'By not supporting opposition ralliers, America aids oppressive Iranian regime' - Wall St. Journal, JPost, Boston Globe

'Anti- Ahmedinejad protests will die out' without Western support, according to The Jerusalem Post's military editor, Yaakov Katz and staff:
"Without support from the United States and other Western countries, Iranian opposition groups will likely stop demonstrations against the Iranian regime and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's declared victory in Friday's presidential elections, senior Israeli defense officials said Sunday.

According to the officials, a Mousavi victory would have been a blow to the regime, which is led by Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, since the reformist candidate had called for changes to the implementation of Islamic law, particularly pertaining to the status of women in Iranian society.

"There have been mass arrests throughout Iran," another official explained, referring to the arrest of over 100 members of the reformist groups. "The regime fears the possibility of a revolution and will do everything it can to prevent that from happening."(published June 15, 2009)
Obama's Iran Abdication - Democracy interferes with his nuclear diplomacy script. Wall St. Journal, Review and Outlook, 18 June 2009
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.

Jeff Jacoby broadens the analysis in the Boston Globe:
"Engagement'' with the foul Ahmadinejad and the turbaned dictators he answers to has always been a chimera; if that wasn't clear before last week's brazenly rigged election results, surely it is clear now. Iran's ruling clerics, headed by Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, didn't just endorse the Ahmadinejad approach - the pursuit of nuclear weapons, the vile anti-Semitism, the demonization of America, the partnership with terrorists, the trampling of human rights. They unreservedly embraced it. Ahmadinejad's fraudulent reelection was hailed by Khamenei as "a divine blessing'' and "a glittering event.'' With such a regime, no compromise is possible. Neither is impartiality. Like it or not, the White House must choose: Will America stand with the mullahs and their goons, or with the endangered people of Iran?
Eyewitness video shows the brutality this regime is capable of. Solidarity rallies from around the world are shown at the end of the playlist.

The prolific, Jerusalem-based blog, Israel Matsav, elaborates on the situation in Jeff Jacoby rips Obama on Iran:

Obama doesn't want to take the students' side because it would mean admitting that he was wrong until now, and it would mean that he would have to take out Iran's nuclear program - or allow Israel to do so - without first forcing Israel to create a 'Palestinian' state reichlet as a quid pro quo.  That 'Palestinian' reichlet may well be the only defined foreign policy goal this administration has and it is not going to let a few dead Iranians force it to give up that goal.

Taking the students' side would also mean acknowledging that there are blacks and whites in the world - and not just shades of gray. It would mean admitting that we don't live in a utopian community where grievances are resolved by negotiations and no one goes to war.

No comments:

Post a Comment