Examiner Editorial: No-drama Obama may invite more Iranian repression
June 23, 2009
President Barack Obama’s noted cool and nonchalance may reassure some, but his clear aversion to unexpected drama is a hindrance to confronting a dangerous crisis effectively. In fact, his overly passive response to events in Iran reveals a regrettable unwillingness to speak up that could easily be mistaken by foreign leaders for weakness.
As Iranians took to the streets against their oppressive regime following the disputed June 12 elections, Obama said nothing substantive for more than a week. At first, he justified his passivity by arguing that America would otherwise be perceived as meddling in Iranian affairs. Predictably, though, the Iranian Mullahs still accused the U.S. of meddling despite Obama’s silence.
The president does in fact have a serious reason to speak very carefully — Iran’s nuclear program. Obama promised during the 2008 presidential campaign to meet with Iranian leaders “without precondition” in order to discuss that topic. Administration officials were quoted last week as being fearful that open U.S. encouragement of freedom-loving Iranians could derail these negotiations — negotiations that are “a nearly theological preoccupation” for Obama, former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton told The Examiner during an editorial board meeting Monday.
Therein lies the true problem. Negotiations between Obama and Iran’s ruling clerics hold such slim chances of success that they are not worth the price of Obama’s silence at this critical juncture. The Mullahs aren’t likely to give up their nuclear ambitions in exchange for anything Obama can offer them. Homegrown regime change in Tehran is closer to reality now than it has been in three decades, and it remains the only path to containing Iran’s nuclear ambitions.
In his inauguration speech, Obama was speaking to the Mullahs when he said, “To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent ... we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist.” It’s now clear that Iran’s rulers have no intention of unclenching their fists — Monday’s reports of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards firing live bullets at protesters put an exclamation point on this reality. If Obama sits down to chat with Iran’s ruling clerics after a bloody crackdown, he will be rewarding their brutality and treating Tehran’s brave demonstrators as an inconvenient detour on the way to the conference table. The president’s weekend statement calling on Iran’s government to stop its brutal suppression of dissent was encouraging. He must now decide which is more important: his long-standing plans for face-to-face negotiations, or adapting his foreign policy to reality.
