Iran: The View from the White House

Boies and Olson.. the old B&O might be able to reconcile the Iranian election.

we need to stay out of this, and the administration is wise to be cautious with this.

Given the slow response to the situation by the Obama Administration, I propose that Obama appoint George W. Bush as the “Decider Czar.”
The “Decider Czar” will make all decisions for the administration leaving Obama free to do the two things he likes best .. campaign and blame Bush.
Part of the “Decider Czar's” duties will be to answer that 3AM phone.

Obama will do what he always does...vote PRESENT.

Then when the dust settles he will claim a victory for his "ideas" and send his MSM out in adoration for his "wonderfulness". His clueless supporters will eat it up.

Whatever Obama says is "reality" for them even if it contradicts a statement he made the day before? So if he says today he isn't raising taxes even as he signs a order raising taxes, these imbeciles are perfectly content forgetting yesterday's pronoucements to argue that Barry never said he wouldn't raise taxes.

"It's worth keeping in mind that President Obama expressing concern for, say, Mir-Hossein Moussavi, wouldn't necessarily be a way to help Moussavi."

I'd disagree. If Obama bothered to get in the game that way what would be the worse that would happen? The mullah's use such an endorsement against Moussavi? Thats going to have what kind of negative effect amongst Moussavi's supporters? His supporters wont care. They dont believe the mullahs now anyways.
Obama likes to talk about all the things America is supposed to be when he's bashing what Bush did. Yet now that he has a chance to live up to his propaganda, he's completely silent. Bush had it right, the ruling regime in Iran is evil!

Obama's silence on this issue is so loud that I cannot hear a word he is saying

"We have to deal with the Iran that we have rather than the Iran that we wish we had."

Holy shades of Donald Rumsfeld! Ironic that the metrics, so to speak, enunciated by that vilified Secretary of Defense have proven so durable, isn't it? It seems worth noting that Rumsfelds' Old Europe/New Europe formulation, for which he was also excoriated, is now positively ubiquitous in any discussion of Euro politics.

jhw,

That is one of the rare times I've ever agreed with you.

An 'endorsement' is worth nothing...it is the kiss of death,actually.

But, a foreign policy of 'wishful thinking' is not a strategy.

The President went to AIPAC and said 'we will not allow Iran to have nuclear weapons".

We'll see about that.

Some of us write as if the Countries of the World are part of the United States of America where the President can influence the outcome of events.

Last time I checked, Iran is still a Sovereign Country under its supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khomeini who sees Reformists as threats to his supreme powers.

Everyone that has been following Iranian Politics knew that the June 12 election was for Mir-Hossein Mousavi to lose.In addition to being popular, he had the backings of Ex-President Rafsanjani and Ex-Prime Miniter Khatami whose administrations made far reaching reforms in Iran.

The first law of nature is Self-preservation, Ayatollah may find it difficult to control Mr Mousavi who is expected to be pro-western and Moderate in his view. The Ayatollah needs to preserve his hold on overall authority, and the re-election of a Radical Ahmadinejad who is largely seen as a hero among the 120 million Shiites muslims spread across Iran, Bharain, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, Pakistan and India, will ensure his continued survival.

The WH and State thought that change would come to Iran from the bottom.
In a Shiite theocracy, it will always come from the top, unless there is a revolution.
They simply don't get it, and the President's kind words will have no effect on Iran's 30 yr quest for nuclear parity with Israel.

"We have to deal with the Iran that we have rather than the Iran that we wish we had," says the official.

Clearly, they wished for A to lose..what isn't clear is whether the U.S. covertly funded the opposition.

Iran will learn alot from US/UN-NK inactions.

The storm is gathering...

Iran has a deep and justified historical hatred of American meddling in their political affairs. If the US came out in support of anyone in Iran, that person would likely end up imprisoned for assumed treason. Even the Bush administration would have the political acumen to keep their mouths shut; the endorsement of the Great Satan is not worth a lot.

"We have to deal with the Iran that we have rather than the Iran that we wish we had," says the official.

sounds an awful lot like:

"you go to war with the army you have---not the army you might want or wish to have at a later time"

“To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history; but that we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist.”
— President Barack Obama, Inaugural Address 2009

Hmmmmm.

"We have to deal with the Iran that we have rather than the Iran that we wish we had," says the official.

Okay?

William,

Very true! This is the moment when the Iranian people need to decide what future THEY want. We propped up the Shah many years ago, and this is the result. We will have to deal with whomever is in power. The people of Iran who want freedom may not win this, but the seed is planted

V. Brame - Did I say I thought Bush did a good job? He dropped the ball. Clinton was another do-nothing.
This isn't about partisan politics, or shouldn't be.
And you did not address my questions.
Ever hear the expression, ''an ounce of prevention'' ????

I think it is clear now that Iran wants nuclear weapons. They are sitting on a huge amount of oil. Why do they need nuclear power right now? Ahmadinejad has gained the presidency again via rigged elections. The supreme leader has made a weak promise to investigate the elections but I believe he wants an iron fist to control the country. So much for new moderate ideas overcoming hardline Islamic rhetoric. Another how many more years of worrying by the world will now begin. The good people of Iran wanting democracy and changes have effectively been silenced. A dangerous turn of events in a world beset with violence.

VBrame, no, President Obama's Republican critics do not want him to "mess up" so they/we can say "I told you so." His critics are mature adults who do not consider international affairs a game, where you can call for "do-overs." This is serious business.

I for one (a very frequent critic of the president, as well as a card-carrying Republican) am literally praying the president has the wisdom and courage to recognize the right path to take and to take it. I do not know what the right path is. So far, he has been appropriately circumspect, and I have applauded him on this forum for it.

Yesterday, the vice-president was on a Sunday show (meet the press) where he expressed reservations about the Iranian election but said they needed to have more information. That was good. The president spent the day playing golf (okay, only 6 or 7 hours), which was perhaps a good signal that he is not overly concerned that the situation in Iran would spiral out of control too quickly. (I am torn about this part, truthfully, but do not want to be too quick in putting a negative spin on his behavior-- see, I honestly am trying to give him the benefit of the doubt and be supportive)

Now we will see how events unfold this week. The main action, of course, will be in Iran and we can not and should not interfere in another country's election process. However, the world response will be important to the mullahs who are (or at least were) really in charge there. We do have a role to play and I hope that the Obama administration does it effectively. Sorry, but it is childish to say that the Republicans en masse will be rooting against Obama and putting their own political interests ahead of American interests or the interests of the people of Iran.

V.B.
I'll take it a step further..

after years of supporting these offshore military conflicts (under the guise of the UN .. in some instances); I am now inclined to believe that we should get out.. if the other economic powerhouses want to have us participate in another, then they need to put up the manpower and money... and then we could provide aid...

Wait a minute Terry, President Obama has been the president for only six months so the question is what did George W. Bush do to stop N. Korea from testing nuclear capacity? Do you want to convince us that the testing just started? Are thousands of U.S. military lives and injuries that insignificant to you that you want to risk starting more wars with Korea and Iran so we look brave but without strategy for winning? Who is really the naive one here?