Must-See Movie of the Week!

This propagandist interpretation is ridiculous, of course, but the point is not far from the truth, from a non-partisan perspective.

The CIA is most certainly doing everything in their power at the moment to exploit this popular uprising. Using spies and manipulation to push the current instability towards a collapse of the regime (without having to declare an open war between USA and Iran). Like they have always done in the past to influence regime change in sovereign coutnries. And the Obama administration would unlikely change the usual strategy.

So even if it is exagerated in this clip, it's easy to understand why a sovereign government (even a legit/democratic one) would perceive any encouragement of uprising as a menace. Just like Russia was behind the May 68 uprising in France.

There is a fine line between supporting the will of the people to claim their own liberty and pressuring them from the outside to get into a bloodbath they couldn't win alone.

JE: That last line is very well put. That's exactly why it would be reckless and dangerous for Obama to speak out in support of one Iranian candidate or another. This uprising was sparked by overt election fraud in Iran. It's not about the US. It's about Iranian sovereignty and its citizens' right to determine their own destiny. That's the fine line Obama has been walking in his rhetoric. Even Iranians who aren't old enough to remember first-hand know that the US supported the Shah.

Hey Jim,

Can the US really run its foreign policy out of the fear of how crazy world leaders will use it for propaganda? Should we not pass UN Sanctions against North Korea for fear of how it will be perceived in their country? Should the US not enforce a recently enacted UN sanction against North Korea and forbid that boat of weapons from reaching Myanmar? Should we not attempt to pass UN resolutions against Iran for violating the Nuclear non-proliferation treaty because it might embolden the mullahs and play into their little facade?

In the present situation in Iran, do you really think that the people protesting in the streets will be disenchanted if Obama speaks out strongly on their behalf, or do you think they will be emboldened? I think they would be emboldened. The only people for whom this Iranian propaganda is effective are the people who drank the kool-aid anyway and will hate the US no matter what happens.

Iranians are being murdered in the streets and Obama should express moral outrage at what's happening. He did a little of that in that CBS interview, but he's mostly attacking the Iranian government for violating their citizens "First Amendment rights", as if this is the first time the Iranians would do such a thing.

With regard to that letter above, let's not forget Iran's history since the revolution. First, they held all those hostages during the Carter administration. Iran is the world's foremost leader of state sponsored terrorism. They sponsor and arm Hezbollah, which murdered over 200 marines in Lebanon, commits terrorist attacks against Israel, and has attacked Jews as far away as South America. Iran also funds Hamas. The Iranian Guard also supplied IED's to Iraqi insurgents which were used to murder our troops (let's just put aside the argument about whether or not the troops should be there in the first place because I'm sure you would agree that Iran should not be meddling in Iraq either and certainly should not be arming insurgent groups). Iran is also one of the world's most oppressive regimes in terms of basic human rights and civil liberties (as this "election" reminds everyone). Remember: there are no gay people in Iran. And to top it off, Iran is building a nuclear weapon in violation of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. Last year, Israel destroyed a Syrian nuclear generator in its early stages, but there is no way that the Syrians could have received the materials it needed without Iranian support.

So, despite what that letter would have you think, American presidents have acted quite reasonably toward Iran, all things considered. Even Bush, the "cowboy", approached Iran carefully and although he classified them as "evil" (and seriously, do you really think they are not evil after what's been going down over there?), Bush engaged Iran with Europe to work out a peaceful solution to the nuclear conflict. But Iran wants a nuclear weapon and (to quote your favorite movie, Jim) "some men aren't looking for anything logical, like money. They can't be bought, bullied, reasoned or negotiated with. Some men just want to watch the world burn."

JE: Diplomacy is a powerful and subtle tool. Recklessly feeding the opposition's propaganda machine when you don't have to is a loser's game. Why shoot yourself in the foot when there are smarter ways of exercising power and influence? Iranians -- and practically everyone in the Middle East -- understand the language Obama is speaking when he uses terms like "justice" and "universal rights," even if Americans do not. He is speaking to those directly involved in Iran, not to domestic ignoramuses. Calling the Iranian government "evil" is juvenile and pointless. It is so much more powerful to say, as Obama did: "If the Iranian government seeks the respect of the international community, it must respect the dignity of its own people and govern through consent, not coercion." If you've never been to the Middle East, perhaps you don't understand the cultural significance of certain ways of communicating. (Indeed, you probably wouldn't even understand what that last sentence could possibly mean.)

As I reminded readers after 9/11, FDR made a rather memorable speech after Pearl Harbor without stooping to the rhetoric of "evil." It's often more effective to let your enemies hang themselves. It's dumb, and often counter-productive, to slap simplistic labels on them, which only polarizes rhetoric on all sides and actually distracts attention from their accountability for their own behavior.

What was gained by employing the phrase "axis of evil" to describe three regimes that had no connection to one another -- Iraq, Iran and North Korea? Nothing. It was vague rhetoric that just helped destroyed the US's credibility worldwide. What goal was served by Bush telling the UN that he didn't require their approval regarding Iraq... before asking for their approval -- and then acting as though he'd received it, even when he didn't? Nothing. It just alienated potential allies and laid bare the dishonesty of the US administration's moral and political motives.

Remember, too, that Iran's nuclear program was started under the Shah in the 1950s with the full support of the US. Today, we're dealing with the results of short-sighted policies from half a century ago...

The USA can produce propaganda as stupid as this one. Even without going all the way back to the anti-communist rhetorics of the cold war, the misinformation the administration produced regarding Global Warming or Iraq or Evolution is laughable delusion too. Remember it always depends on which side of the fence you stand.

Bush sr. pushed the Kurds to rebel during Gulf War 1, and then backed off and let Saddam free to crush the Kurds. They would probably not have taken such risky chances if they had known they were on their own...

There is no reason the push people to civil war, when this election fraud should be resolved peacefuly (like it was in the 2000 USA election that Bush stole).

My main point was not about whether the phrase "Axis of Evil" was effective - I only meant to point out, in response to that letter, that American response to Iran has been quite reasonable. Even though Bush called them "evil" he still sought a diplomatic solution to the nuclear conflict. This is similar to Reagan calling the USSR "evil" but still negotiating with them for weapons reductions. But this is a collateral issue.

As I'm sure you heard today, Obama said he "strongly condemns" the actions of the Iranian government. He's also "appalled and outraged." What do you think about this, Jim? Is this too much rhetoric? Or did he strike the right tone?

Also, Jim, the US helped the Shah in developing nuclear power, but we stopped after the revolution. So we haven't helped them in 30 years. We're talking about two different governments in Iran and two different policies toward those governments. Sure, it was short-sighted to help the Shah like that, but the US did not act with the intent of helping Khomeini and we've been negotiating with them for a peaceful solution. But again, the Iranian government wants the bomb, nothing else.

Even if the Iranian government begins to negotiate, do you really think they are sincere and will hold up their end of the bargain? Iran is already breaking the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, so that's one agreement down the tubes. The Iranians can also look to their friends in North Korea as an example of how to defy the world community. North Korea breaks every agreement they enter into and no one holds them accountable. Sure, there's that new UN resolution against them, but that was just a little more strongly worded than past resolutions against them, and it's pretty clear that it isn't going to be enforced (the US isn't going to stop that ship heading to Myanmar even though the UN resolution gives us authority to do so). So why should Iran think anything else would happen to them? What's the point of negotiating with a country when that country knows if they break the treaty there will be no punishment (except being forced to sit down for more boring negotiations)? How do you expect the Iranian government to respect the world community when it doesn't even respect its own people?

JE: American rhetoric about Iran has varied quite a bit over the years, in part because Saddam Hussein was our ally when Iraq was at war with Iran throughout the 1980s. I'm just saying Obama's recent language has been strategically smart -- as opposed to, say, McCain's past and present rhetoric, notably his campaign ditty, "Bomb bomb bomb, bomb-bomb Iran."

Yes, people forget that Reagan's attitude toward the USSR changed rather dramatically in his second term. He claimed that it was Nancy who got him to re-think his "Evil Empire" rhetoric. Bush, too, said he would never negotiate with Iran, but did.

I think Obama's words were well-chosen (especially compared to tin-eared John McCain, who compared Iranian Muslim Neda Soltani to Joan of Arc -- a Catholic saint! If she'd been killed by one of McCain's bombs, he wouldn't see her as a martyr; she'd just be collateral damage.). Obama spoke specifically about the government's response to the election protests, but did not take sides in the election itself. Important distinction. Whatever happens in Iran needs to come from within Iran. Obama has been very clear about respecting the rights of the Iranian people to self-determination. We have to walk the line between support and interference. It's not going to be easy, but it's the wisest course.

As for the nuclear program, all I'm saying is that once you start helping one government with nuclear technology, there's no going back when the next government comes along.

According to the UN resolution against North Korea, if the ship refuses inspection at sea then the ship must be directed to a port of their choosing. They will have to refuel in Singapore, which has said it will "take appropriate action" according to AP.

Americans are often seen as arrogant, imperial grandstanders, and this doesn't make our diplomacy more effective. I think a more measured, less apocalyptic tone is wise in international relations right now -- more work behind the scenes, less bloviation from Washington -- especially after our diminished reputation for world leadership under Bush. Obama has to rebuild a lot of lost credibility to regain the influence the U.S. used to have. It may not even be possible to earn back what was lost in the last eight years. But I think a more subtle approach is the only way to go about it. Sometimes words are more effective when they're measured.

"Whatever happens in Iran needs to come from within Iran. Obama has been very clear about respecting the rights of the Iranian people to self-determination. We have to walk the line between support and interference. It's not going to be easy, but it's the wisest course."

But Jim, this isn't a situation where both sides are equal and this is just a hotly contested election - like Republicans v. Democrats or something similar. The tyrannical government has the weapons and restricts media access and other forms of free speech. The people have no weapons and are depending on Twitter to get out information. The government rigged the election and the people are now being killed in the street. If this ends in another Tienanmen Square, is this self-determination? I would say that it is the exact opposite of self-determination.

Also, why does it matter that this is purely an internal conflict? You wouldn't say the genocide in Darfur is a purely internal conflict. You wouldn't say the same thing about Rwanda. Should the US not get involved in preventing those situations because whatever happens there must come from within those countries? The situation in Iran is not as bad as Darfur or Rwanda, granted, but the fact that a conflict is purely internal doesn't mean that the US shouldn't get involved. The US should stand up for what is right, regardless of how crazy dictators might use it as propaganda.

I agree with Obama's earlier statement that the Iranian candidates really have the same positions on just about everything and so there is no real appreciable difference between them. That said, Obama should protest the government crackdown as well as the rigged election and the lack of civil rights. You mentioned before, Jim, that short-sighted policies often come back to bite us in the butt, and you're right. So how do you think the Iranian protesters are going to feel about the US if we don't fully support them in their time of need, even if we only do so with vocal support? Don't you think they'll remember when they put their necks on the line and Obama barely supported them? Why would they ever do it again?

JE: What you describe has been the New American Century way of thinking espoused by neoconservatives, but it has been discredited by the first five years of bungling in Iraq without a plan or a clue about what we were doing. Also, it ignores the reality of other countries and other cultures. You may think the US isn't doing enough to support the protesters; they fully understand what Obama is saying (as that letter indicates). Others may be listening much more closely to the language coming out of Washington than most Americans do. Much more of importance can be communicated through nuance and indirection than through bombastic, inflammatory language.

But, again, it's not about US. America does not stand up for what's right by shooting its mouth off at every opportunity and telling other countries what to do about their problems. The truth is, that's the way our rhetoric is often perceived, and it only serves to make situations worse for the people we'd like to help (as it most certainly would in Iran -- for reasons illustrated in the clip above). You think Iranians don't know how much their freedoms have been restricted? Of course they do. And there's a big political divide between urban and rural populations -- as there is elsewhere in the world, including the US. But quite often people elsewhere would prefer to solve their own problems without external interference from the US or anywhere else. Our government should be careful with its rhetoric; meanwhile, our people should do everything we can to express our support. It's like a wise Middle East expert said about the American occupation of Iraq: There is no such thing as a "good image" of a uniformed American soldier in Iraq. It doesn't matter if they're building hospitals and saving babies. What people in the Middle East see is an American soldier in a Muslim country, and that is blasphemy. It helps to understand such things. We think we're "helping" sometimes and we wonder why there's blowback and "they hate us." It's because of such unintended consequences that we're too culturally insulated to recognize.

But I think we're getting too speculative here. I'm not sure what you think Obama should do or say. Perhaps if we weren't still in Iraq ("six months, tops" -- Rumsfeld) and Afghanistan we might have interceded in Darfur. I don't know. But what are the range of responses to genocide in Darfur and a stolen election in Iran?

Consider this example of rhetorical blowback, from a piece called "The Swan Song of the Islamic Republic" by Bernard-Henry Levy:

http://budurl.com/tz43

Whatever happens, the Ayatollah Khamenei, Khomeini's successor and Supreme Leader of the regime, tutelary authority of the President, father of the people, will have lost his role as arbiter, will have shamelessly sided with one faction over the others, and will have therefore lost what remained of his authority: "Only God knows my vote," he carefully replied four years ago to those who were already calling upon him to denounce the fraud--"in the name of merciful God, I armor, I hammer, and I dissolve the people," he has responded this time to the naïve who believed he was there to uphold the Constitution.

This is the religious leader of Iran we're talking about, who has lost his credibility with millions because his language went too far. This is a reality that's hard for many Americans to understand.

Petition to support Iranian protesters:

I have mixed feelings about some of MoveOn's campaigns, but this sounds like a good one:

Now, it's crucial that the Iranian regime knows that the world is watching and that they must stop their violent repression of peaceful dissent.

So our friends at Avaaz—a global MoveOn-type organization—have asked people all over the world to stand with the Iranian protesters. Avaaz is aiming for 1 million signatures worldwide and is going to deliver this message of solidarity to other governments, concentrating on the countries with the most influence over Iran's regime. Can you add your name?

http://civ.moveon.org/irancrackdown/?id=16437-6186226-gOtxqIx&t=1

A clear message from people all over the world can help put pressure on the Iranian regime to stop the violence. Other Muslim countries in the region and key trading partners like China and Turkey have been mostly silent since the election, but a worldwide outpouring of support can convince them to take action.

Involvement by the American government could be used by the Iranian regime as an excuse to crack down further. But if we, as individuals, join with folks around the world, we can help create a global outcry. The petition will be delivered directly to the Organisation of the Islamic Conference, the Non-Aligned Movement, the E.U., and the U.N. to show them that the world wants them to act.

MUST-LISTEN interview with Iran analyst Karim Sadjadpour with Terry Gross on "Fresh Air." He understands Iran and brings together a lot of the most pertinent observations about what is happening and why: http://budurl.com/p242

Honestly, is the information in that propaganda piece significantly more inaccurate than the majority of information you'd get from Fox or MSNBC "News"? It is dillusional, partisan and aimed to create a knee-jerk emotional reaction that any communications 101 student can tell you very easily wins over rational fact based arguments.

In response to "anonymous" up there: I heard a good analogy for what an Obama endorsement of the protests would be like. It'd be as if Former-President Bush endorsed a candidate in a Democratic Party Primary -- it would do nothing but bring trouble to the person he endorsed. The regime wants to paint the protestors as tools of the west simply because that designation is so toxic. If Obama came out strongly for them it would be used as evidence by the Supreme Leader that this is a U.S.-led rebellion. Really, it's not that hard to understand.

JE: Yes. Imagine Kim Jong-il and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Osama bin Laden and somebody from France endorsing a candidate in a US election!

Thanks for putting France in the "axis of evil"! ;)

Well, it seems Obama can't win. He made those statements and here's what Ahmadinejad said about it:

"Mr. Obama made a mistake to say those things . . . our question is why he fell into this trap and said things that previously (former U.S. President George W.) Bush used to say," the semi-official Fars News Agency quoted Ahmadinejad as saying.

"Do you want to speak (with Iran) with this tone? If that is your stance then what is left to talk about," said Ahmadinejad. "I hope you avoid interfering in Iran's affairs and express your regret in a way that the Iranian nation is informed of it."

-----------------------
How could Ahmadinejad criticize Obama like that, comparing him to Bush? Obama better watch out and never criticize Iran again. Otherwise, he'll just be playing into their propaganda machine!

JE: You're still missing the point. Ahmadinejad has no credibility because, thanks to new technology, the people of Iran know what Obama actually DID say. But you still haven't said what you think the US should do instead of (or in addition to) what Obama's doing. I'll try once more to explain. Here's an observation from an interview with Iranian-American journalist Hooman Majd:

http://budurl.com/gvt9

If violence continues, if more protesters are killed, is there ever a scenario in which a more activist or interventionist policy from the U.S. or Western nations would be helpful or necessary?

Absolutely not. I don't know what the U.S. could even do, short of invading the country, which would be a disaster because you turn everybody against the United States and for the government. Other than to say it's unacceptable for a government to kill its own people who are peacefully protesting, and to make that point strongly, I don't know what else the U.S. should do.

Let's think about U.S. interests. Obama is there to protect the U.S. national interests. We don't have a dog in this fight. We don't have a preference. We should have a preference for the rule of law and for people's rights being respected. If Ahmadinejad is president, the United States is going to have to deal with him whether or not his election was the will of the people. Clearly it's not the will of the people for Hosni Mubarak to be president of Egypt. It was the will of the people to have Hamas represent the Palestinian territory and we decided not to deal with the will of the people there. I think we have to be careful. If we come out on the side of the reformers and say we can't accept Ahmadinejad, it would be the equivalent of Iran saying we can't accept that Bush is president because we don't agree with the Supreme Court ruling.

Would you say that the neoconservatives' extremely vocal calls to intervene on behalf of Mousavi are playing into the hands of the most conservative forces in Iran?

The neocons know nothing about Iran, nothing about the culture of Iran. They have no interest in understanding Iran, in speaking to any Iranian other than Iranian exiles who support the idea of invasions -- I'll call them Iranian Chalabis. It's offensive, even to an Iranian American like me. These are people who would have actually preferred to have Ahmadinejad as president so they could continue to demonize him and were worried, as some wrote in Op-Eds, that Mousavi would be a distraction and would make it easier for Iranians to build a nuclear weapon and now all of a sudden they want to be on his side? Go away.

I'm not saying Obama is the most knowledgeable person on Iran, but he's obviously getting good advice right now. He understands way more about the culture of the Middle East than any of the neocons. For them to be lecturing President Obama is a joke. I have criticized Obama; for instance, I criticized him for having a patronizing tone in his Persian New Year message. But right now I think he's doing a good job. The John McCains of the world, they're Ahmadinejad's useful idiots. They're doing a great job for him.

I don't think Obama needs to or should "pick a horse" in the Iranian election. It's bad form for politicians or Presidents from other countries to openly pick sides in free elections. Of course, Obama can hope deep down inside that one guy beats the other, but he shouldn't presume to tell the Iranian people how to vote. That said, Obama should, as I stated in above posts, condemn the sham election (I have not heard him do this. I heard Hillary do this, but not Obama), condemn the absence of and further deprivation of civil liberties (he's only condemned the latter half) and the violence against protesters (which he has done). So really, Obama should speak out more vocally about the stolen election and the total absence of civil rights in the country. If he has done so in a timely fashion and I just didn't see any media coverage of it, then I recant everything I've said about him (on these posts) and sincerely apologize. I agree that he should not tell the Iranians how to vote.

Jim, you compared my above statement to "neoconservative" something or another. I don't think there's anything neo-con about what I am saying. America is the land of freedom and justice and hope. Obama capitalized on this American dream when running for office. He can and should spread hope to other countries in ways other than military force. Obama is a fantastic speaker and if anyone can speak out against the atrocities committed by the Iranian regime (both before and after the election) it is he.

Jim, you said, "America does not stand up for what's right by shooting its mouth off at every opportunity and telling other countries what to do about their problems." Sure, Obama should not speak up with righteous indignation every time another country does something with which we disagree, but you better bet that lesser officers (who never get any press) almost always express disapproval. Furthermore, if Obama can't tell a terrible dictatorship that they ought to give their people more liberties, then what can we speak up against? Only genocides or ethnic cleansings? Obama is not Bush and most people in the world recognize there's a change in US foreign policy, especially in Iran, where "thanks to new technology, the people of Iran know what Obama actually DID say." Obama has a fresh chance to re-establish America's moral superiority to countries such as Iran, and this is a perfect opportunity to do so.

Not to be inflammatory...but what the hell.

I sometimes wonder if Ahmedinejad wonders why no one gets the joke.

George W. Bush called Iran part of the "Axis of Evil". He's made comments, when he was talking up a possible attack on Iran, that you "don't negotiate with evil." He called Iran a threat to world security. He did all this to appeal to his support base - convservatives in America who vote for him. What did he care about what Iranians thought about what he said? For that matter, what did he care about what the English or French or Germans or Russians thought? They don't vote in American elections.

And for the last few years, Ahmedinejad has been foaming at the mouth, calling America the "great Satan", calling for the Israeli regime to be pushed into the sea, etc., and all for the same purpose - appealing to convservative elements of Iranian society so he could get elected. Who cares what Americans or Isrealis think - they don't vote in Iranian elections!

And Ahmedinejad probably sits there and wonders why the world treats him like a rabid mongrel and no one smacked George Bush (although, by the end, everyone was waiting eagerly for him to go).

The point to remember about Iran is that while the President has a certain amount of authority and power, it is the council of clerics who hold the real power. And you don't hear them talking about pushing Isreal into the sea. They know they wouldn't be allowed to get away with it. They're not idiots.

Unfortunately, China's Tianeman Square and the suppressions of Tibetan separatism, as well as Burma's various bloody suppressions of pro-democratic demonstrations, have shown that as long as they don't get too extreme, totalitarian governments can oppress their own citizens and get away with it, aside from some diplomatic hand wringing by other countries - maybe a few sanctions, a few embargos, yada yada yada, but otherwise no real consequences. It'd be nice if we lived in a world where that sort of thing wasn't permitted - but then how many of our own countries could be considered to be oppressing some minority?