Iranian Elections

[Lemur]

As to the purpose: What purpose does the US condemning human rights abuses anywhere serve? Should we ever do it?

If a rhetorical question gets asked in the woods, does a tree fall?

I think your position is strangely history- and strategy-free. When we comdemn human rights abuses, 99% of the time we are not doing so in a place where we helped overthrow a democratically elected government. That may not register for you, but it certainly does for Iranians.

I think James Rosen is a strong contender for "best journalist question of the year" for this exchange

So you think a Fox News reporter deserves a special award for asking about "cracked heads." There's so much irony potential in this that I don't know where to start.

Once the government finishes cracking down on the protesters, which they most likely will, I'd prefer that our nation had gone on record supporting their rights to free speech rather than having just stood idly by.

Like many conservatives, you seem to believe that the odds of reform in Iran are small. What leads you to this conclusion?

Would that irritate the current regime? Of course it would- but Ahmadinejad has yet to speak with anything but derision when it comes to negotiations anyhow, so it's hard to see how much it would hurt.

On the contrary, Imadinnerjacket would rejoice if we publicly supported the reformers at this point. He'd likely send flowers and a thank-you note, maybe a fruit basket. Nothing could make the mullah-military complex happier.

But, our having said something substantive would sit with me a lot better once this is all over.

To which I say, don't just do something, stand there! Tomorrow the situation may be different, but at the moment the prudent course for the U.S. seems blindingly obvious. As it stands, 24 hours is a long time in Iranian politics.

Here's a buffet sampler of opinions from people who think we should be doing more:

Krauthammer: "The president is also speaking in code. [...] The code the administration is using is implicit support for this repressive, tyrannical regime."

Hays: "Obama is the first American president who is unaware of the historical sources of America’s moral strength. In his tepid response to events in Iran, the president hailed democratic process, freedom of speech, and the ability to select one’s own leaders as “universal values.” But they aren't. A quick glance around the world’s totalitarian regimes, including most especially that of Iran, should convince anyone of that. These values come from America and the West. Imagine having a president who either doesn't know or won't say it."

Rubin: "[R]ather than dismiss Obama's approach as a fantasy, the belief that engagement and dialogue can always succeed is an ideology, one that infects a good proportion of those who consider themselves realists. Carter, as president, started with a different ideology, one that saw human rights in foreign policy as paramount. Memoirs of Carter administration officials show he moved to undercut the Shah in part because, he felt that Khomeini would be better for human rights. Carter was wrong, and stubborn. Rather than admit some of his pet targets — Mugabe, Arafat, Assad were not interested in peace or human rights, he simply shed this pretext and embraced the same ideology which Obama appears to have now — a belief in moral equivalency and the idea that negotiation can solve all ills regardless of the extremism of the adversary and the immorality of the position."