic minority that currently rules that country seems exactly the thing the current US President should do if we hope to have good relations with potential future Democratic leaders.  

    And the Autocrats who run the country now already hate, so there is nothing to lose with them either.  

    Perhaps you are under the false impression that the crackdown on the young protesters will be even more brutal because of Mr. Obama's remarks, or those of Secretary Clinton?  No, they are already planning to be as brutal as necessary to maintain their minority rule.  That has nothing to with what we say or don't say.

    Finally, I strenuously object to your characterizations of Secretary Clinton.  The primaries of 2008 are long past now, and should be put behind this piece this piece I wrote during the primaries puts the truth to the misinformation you are furthering about her.  

    The ...Bushies... don't make policies to deal with problems. ...It's all about how can we spin what's happening out there to do what we want to do. Krugman

    by mikepridmore on Wed Feb 16, 2011 at 11:35:29 AM PST

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site