June 16, 2009
From a post today on Big Picture:
I don't really think Obama can say much more than he already has. I'm with John Dickerson over at Slate who comments that "Despite the current uproar, the urgent problem is how to stop Iran's effort to obtain nuclear weapons. Obama doesn't want to do anything that will keep him from getting back to that quickly."
Also noted in the same article, Obama himself said "It's not productive, given the history of U.S.-Iranian relations to be seen as meddling—the U.S. president meddling in Iranian elections."
That said though, it wasn't beyond the State Department to work with twitter to keep the site available throughout the day today in Iran, rather than cut out for an hour for regular maintenance. Huh.
I have to confess that my initial attraction to this news story wasn't born out of a deep knowledge about the Iranian government, and so I don't know how different it would be with Mousavi over Ahmadinejad as president. Mousavi was prime minister in the '80s. There seems to be Khameni and the 86 guys in the council... whoever those guys are. They picked the 270 or so candidates who were allowed to run. Oh, duh. It's a theocracy. I have no idea whatsoever what will happen, and I haven't really heard anything that gives me confidence that anyone else does, either.
Rather than continue to talk myself down the empty well, how about something completely different...
On top!. Five more months...
Comments
lawrence.com does not necessarily agree with comments posted below - responsibility lies with the relevant user alone. Read our full policy.
JSeraphim (anonymous) says...
Question: if you don't know much about Iranian politics how can you have an opinion about what's important - concerning nuclear weapons? How much do you know about their nuclear program?
I think it's odd how Americans tend to look down their noses on Iran. An estimated 75% of the voting populace turned out to do so, when in our recent historic election only 60% did. So a religious group chooses the eligible candidates - four of them. How different is that from us, whose candidates are essentially chosen by the Commission on Presidential Debates, an organization co-chaired by a top Democrat and Republican? So they have a theocracy- we have a media-cracy, pun intended.
On top of that, when Bush stole his last term, how many outraged Americans did you see take to the streets?
June 18, 2009 at 7:51 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
mitzibel (Misty Nuckolls) says...
In fine American tradition, we were all too busy drinking ourselves senseless and screaming at our TVs to take to the streets.
June 18, 2009 at 10 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
dolores2175 (April Fleming) says...
I'm not sure I'm looking down my nose at Iran. I know enough not to be completely ignorant, thanks to the Iranian who has become part of my immediate family. Her family had to leave the country during the revolution. All I'm saying is that I'm no expert, and so I'm sort of reluctant to scream for Mousavi when it seems that overall no matter what happens a big shift in the country's politics probably won't happen. Because I don't trust a theocratic model of government doesn't mean I always trust democracies, either. I don't think it's going to be controversial to say that despite its flaws, I still think our democracy is hugely preferable to live under.
I don't think Bush stole the second election, and his reelection didn't cause nearly as much of a stir as his first election, the 'stealability' of which is more debatable - you can find youtube videos of the protests in DC and elsewhere on Bush's inauguration day. Remember that month of unrest? Obviously it wasn't to the scale of what's going on in Iran now, but people in the US don't tend to be detained anywhere on the level they are in Iran for holding opposing viewpoints. Nobody has stormed KU's dorms.
Sorry this is a little half baked... time to go eat lunch!
June 18, 2009 at 12:39 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
sssoundsystem (anonymous) says...
"Question: if you don't know much about Iranian politics how can you have an opinion about what's important - concerning nuclear weapons? "
Really?
June 18, 2009 at 12:41 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
dolores2175 (April Fleming) says...
Yeah, I don't really get that question either, btw. I don't think knowing the intricacies of their government has much to do with understanding that nuclear weapons in a country that has such tense relationships with other governments in the region might be a bad idea.
Just popped in to add also that it's not that I don't support anyone that's fighting for their freedom... I'm rooting for the opposition. I'm just a bit cynical about how free they will be in either case... the candidates people can vote for have to be approved by the higher ups. Not so much free.
June 18, 2009 at 12:49 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
JSeraphim (anonymous) says...
You're right, my question was worded badly. My point was that there is no proof that Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons, but pundits like your Slate reference begin with the a priori assumption that it's true, and that it is a concern. It's true Ahmadenijad is crazy, and it's true that he needs to go, but playing up the nuclear scare bullshit is old hat and reminiscent of the Bush days. The only reason anybody cares about Iran is because the shit Ahmadenijad started talking on Bush and visa versa, and now that we're supposedly over Bush we're still harping on the same old row.
Also I didn't mean to sound so personally harsh concerning accusations of looking-down-noses, what I meant was that we tend to have this general air of superiority over nations like Iran, and it is hard to think outside of that box.
June 18, 2009 at 9:03 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
DOTDOT (anonymous) says...
Iran is controlled by a theocracy which is composed of hardliners whose ideology - at it's core - perpetuates an anti-US sentiment.
There will never be any proof that Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons, just as there was no proof that the US was pursuing nuclear weapons before August 6, 1945. Saber rattling contemporaneus to uranium enrichment tends to raise a bit of suspicion. Call the entire civilized world paranoid.
Thinking outside the box is a good strategy for designing neato widgets to peddle to each other, but I want my diplomats, politicians, and military commanders - those that have to actually deal with the wackos in the world in a deeper than couch potato way - to pay attention to the box.
June 20, 2009 at 1:19 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
JSeraphim (anonymous) says...
DOTDOT- Anti-US sentiment is perpetuated by more than mere hardline ideology. There are historical and political reasons for this sentiment, and much of it justified. I'm not saying that you're not right, I'm saying there is more to it than that. Looking at the situation through such a narrow scope (eg- they're hardliners who hate our freedom), is dangerous because it precludes a political, as opposed to an ideological, engagement. My point is that they don't posture themselves purely based on ideology, but on historical and political reasons, like everyone else.
I do call the entire civilized world paranoid!
Also I'm not talking about the upper echelons of power - I'm talking about how people think and talk about nations like Iran on the ground level: students, Lawrencians, bloggers, commenters, etc. I understand what you are saying about "paying attention to the box," but I'm afraid if we trap ourselves into an ideological binary (eg they hate our freedom), we won't be able to creatively or effectively deal with these problems.
Tnx for the convoz.
June 20, 2009 at 9:05 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
DOTDOT (anonymous) says...
Without ideological difficulties, we wouldn't be in such a political mess. Much of the unresolvable modern day Mid East turmoil stems from Zionism which is an ideological beast with political tentacles. Over-simplification acknowledged, but used here only to show the point.
I agree with the caution against ideological binaries. Unfortunately, we as a species tend toward the reduction. I just find the idea that "We are wrong, therefore they are right." is as dangerous a trap as any other.
June 20, 2009 at 5:17 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )