Posted on 07/08/2009 5:26:52 AM PDT by SJackson
How much damage did Barak Obama do to the incipient Iranian revolution—and by extension, to peace in the Middle East and to the U.S. national interest—when he failed to support the Iranian protesters, and instead poured cold water on Moussavi as an alternative to Ahmadinejad? His defenders say, not much, for two reasons. First, sending troops or guns was out of the question, and without that mere words were not going to make much of a difference. And second, Obama later corrected himself, and issued a statement which (though he denied it) changed his position to one of support. They could not be more wrong on both counts. The damage Obama did was enormous, and his self-correction did nothing whatever to repair that damage
In the last thirty years we have seen many revolutions around the world in which people took to the streets in large numbers and were faced there by a much smaller number who were heavily armed. What we have learned from these situations it is that one factor matters more than any other: confidence. For the police and security forces, there is no safe course of action. It’s dangerous to follow orders and shoot unarmed people, and it’s dangerous not to follow orders and not shoot. The one might get them tried for murder if the revolution succeeds, and the other might get them executed for mutiny. And so they try desperately to see which way the wind is blowing. If the police become confident that the revolution is failing, they’ll obey orders. If on the other hand they believe that it is succeeding, they’ll join the crowds. Every single one of them is trying to discern the tipping point, the moment when it becomes clear which way things are going, and until then they try to avoid committing themselves. An added factor in this game of confidence is that the people with the guns probably have relatives and close friends among the protesters. Even if they don’t get into trouble with the authorities (whether the old or the new) they also have to worry both about the safety of those dear to them, and how their own actions will be judged at home.
On the other side, confidence is even more important. It is dangerous to confront armed men on the streets, and aside from a foolhardy few, most will only do so if they feel confident that things can go their way. The more people come out, the safer they all feel, and then even more will come out. But confidence either grows or it declines—it can’t stand still. As soon as the size of the crowd is noticeably less, confidence will quickly drain away. Like the security forces, the protesters too are looking for that tipping point—the point at which they are so strong that the security forces will begin to lose confidence in their superiors and stop obeying orders. The mood of one side soon affects that of the other. As one side gain confidence, their opponents lose it. But what is most important is that once the protesters start to doubt the outcome, it is no longer in doubt: they have lost.
In a situation like this, Barak Obama was not powerless to affect the outcome, as his defenders suggest. As spokesman for the most powerful nation on earth, he was in a position to make a real difference to the all-important psychology on both sides—and that is exactly what he did. But instead of building up the confidence of the protesters (and simultaneously undermining that of the security apparatus) with encouragement and a ringing endorsement of what they were doing, what he actually did was to give comfort to the forces of repression and undermine the confidence of the Iranian people.
Was this factor important enough to affect the outcome? We can never know for sure, but we can say two things with certainty. First, that this was evidently a close call for the regime, and that, to judge from the visible uncertainty of the security forces in the early going, the tipping point was nearly reached. And second, that Obama’s words discouraged the protesters in the street, and gave aid and comfort to the Ahmadinejad regime. We can only conclude that it is quite possible, though not certain, that in a closely balanced situation Obama’s words retarded momentum that had neared the tipping point and thus saved the day for the regime.
What about his later self-correction? There can be no doubt that it was completely irrelevant. The crisis of confidence had already passed. Obama spoke up only after the security forces had begun to seriously crack down—in other words, only after they knew what the outcome would be, as did the protesters. By the time he changed his tune, what he said no longer had any power to affect the outcome.
The stakes in this potential Iranian revolution were enormous. Iranian mischief-making throughout the Middle East could have been ended, and a force for the good in the region could have replaced its most persistent source of evil. Obama had claimed that his diplomatic skill could solve the Iranian nuclear threat where George W. Bush had failed, but when an opportunity was presented to him to do much more than this, he squandered it in one of the worst foreign policy blunders since Jimmy Carter.
Every civilized country, except US, condemned the attacks on the protesters. IMMEDIATELY
""Reagan was the person who defeated the communists and opened the way for freedom in Poland."
There will not be one of Obamarx in Tehran as he chose not to stand for freedom against tyranny.
Snuffed it out. His socialist and muzzie buddies are very proud of him.
Obama merely wounded the Iranian Uprising. Michael Jackson killed it.
As much as he could.
If you’d like to be on or off, please FR mail me.
..................
He set it back at least two generations.
When the same thing is done in Iran it's a "revolution" of "freedom fighters"?
Whatever.
at least as much as he is trying to do to Honduras...
I have conducted a VERY precise and detailed audit of Obama's Administration during the "Iranian Revolution" and have concluded aftr an exhaustive check of all the facts that Obama lived up to his name - he did precisely ZERO damage to Iran!!
/sarc
(However, his continued apology tour and weakening of America's defense posture is doing considerable damage to THIS country!!)
So when the left protested the “stolen election” in 2000 they were “sore losers” and childish.
When the same thing is done in Iran it’s a “revolution” of “freedom fighters”?
Whatever.
So where did you learn history, pal...ABC??
It’s not over yet, althought the MSM coverage over it might have gotten eclipsed some.
Brilliant, illuminating answer.
See my post #5 on this other thread:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2287642/posts
If Mousavi is really a “reformer”:
(1)How does that reconcile with his past in the “revolution”;
(2)He and the three other candidates were only ALLOWED to run by the cleric gate keepers (398 others were not allowed);
(3)If the west was so sure he was THE REFOMER, where is the investigative discussion in the western media about his past, including his domestic and foreign allies BEFORE he joined up with Khomeini?
The western public is hailing someone they know absolutely nothing about as a great “reformer”, and writing millions of words that him and the mobs in the street mysteriously represent “reform”; why? Simply because they’re not the Mullahs.
Castro was hailed as the savior opposed to Batista. Was he a “reformer”?
I think our real opponents again have the west bamboozaled.
YEP. That politicized Michael Jackson funeral “We are the World” sounded real hollow and weak in the face of the Mullah massacring the Iranians.
The issue isn’t whether Mousavi is more of the same (he is), it’s that the Iranian people were rebelling against tyranny. It’s a habit we’d like to see them get into.
“The western public is hailing someone they know absolutely nothing about as a great “reformer”, and writing millions of words that him and the mobs in the street mysteriously represent “reform”; why? Simply because they’re not the Mullahs.”
I don’t presume to speak for the entire western public like you, but I am for the people in the streets of Iran not for some “more of the same” mullah like you state, but because once you rip the mask off the totalitarian state and show their weakness, they are finished. Have you forgotten this?
If the people can make the government blink now, they can make them blink later - get it? An authoritarian without authority is just another bully. This has nothing to do with Mousavi. In fact, your relentless focus on this man and your straw-man construct of what the western public thinks to the exclusion of these other points suggests that you are the one being bamboozled.
“I don’t presume to speak for the entire western public like you, but I am for the people in the streets of Iran not for some “more of the same” mullah like you state, but because once you rip the mask off the totalitarian state and show their weakness, they are finished. Have you forgotten this?”
We have no basis to say we know that Mousavi represents anything opposed to a totalitarian state. The Marxists have always been at the core of the “anti-war” massive marches and demos in this country - who did they represent? Everyone is assuming that the demos in Iran mean what WE want them to mean. Mousavi is as much an enigma as Obama, and my bet is that his political heritage will prove to very much match Obamas.
“If the people can make the government blink now, they can make them blink later - get it? An authoritarian without authority is just another bully. This has nothing to do with Mousavi. In fact, your relentless focus on this man and your straw-man construct of what the western public thinks to the exclusion of these other points suggests that you are the one being bamboozled.”
There is no doubt that many in Iran are self-motivated, and with good reason, to demo against the government. You are assuming they are more well-informed about Mousavi and those who are using that public angst than the sheeple in this country who follow our Marxists to the street, trying to say here “see we are the people because we can get them to go to the street”.
I am unconvinced that the Iranian people are not being misled now just as they were with Khomeini.
When the “Khomeini revolution” started and as it took power, there were many “nationalist” groups that joined Khomeini’c core group. They learned, some soon some later, that while they were with Khomeini, he and his group was never with them. As time went on each group outside of Khomeini’s core, and each of their leaders, were sidelined, made politically irrelevant, detained, imprisoned, exiled, assassinated or given “legal” capital punishment.
There are many such groups in Iran today who feel the same way about Mousavi as many nationalist groups once felt about Khomeini. I believe they are again being misled. You don’t have to be a Mullah to be a totalitarian.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.