As with any Iranian video making the rounds on Twitter, I can’t prove that it is what it claims to be but it’s certainly plausible. Reports of students being killed by regime goons have been steady since the weekend, with 60 kids supposedly detained at Isfahan U. and others allegedly thrown out of upstairs windows. Clips of their injuries were being uploaded as early as Sunday but the one below takes it to a whole new level. Strong content warning, needless to say.
But see also, the Wall Street Journal, "Obama's Iran Abdication":
The Obama Administration came into office with a realpolitik script to goad the mullahs into a "grand bargain" on its nuclear program. But Team Obama isn't proving to be good at the improv. His foreign policy gurus drew up an agenda defined mainly in opposition to the perceived Bush legacy: The U.S. will sit down with the likes of Iran, North Korea or Russia and hash out deals. In a Journal story on Monday, a senior U.S. official bordered on enthusiastic about confirming an Ahmadinejad victory as soon as possible. "Had there been a transition to a new government, a new president wouldn't have emerged until August. In some respects, this might allow Iran to engage the international community quicker." The popular uprising in Iran is so inconvenient to this agenda.See also, Stephen Walt, "Realism and Iran":
President Obama elaborates on this point with his now-frequent moral equivalance. Yesterday he invoked the CIA's role in the 1953 coup against Iranian leader Mohammad Mossadeq to explain his reticence. "Now, it's not productive, given the history of the U.S.-Iranian relations, to be seen as meddling -- the U.S. President meddling in Iranian elections," Mr. Obama said.
As far as we can tell, the CIA or other government agencies aren't directing the protests or bankrolling Mr. Mousavi. Beyond token Congressional support for civil society groups and the brave reporting of the Persian-language and U.S.-funded Radio Farda, America's role here is limited. Less than a fortnight ago, in Cairo, Mr. Obama touted his commitment to "governments that reflect the will of the people." Now the President who likes to say that "words matter" refuses to utter a word of support to Iran's people. By that measure, the U.S. should never have supported Soviet dissidents because it would have interfered with nuclear arms control.
The Iranian rebellion, though too soon to call a revolution, is turning out to be that 3 a.m. phone call for Mr. Obama. As a French President shows up the American on moral clarity, Hillary Clinton's point about his inexperience and instincts in a crisis is turning out to be prescient.
Obama's measured response to the events in Iran strikes me as ... sensible: we can and should deplore the abuses of basic rights and the democratic process, while making it clear that the United States is not interfering and remaining open to the possibility of constructive dialogue.Funny how "realism" gives the administration a pass for amateurish handling of events.
1 comments:
RE: “not based upon the Gospel of Christ will face tremendous hardships,”
While I believe that the United States was founded on Christian ideals and principles, I believe that “In God We Trust” is a strong and proud American tradition, I still believe we should separate Church and State. I remember when the “under God” was inserted into the Pledge of Allegiance” in the 50s in a different historical context in time. I disagree with the constant revisionist ideas of obliterating our historical references to religion, or god, and so forth. I have not met any Jews that have a problem with Christmas, for example. And I don’t think we should pander to the Islamic in falling over ourselves trying to forget our American traditions for the sake of Islam, or the Jews, or Hindus, for that matter.
However, with all due respect, inferring that societies not based on the “Gospel of Christ will face tremendous hardships,” appears to infer that many of our allies, India, the Jews in Israel, et. al., are all together in the Hades-bound-boat with the Islamics, and the godless Chinese and North Koreans –not to mention the increasingly secular European world – all of whom will not likely to be receiving the Lord Jesus Christ as their Savior anytime soon. Except for the important goal of freedom of religion, for which we stand, doesn’t it make more sense to leave the religious references out of the dialogue between the free world and our friends and foes?
I was always a little uncomfortable when Bush left himself a satirical target for the left, due to his Christian references (somehow Reagan’s were more selective). This is ironic now, as the press is silent when Obama does the same thing. If I am not mistaken, Obama has talked more about religion and Christ, Allah, and God than Bush or Reagan ever did in speeches before and after becoming president. Even though he got a standing ovation (according to the notes I took while watching his big speech to the Islamics), when he said, “Do unto others…”citing, first of course, “Holy Koran,” then, “Talmud,” and last, of course, “the Holy Bible,” he was playing to the audience like a cynical politician. I think all that does is substitute religious platitudes for the substantive issues that are continually left unaddressed.
Hold strong religious views, cherish them, but keep it out of the Foreign policy. In these types of blog, and debates and discussions I wish we as conservatives could separate out our personal religious views and stop making the world conflict about the Crusades again. I think about the Jews reading such comments thinking, “Hmmm, am I truly accepted into the fold of the Republicans, is this the Christian party, or the Republican party and I am allowed in?” Is it just me being too sensitive for the Jews, again? Don’t some of the secular society on the right, and Jewish community, hold strong conservative values we can relate to on the right?
Post a Comment