Skip to content

Deafening Silence

June 19, 2009

It was all about oil back in 1953, when the CIA ousted the hugely popular democratically elected Prime Minister of Iran, Dr. Mossadegh. Just two years earlier, he nationalized Iran’s oil industry, and thought America would be a strong ally. Foolish Iranian’s, we think all the world’s oil belongs to us, and democracy – real democracy – isn’t too terribly important. So we re-installed the Shah, who was nearly universally hated in his own country, and proceeded down a path of meddling in the affairs of the Persian people that would last for decades.

When seething hatred for America’s puppet, one of the worst human rights violators in history, boiled into a revolution in 1979 , President Carter boldly stated, ” ‘I fully expect the Shah to maintain power in Iran and for the present problems in Iran to be resolved. The predictions of doom and disaster that came from some sources have certainly not been realized at all.” We all know what happened then…

Through the tumultuous Iran-Iraq war, America supported Saddam Hussein’s slaughter of hundreds of thousands of Iranians, while Reagan and Bush were secretly selling weapons to the Ayatollah. All the bluster in the world couldn’t hide the fact that America put a pretty low value on Muslim blood. Fact is, America’s track record, with presidents of both parties, is pretty horrible.

Fast-forward to the present. Iranians just had a farce of an election; the people’s voices were not heard, and there’s rioting in the streets once again. All indications are that casualties will sharply increase now that the Supreme Leader has given his final word on the election results. Oh, yeah, he also threatened to have anyone who disagreed with those results killed on the spot…

And for the first time in decades, the American President has been virtually silent. He’s commented on the human rights aspect of the situation, but not the politics therein. This has infuriated his detractors, both at home and abroad. Good. Sometimes the best thing you can do is just sit back and let a situation play itself out, not inject yourself into the mix. Right now, it’s clear the Iranian people are on our side, it’s the leaders of that “democracy” that are not. 

And no amount of political posturing can beat that.

8 Comments leave one →
  1. suckonthis permalink
    June 20, 2009 5:42 pm

    It doesn’t seem like the anti-Obama crowd are huge fans of careful assessment, does it?

    On the other hand, bless ’em, it does seem like they bought Bush’s line on “spreading Democracy” hook, line and sinker.

  2. June 20, 2009 6:00 pm

    Bush’s soundbyte-a-day propaganda fit the microwave/instant gratification mindset a lot better than Obama’s level-headed, patient approach. I worry that voters won’t appreciate how better off we are with a smart person in the White House instead of a cowboy.

  3. suckonthis permalink
    June 20, 2009 6:50 pm

    Based on the kind of rhetoric I’ve heard, many voters are actively resisting appreciating it – Not that Obama’s had much of a chance, with the disastrous mess he inherited from his, shall we say, rustic predecessor, but I get the impression with some of these people that Obama could personally restore the economy out of his own pocket and bring peace to the Middle East all in one day and they’d still find something to criticise him on.

  4. June 25, 2009 2:09 pm

    Agreed. The American people voted for change and it includes changes in how we deal with foreign nations. If the president sends troops into Iran, Khamenei (not Ahmadinejad) has the power to launch nukes if they really have any. So what else is the president expected to do besides sit on the sidelines? What harm happens if we wait and see how the situation plays out? Democracy must be chosen by the people themselves, not forced upon them by other nations.

  5. July 4, 2009 1:02 pm

    Happy 4th of July…

  6. July 6, 2009 12:34 pm

    Thank you.

  7. July 12, 2009 2:34 pm

    Well said, P of V!

    I agree that President Obama is handling this well.

    People who cannot make their point without resorting to violence are not fit for leadership roles and are certainly unfit for government! And yet we have Americans who want a Christian theocracy and are unable to see that when religion has to be enforced, policed, or dictated, it has failed. Leaders, like religion, must be a personal choice to truly have meaning.

    I find it encouraging that the Iranians are willing to ‘buck the system.’ I think many Americans (who are spoiled) wouldn’t stand up and fight if it meant their life was in danger.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: