We have ways of making you not talk
By Thoreau
Joe Biden: Shut up. Now. Right this goddamn second. If you don’t, I will pay a dentist to wire your jaw shut. In fact, I know a Republican dentist in Maryland who would do it for free. Do you hear me? The US government’s only reasonable options for responding to the Iranian election are:
1) Absolutely, positively ZERO response.
2) Infidel kryptonite, saying that Ahmadinejad is a swell guy and you’re delighted that he won. Wait, scratch that, you’d just screw it up.
Anything else, and I do mean ANYTHING else, is completely, absolutely unacceptable. Capisce? If you so much as hint at even the slightest displeasure, and Iranians get a whiff of the big superpower being upset at their government, you’ll see people in the streets stop throwing rocks and start wearing “I support my President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad” buttons. You should have seen the response from an Iranian colleague when I mentioned that I saw Aeschylus’s “The Persians”, a play about the aftermath of an Athenian victory. Their sense of nationalism would make Lee Greenwood look like a flag-burning hippie. You do NOT want to mess with them.
Comment by Jon Hendry —
June 14, 2009 @ 9:20 pm
Yes. Getting involved makes about as much sense as an uninvited swim to see Aung San Suu Kyi.
Comment by BDB —
June 14, 2009 @ 9:21 pm
All I have to say is that I fully support the Iranian Opposition. I hope everyone else feels the same.
Comment by chris y —
June 15, 2009 @ 4:39 am
BDB, everybody in the west supports the Iranian opposition. Probably a majority of Iranians support it. As a private citizen, give all the time and money you can to solidarity organisations with your opposition organisation of choice, but please, please, please write Obama and your Senators and Representative and tell them to STFU.
The diplomatic pros know how to give these people the fish eye at need, believe me.
Comment by Derek Copold —
June 15, 2009 @ 9:26 am
I’ll disagree. I’m actually going to defend Biden here, sort of. Expressing skepticism of the election’s validity and disapproval of the regime is not, in and of itself, bad. In fact, I think it’s fine. Moral support helped a lot of anti-Communist groups during the final phases of the Cold War.
What should be made clear, though, is that we’re not going to intervene to change the results, no matter how much we dislike them. Biden made that clear when he said the talks would proceed. I have my doubts about that policy (I don’t think it’s our business whatsoever), but it’s a far, far better stance than the previous administration would have taken.
Comment by Alex R —
June 15, 2009 @ 9:53 am
I think that having Biden voice these concerns was actually a smart move. His prior reputation for inserting his foot in his mouth at inopportune moments gives the administration an easy out, allowing them, if needed, to say that he is off the reservation. And this way, he puts both the Iranian clerical government and the reformers know that the US administration is keeping an eye on things.
Comment by mds —
June 15, 2009 @ 9:58 am
Thank you, Thoreau, for correcting the unholy chimera known as “Lee Greenwald,” civil-rights champion by day, jingoistic dumbshit singer by night. (Of course, if I was just reading it wrong earlier, well, blame the drugs.)
And, uh, what Derek Copold said(!). It’s the infamously loose-lipped Biden that gets it out there that the US isn’t necessarily buying it, without the President or Foggy Bottom officially declaring it a stolen election or something. Disappointment is okay, disengagement isn’t.
Comment by mds —
June 15, 2009 @ 10:00 am
Dammit, I really need to lock the office door so users won’t bother me with computer questions when I’m trying to write comments on company time.
Anyway, what Alex R said, too. Grumble.
Comment by joe from Lowell —
June 15, 2009 @ 1:34 pm
Insisting the President and Vice President respond with “No Comment” when directly asked questions about a significant event in global politics is nonsensical.
Since they have to say something when asked, at least for domestic consumption, I think the following works pretty well:
I think, Thoreau, you’re understanding has been a little skewed by the Bush years. It’s not expressions of support for fairness and democracy that cause people to rally around the flag in favor of a corrupt leader; it’s the threat, whether implicit or explicit, of hostile action. Just because everyone understands that every word from the Bush administration about Iran was a threat doesn’t mean every word from the Obama administration is, or will be taken as, a veiled threat.
You might have noticed half of the wingnuts and all of the far-lefties saying, about Obama’s Cairo speech, “He didn’t say anything that Bush didn’t say.” Well…how’d it go over? Were “the same things Bush said” received in the same way? That’s not how it looked to me.
Comment by joe from Lowell —
June 15, 2009 @ 1:59 pm
joe’z law.
Comment by Thoreau —
June 15, 2009 @ 2:12 pm
mds,
Yep, it was a typo and I fixed it.
joe,
OK, but I still think that when in doubt saying less is better than saying more. Frankly, I cannot think of a better time for Obama to fail to notice Iran because he’s just so damn busy trying to patch things up between the Israelis and Palestinians. Though he won’t succeed there (because nobody will) doing his darnedest to try is probably the best way to defuse the narrative of the Big Evil American Satan.
Comment by joe from Lowell —
June 15, 2009 @ 2:54 pm
I appreciate your point there, thoreau.
I thought Bush did exactly the right thing by keeping his mouth shut and being a perfect gentleman during the Beijing Olympics. If he’d come out with a big statement of solidarity with the protesters, it would have just allowed the Chinese government to paint them as American puppets.
On the other hand, the boisterous expressions of support from non-governmental voices can only be a good thing.
Comment by Thoreau —
June 15, 2009 @ 3:04 pm
This is a great week for Obama to be like “Mahmoud Ahama…um, something? Yeah, yeah think I’ve heard of him. Sure, interesting situation there. Look, I’d love to talk about it, but I’ve been leaning on Bibi all week, so I have to go bother him some more. Expect an important announcement from him soon, even if I have to hold the microphone in front of his face and punch him to get each word out. KTHXBYE.”
Comment by joe from Lowell —
June 15, 2009 @ 3:19 pm
Remember when the Russians invaded Georgia? And the candidates’ reactions?
What do you think President McCain would be saying right now?
Comment by Eric the .5b —
June 15, 2009 @ 3:34 pm
On the one hand, I’m glad we don’t have to find out. On the other, I think you can safely wait until something actually goes wrong with US diplomacy before pulling out McCain-would-have-been-worse.
Comment by mds —
June 15, 2009 @ 4:22 pm
Well, at the worst we went with the imperialist with thicker skin. McCain would probably be invading the Outer* Hebrides by now, because he was enraged by the low quality of his latest Laphroiag. Or right now he’d be trying to bomb any houses from which people can see Iran.
*Yes, I know where Islay is. Would McCain?
Comment by BDB —
June 15, 2009 @ 4:28 pm
chris y–
I agree, our government needs to stay out. As soon as they open their traps the thugs in Iran can say “See! It is all a CIA/Jewish plot!”
I’m confident the people of Iran handle this on their own without foreign government “help”.
Comment by BDB —
June 15, 2009 @ 4:31 pm
BTW, they should look at how George H.W. Bush handled the 1989 Revolutions. It would be a good model to follow. He didn’t exactly dance on the ruins of the Berlin Wall, and with good reason.
Comment by Derek Copold —
June 15, 2009 @ 6:29 pm
This is a great week for Obama to be like “Mahmoud Ahama…um, something? Yeah, yeah think I’ve heard of him.
I’m as anti-interventionist as anyone here, but I don’t think this is the right approach at all. I believe the president has a moral duty to express some solidarity with democratic forces. People sneer at Reagan’s “evil empire” jab, but it did have a good effect.
I forget the exact quote from Jefferson[?], but it runs along the lines of cheering liberty without seeking monsters to slay. I think it would be a real dereliction on Obama’s part if he left this all to Biden.
Comment by Derek Copold —
June 15, 2009 @ 6:32 pm
As soon as they open their traps the thugs in Iran can say “See! It is all a CIA/Jewish plot!â€
And if the U.S. stays quiet, they’ll say, “See, no cares about you. You’re alone.” We can’t always let others determine whether or not we should speak the truth.
Comment by strasmangelo jones —
June 15, 2009 @ 6:32 pm
Surprise, surprise! IOZ is right, again.
Comment by joe from Lowell —
June 15, 2009 @ 7:39 pm
You both make fine points; I think there’s a balancing act to be played.
Obama, Biden, and other DC figures should make statements about fair elections and about not using violence to oppress peaceful protesters, but shouldn’t come within 1000 miles of making partisan statements about those “democratic forces.”
Comment by Derek Copold —
June 15, 2009 @ 8:12 pm
I can’t disagree with that, Joe.
Comment by mds —
June 16, 2009 @ 11:30 am
The myth about Reagan destroying the Soviet Union with the Power of His Words, Alleluia, is probably an especially pernicious one to dredge up right now, when harsh rhetoric about evil and axes is especially to be avoided. Unless you’ve translated Gorbachev’s personal diary and found the passage, “Shit! Ron’s right; we are an evil empire!”
And there’s still just a leetle too much of, “Why won’t the US stand up for democracy?” from those who pirouetted from “Saddam is a nuclear threat, so we must invade” to “Iraqis deserve democracy, so we had to invade.” Given that the same people have also said, “Iran is a nuclear threat, so we must invade,” I’m not having a hard time figuring out what their next line really is. Never mind the additional overlap with “The same president of Georgia who has jailed political opponents and used troops against protestors has picked an idiotic fight with Russia, so we are all Georgians now,” whose current opinions on foreign policy should be completely discounted. (E.g., I’ll trust Lugar over McCain on this sort of thing.)
Comment by Derek Copold —
June 16, 2009 @ 2:06 pm
Unless you’ve translated Gorbachev’s personal diary and found the passage, “Shit! Ron’s right; we are an evil empire!â€
Well, since the Butcher of Vilnius isn’t who I’d consider a democratic force I fail to see your point. I was more thinking of the dissident groups who did take heart from Reagan’s rhetoric.
As for the Iraq hysteria or the Georgia hysteria, I was not one of those people you describe, so again, I fail to see the point.
Look, I agree with non-interventionism, but that doesn’t mean just because some Bushbots say the sky is blue you have to argue it’s green.
Comment by J sub D —
June 16, 2009 @ 3:04 pm
Guess what boys and girls. We have NO IDEA who’s going to come out on top here. We have NO IDEA of the internal political machinations going on in Iran. Opening up your yap and supporting one faction would be foolish. We have to deal with who eventually prevails and WE DON”T GET TO PICK THE WINNER!
Throw some half assed platitudes about democracy and Iranian sovereignity out there and wait till the dust settles.
Jeez, it’s not that difficult.
Comment by mds —
June 16, 2009 @ 3:11 pm
The dissidents who managed to overthrow the Russian government? Or are you referring to the way Vaclav Havel was this close to packing it in before Reagan made him realize that the US was an opponent of the Soviet Union, only to credit John Lennon and Frank Zappa by mistake? And I think material support from John Paul II, the AFL-CIO, and, yes, the Reagan adminstration, was slightly more helpful to Solidarity than the amazing new development that the US thought the Commies were “evil.” (Though trade unionists were okay, albeit only where American businesses weren’t concerned.)
And you know how the key phrase in this Iran situation is “It’s not all about us”? It’s not all about you.
The people in the second paragraph exist, and are being pretty noisy right now about the need to show our support, wear green, etc. That doesn’t mean I consider Mr. Copold one of them, only that an understandable desire to say “you are not alone” to the protestors is being co-opted by those with an ulterior motive. And many of those people are Iraq and Georgia hysterics.
Comment by Thoreau —
June 16, 2009 @ 3:46 pm
I’m pleased to announce that UO is adopting a green color scheme in support of the Iranian protesters and responsible agriculture.
Comment by Derek Copold —
June 16, 2009 @ 4:34 pm
The dissidents who managed to overthrow the Russian government?
Among them and people who backed Yeltsin and in other Eastern European countries. Look, you’re trying to make my statement into an overstatement. I never said that Reagan’s rhetoric alone did everything, but it did help, and I’ve met plenty of E. Europeans who’ve said so.
…yes, the Reagan adminstration, was slightly more helpful to Solidarity than the amazing new development that the US thought the Commies were “evil.â€
Well, that was a bit of a problem. A lot of people were quite uncomfortable classing them as “evil.” Reagan’s statement was mocked endlessly.
And you know how the key phrase in this Iran situation is “It’s not all about us� It’s not all about you.
And you’re using ‘them’ to avoid my point. You can make moral judgements without necessarily intervening with force.
Comment by mds —
June 16, 2009 @ 5:01 pm
Yes, yes, Democrats kept pushing to change the national anthem to “Back in the USSR.” And the Cold War began in 1981. The history of the US is rife with nothing but lovey-dovey talk from powerful public figures about the Soviet Union.
At least Reagan did still believe in diplomacy with those cherry-picked brutal regimes that got the “evil” label; I’ll give him credit for his deals with Gorbachev even when many inside and outside his administration didn’t want to negotiate with “evil.” But I think that accomplished more than public epithets did, too.
And my point is that such judgments are not even remotely “moral” when coming from repeated advocates of intervening with force. The ‘them’ in question have a bigger public bullhorn than you do. And such judgments are slightly dangerous for the nation that helped overthrow Mossadeq to make too loudly and officially.
Comment by Derek Copold —
June 16, 2009 @ 6:36 pm
mds,
Clearly, it’s pointless responding to you, since all you can do is generate strawmen and tu quoques to advance some strange agenda. If that’s your bag, fine. Whatever.
Comment by joe from Lowell —
June 16, 2009 @ 7:50 pm
I told you Barack Obama was the perfect president for this moment in history.
Comment by Derek Copold —
June 16, 2009 @ 2:06 pm
Gorbochev implemented a popularly-elected Duma to serve as the legislative branch of government! In the USSR! Whatever else you can say about the man, he was a serious democratic reformer.
Comment by Derek Copold —
June 17, 2009 @ 1:15 pm
Whatever else you can say about the man, he was a serious democratic reformer.
Serious only in the sense that his back was seriously up against the wall. The country was coming apart, and his reforms were designed to stop that and preserve as much of the old system as possible, including the Soviet Union’s imperial holdings (as the Vilnius example amply demonstrates). The way his reforms spiraled out of control shows how little he understood the consequences of his actions.
Remember, this a man who got ahead by kissing up to people like Yuri Andropov. He was better than a lot of the other options, I grant, but a saint he was not. The Russians certainly recognized that and have wanted nothing to do with him ever since.