Obama's Iran Weakness
Earlier this month, the people of Iran went to the polls to select their president. The two main candidates were the current president of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and the opposition candidate, Mir-Hossein Mousavi. Mousavi seeks to reform Iran in a way that will take power away from the Islamic mullahs, who possess almost all of the political power in Iran and enforce Islamic law, and give that power to the citizens of Iran. The official results indicated that Ahmadinejad won a significant majority of the vote. The people of Iran, however, disagree strongly. Amid widespread allegations of electoral fraud, hundreds of thousands have taken to the street to protest what they believe is a stolen election.
Ahmadinejad has declared the elections free and fair, but few actually believe him. Polls before the election had Mousavi winning 55% to 45%, but the finally result was 63% for Ahmadinejad and 37% for Mousavi. Such a wild swing is inconceivable. In fact, Mousavi, according to the official results, lost his home district, which is simply unheard of in Iran. Ahmadinejad has responded to the protests with violence and oppression by ordering the Iranian military to use force to intimidate the protestors into staying silent.
So where is the leader of the free world on this issue? Obama declared himself "troubled" by the protests. He then proceeded to attack Mousavi, the reform candidate, by stating that "he may not be as great as advertised." There you have it, the supposed leader of the free world is not just sitting this one out and letting the chips fall where they may, he is attacking the candidate who offers Iran a step towards a true democratic future. No matter that the current Iranian regime is the single biggest sponsor of terrorism in the world, pursues nuclear weapons, and wants to wipe Israel of the map. Think how much emotional support President Obama could give the protestors, as they are killed opposing an evil regime, if he simply declared that he recognized that the Iranian elections were fraudulent, called for a revote, and actively supported the Iranian protestors by offering them aid and protection?
Instead the President of the United States has chosen to sit on the sidelines while America's most threatening present day enemy struggles to maintain its grip on power in the face of an Iranian population struggling for what we in America have in spades: freedom. Obama's reaction to the protests in Iran is what conservatives warned America about when it became clear that Obama would be the favorite to win the presidential election of 2008. Conservatives pointed out that liberals such as Obama prefer to "talk" to America's enemies and "engage them" rather than apply political pressure. Engagement and discussion are great in theory but fail in practice when one is dealing with a totalitarian regime. There is not much to talk about with someone who wants to destroy your country and your way of life. Obama's weak response to Iran will only encourage other dictators around the world to consolidate and expand their power as Obama attempts to "reach out" and "find common ground."
The reaction of Barack Obama has made it much less likely that Iran's home grown revolution will succeed in the long-term. Ahmadinejad will most likely stay in power. Without support from the West the protests will continue to be put down by brute force and will eventually sputter out. Meanwhile Iran will continue to pursue nuclear weapons and fund terrorism. The world would be a better place if Iran was a free and open society that was not a threat to the free world. Hopefully someday it will be, yet if Iran is ever free it will be in spite of Barack Obama, not because of him. Unlike Ronald Reagan who will be remembered for helping to bring down the Soviet Union with his calls for freedom, Barack Obama will eventually be discarded to the dustbin of history as another weak leader who did not stand up for freedom.
Any comments or questions can be received at whyyouareaconservative@gmail.com
~ The Conservative Guy
Ahmadinejad has declared the elections free and fair, but few actually believe him. Polls before the election had Mousavi winning 55% to 45%, but the finally result was 63% for Ahmadinejad and 37% for Mousavi. Such a wild swing is inconceivable. In fact, Mousavi, according to the official results, lost his home district, which is simply unheard of in Iran. Ahmadinejad has responded to the protests with violence and oppression by ordering the Iranian military to use force to intimidate the protestors into staying silent.
So where is the leader of the free world on this issue? Obama declared himself "troubled" by the protests. He then proceeded to attack Mousavi, the reform candidate, by stating that "he may not be as great as advertised." There you have it, the supposed leader of the free world is not just sitting this one out and letting the chips fall where they may, he is attacking the candidate who offers Iran a step towards a true democratic future. No matter that the current Iranian regime is the single biggest sponsor of terrorism in the world, pursues nuclear weapons, and wants to wipe Israel of the map. Think how much emotional support President Obama could give the protestors, as they are killed opposing an evil regime, if he simply declared that he recognized that the Iranian elections were fraudulent, called for a revote, and actively supported the Iranian protestors by offering them aid and protection?
Instead the President of the United States has chosen to sit on the sidelines while America's most threatening present day enemy struggles to maintain its grip on power in the face of an Iranian population struggling for what we in America have in spades: freedom. Obama's reaction to the protests in Iran is what conservatives warned America about when it became clear that Obama would be the favorite to win the presidential election of 2008. Conservatives pointed out that liberals such as Obama prefer to "talk" to America's enemies and "engage them" rather than apply political pressure. Engagement and discussion are great in theory but fail in practice when one is dealing with a totalitarian regime. There is not much to talk about with someone who wants to destroy your country and your way of life. Obama's weak response to Iran will only encourage other dictators around the world to consolidate and expand their power as Obama attempts to "reach out" and "find common ground."
The reaction of Barack Obama has made it much less likely that Iran's home grown revolution will succeed in the long-term. Ahmadinejad will most likely stay in power. Without support from the West the protests will continue to be put down by brute force and will eventually sputter out. Meanwhile Iran will continue to pursue nuclear weapons and fund terrorism. The world would be a better place if Iran was a free and open society that was not a threat to the free world. Hopefully someday it will be, yet if Iran is ever free it will be in spite of Barack Obama, not because of him. Unlike Ronald Reagan who will be remembered for helping to bring down the Soviet Union with his calls for freedom, Barack Obama will eventually be discarded to the dustbin of history as another weak leader who did not stand up for freedom.
Any comments or questions can be received at whyyouareaconservative@gmail.com
~ The Conservative Guy
posted by The Conservative Guy at
8:02 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home