Obama Legitimizes the Mullahs

The Corner ^ | July7, 2009 | Manda Zand Ervin

[Kaslin]

President Obama could have taken advantage of the uprising in Iran by standing with the anti-government protesters. He could have used the moment to promote Iranian democracy and hinder Tehran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons. The United States could have led a multinational effort to impose tough sanctions on the regime, as it previously did with Communist-era Poland and apartheid-era South Africa.

Unfortunately, the U.S. showed no such leadership. Had we demonstrated solidarity with the Iranian people and their democratic demands, no European country (not even Russia) could have opposed sanctioning a regime whose brutality and unpopularity had been witnessed by the world for two long weeks. Iranians would have had an opportunity to create a democratic society, join the international community, and stop the current regime’s madness of developing nuclear weapons and supporting terrorism.

I recently asked a high-ranking U.S. official: Why did President Obama embrace a passive policy on Iran? Why did he choose to alienate the Iranian people by standing with their oppressors? He said: “We are letting the Europeans take the lead on Iran.” I responded: “Didn’t they have the lead for almost three years during the Bush administration?”

Three decades ago, President Carter left Iran to the Europeans. He would not even return the phone calls of William Sullivan, the U.S. ambassador in Tehran. Carter also ignored urgent policy recommendations delivered by his senior national-security officials. Needless to say, things did not turn out well.

Today, allowing Europe to “take the lead on Iran” will not result in a democratic constitution. At best, it will produce cosmetic changes in the Iranian government, which will remain ideologically Islamist and strongly anti-American.

President Obama promised to launch a new foreign policy, but his Iran strategy has largely been a continuation of the previous administration’s efforts. The only real difference is that Obama has legitimized the oppressive rule of the mullahs.

Manda Zand Ervin is president of the Alliance of Iranian Women.

[stephenjohnbanker]

“The only real difference is that Obama has legitimized the oppressive rule of the mullahs. “

Obama never met a dictator he didn’t like. See Honduras.

[kromike]

"President Obama! We are under attack! What are your orders?"

"Uhhh...ummm...take a poll...uhhh...ummm...ummm...uhh...is my teleprompter ready?....uhhh...uhhh....uhhh...I..uhhh...vote 'Present.'"

"Again?"

[Texas Fossil]

What do you expect, one muzzie to another muzzie.

He really thinks he is the Mhadi

Explanation: The core of the Shi'ite religious world view is the Hidden Imam, Muhammad al-Mahdi, "The Guided One."

Who has been sent to destroy the infidel.

--

From- http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2286692/posts

From the YID

The Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin al Husseini, used the Wall as a focal point for his anti-Zionist campaigns. He incited Muslims by proclaiming the Western Wall a holy Muslim site which Jews were trying to seize. The Western Wall, after having been ignored for centuries, was suddenly declared the spot to which Mohammed had tied his winged steed during his Night Journey.

The Wall was renamed Al Buraq after the horse.

Notice name similarities?

(a.) Haj Amin al Husseini as in Barrack Hussein Obama

(b.) Al Buraq as in Barrack

[Wuli]

My instincts tell me EVERYONE is wrong on this.

I believe

(1) Mousavi is NOT the reformer, in ANY United States sense, that the public in the west believes him to be;

(2) Obama knows this,

(3) his, Mousavi’s, true political-philosophical heritage [from which “nationalist” sources did he opportunistically “join” the “revolution” led by Khomeini] is actually one that closely matches Obama’s (in terms of the axis of its orientation),

(4) that Obama knows this as well, and

(5) Obama is only keeping his distance from Mousavi right now, to help preserve the street cred “change” image of Mousavi (which Obama knows will be “change” in line - politcally - with his) and NOT taint Mousavi with “U.S. support”).

Lastly, I do not think the events in Iran, and their timing, are isolated (in the framework I delineated above) from other national “crisis” political events taking place elsewhere in the world right now.

I think the public image of what is going on around the world right now has never been further from truth and reality of what is really going on.

[yefragetuwrabrumuy]

I dislike saying this, but I think we should look at it through the lenses of What Would W Bush Have Done? (WWWBHD?)

The truth of the matter is that there is little or nothing the US could have done, at least overtly, that wouldn’t have resulted in the Iranian government being far more brutal than it was. (What, if anything, that could have been done in secret is not really at issue, as by all rights, major covert actions should have been ongoing in Iran at least since the Reagan years. Whether or not they are is another thing.)

But compare what happens in Iran to either the massacre at Tienanmen Square, or the suppression of Solidarity in Poland, and you start to see the breadth of the problem.

Add to that that there is no leader in Iran who speaks in opposition to their theocracy. The closest thing is the son of the Shah, in exile. But it is questionable if even he speaks for real democracy.

The US is not particularly good in choosing the lesser of two evils. Instead, we are pretty stuck with supporting only real democracies, and those who want real democracy in their countries. Until someone in Iran has at least a decent chance in getting this, the US is pretty much on the sidelines.

[GVnana]

Obama Legitimizes the Mullahs

And betrays the freedom of Iran in the process.