Obama has been measured in response, fearing that anything he said or did would be viewed as interfering in Iranian affairs, even as dozens of Iranian citizens have died and others have been brutally assaulted in the eyes of the world. In fact, in last Monday's press conference with the Italian prime minister, he said the following:
I want to start off by being very clear that it is up to Iranians to make decisions about who Iran's leaders will be; that we respect Iranian sovereignty and want to avoid the United States being the issue inside of Iran. I think that the democratic process -- free speech, the ability of people to peacefully dissent -- all those are universal values and need to be respected. And whenever I see violence perpetrated on people who are peacefully dissenting, and whenever the American people see that, I think they're, rightfully, troubled. My understanding is, is that the Iranian government says that they are going to look into irregularities that have taken place. We weren’t on the ground, we did not have observers there, we did not have international observers on hand, so I can't state definitively one way or another what happened with respect to the election.
This was simply unsatisfactory--it was verbose, abstract, professorial, low-key, tentative, ambiguous, and at best, a mild rebuke. America did not choose the candidates, it did not score the results, and it did not fund, organize or instigate the protests, and no matter what Obama does or says, the mullahs are going to scapegoat America anyway.
How did others respond last Monday?
Germany and France summoned Iran's ambassadors to express concern over the use of baton-wielding police against demonstrators who say the election was rigged...After a meeting in Luxembourg, EU foreign ministers expressed "serious concern" at the weekend crackdown and called for an inquiry into the conduct of the election. "The actions of the Iranian security forces are completely unacceptable," German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier said on public television.
UN chief Ban said he had taken note of the fact that Khamenei had ordered an investigation into the fraud allegations. "I am closely following how this investigation will come out," he said, reiterating that "the genuine will of the Iranian people should be reflected and respected in the most transparent, fair and objective manner."
I certainly don't imply that Obama should have followed G.H.W. Bush's example and mistake in calling for an Iraqi uprising against Saddam Hussein, only to stand silently by as Hussein brutally suppressed the opposition, and I'm not suggesting that Obama should imply or threaten military intervention.
I'm talking about a reality check: Does Obama really think that mildly-toned diplomatic rhetoric works on autocratic regimes cracking down on Iranian dissidents? As Thomas Hobbes noted centuries ago, rebellion is to be expected under severe abuses of power by an autocratic regime. Obama needs to go beyond Dale Carnegie's advice on how to win friends and influence people; that's not leadership--it's an abdication of responsibility. He also needs to get out of looking at the election as if the results were being decided in an American courtroom where it is subject to certain rules of unavailable evidence. There are compelling circumstantial reasons for doubting the legitimacy of stated results: the hypersensitivity of the Iranian regime to foreign criticism of the election and its aftermath, the ayatollah's unwillingness to allow a full, independently-verified recount and his threats Friday to suppress any future protests, the nature of the post-election crackdown, the timing and nature of reported results, and the spontaneous and unprecedented response of the Iranian people themselves believing that the election was stolen.
What Obama needs to do--generally, not just in this case--is to communicate succinctly and clearly: What the Iranian dictatorship is doing in rigging the election and suppressing human rights in the streets of Tehran is evidence on the stage of world opinion of the regime's illegitimate claim to power. What the people on the streets in Iran are doing is demanding that their vote for change be acknowledged, validated and respected, and we fellow republicans hear them and are their witnesses. We honor the heroism and sacrifice of those Iranian patriots whom, through nonviolent means, have been taking back their country from the forces of tyranny. We call on the Iranian police, military and revolutionary guards to refuse target their fellow citizens, their brothers and sisters and instead stand by them.
Yesterday Obama gave an improved, more focused statement, and I quote:
The Iranian government must understand that the world is watching. We mourn each and every innocent life that is lost. We call on the Iranian government to stop all violent and unjust actions against its own people. The universal rights to assembly and free speech must be respected, and the United States stands with all who seek to exercise those rights.
The Iranian people will ultimately judge the actions of their own government. the Iranian government ...must respect the dignity of its own people and govern through consent, not coercion...I believe [justice will prevail]. The international community believes that. And right now, we are bearing witness to the Iranian peoples’ belief in that truth, and we will continue to bear witness.I prefer my own statement above, but I like the fact that he is clearly calling for an end to the dictatorship's violent crackdown on its own citizens and that the Iranian people and the international community are bearing witness to the regime's abuses of power, and the regime will be ultimately held accountable for its wrongful actions by the Iranian people.
My primary criticism is that this belated statement should have been issued from the start, and it doesn't speak well of Obama's leadership in the free world (cf. the earlier excerpt of last Monday's international response). Before Obama's address yesterday, the Congress passed a tougher Republican-backed resolution condemning the ongoing violence by the Iranian regime. Barack Obama badly needs to edit himself and assert, clearly and succinctly, the US position. We don't need to hear Obama follow his usual pointless, obsessive and counterproductive "apology tour" pattern of pointing out all of America's alleged past mistakes in international relations; I mean, is there any point in discussing the Shah of Iran? He left power 30 years ago.
