Tuesday, June 16, 2009


President Obama today warned us about “meddling” in Iran's affairs due to the past history of Iran and the U.S. I would suggest that the President should meddle some more…lest those freedom loving Iranians accuse him of being irrelevant. In fact, I think he is rationalizing his fear of taking a stand and is looking for a way to avoid making a mistake. In the process, he has made the biggest mistake of all; he is broadcasting to the world that he has no backbone.

What is it that has the Iranian protestors so upset? Is it because an election has been stolen from them? Do you think they do not know that their country is run by a religious council that makes all the decisions? Do you think they do not know that the position of the President of Iran is meaningless?

Of course they know this. This election in Iran is about eliminating or at the very least diminishing the power of the mullahs. It is about getting a foothold for secularism in a country run by religious fanatics. It is a cry for freedom and President Obama does not want to support them because the oppressors of Iran might consider that we are meddling.

Does this mean that President Obama is hedging his bets in the event that the mullahs wind up imposing their system once more on the people? If so, well, I’d have to say I’d rather be back in the Cold War when we had the courage to help resistance movements against dictators under the Soviet thumb.

The truth is that we will be accused by the Mullahs of meddling whether we like it or not. They certainly understand that a secular society like that desired by the Iranian protestors is similar to that found in the United States. They will consider us to be meddling merely because we exist.

Our openness is a symbol for freedom fighters around the world; and that means we are the perfect scapegoat for oppressors who seek to prosecute “spies” sent from America. Why do you think they imprisoned the young Iranian-American journalist? They want to accuse America of meddling in their affairs. Why do you think they rail about “the Great Satan”? That's because we are a secular society where people are free to choose their religion or choose no religion at all. A secular society, for them, is like an evil seductress, constantly offering freedom, self-determination and immorality. They would rather destroy the bringer of freedom because, in their twisted moral chaos, freedom is immoral, not the liberator of people who can decide for themselves how they will be moral.

Why does President Obama want to appease these dictators when the secularism of the people in Iran would be the very thing we need to help bring peace to the region? In fact, Iranian secularism would strengthen the position of another secular country nearby called Israel.

Of course the people of Iran are slaves to the Mullahs…but they don’t want to be…and a whiff of even some freedom, some accommodation of secularism in the society, could have major repercussions around the world. And a U.S. President who stands by their side and supports their struggle would do more to change the region than anything. Certainly, appeasement of the Mullahs would do nothing but strengthen dictatorship and provide a justification for killing dissenters. Haven't we, since the late '70s, appeased these Mullahs enough? Don't you think it is amazing that a large segment of the population of Iran is still yearning for freedom in spite of the fact that we have been too cowardly to support them during all those years?

I don't agree with the idea that helping the Iranian people become free would be meddling. You cannot impose freedom on people, you cannot impose liberty...not if you understand what freedom and liberty are. Freedom means no tanks and guns killing people in the streets. Liberty means living as you see fit without a moralizing Mullah telling women that they have to cover their heads or they can't wear make up. Any society that dominates people like that deserves to be meddled with. And it is moral to do this kind of meddling. No, we don't need to send troops into the street or sacrifice our young lives and millions of dollars; but providing moral support is the right kind of meddling in a situation where people are being killed for not towing the line.

But, according to President Obama, we don’t want to meddle; we don't want to impose our views on how people should live. If a government is murderous that's their culture and we have to respect that (Well, you know what I think of that idea). Obama has no problem dealing with murderous dictators. It is this view, this pacifist, failed idea, that will cause Obama’s foreign policy failures. We should have elected a President who understood what evil is and who was prepared on day 1 to give it no quarter. Instead, we got a mealy-mouthed compromiser who thinks you can negotiate with people who have sworn to destroy you. That is a major blunder and we will now have to live with the destruction that is to come from this failed, naïve foreign policy default.

Obama is not a man who understands freedom and its unique position in history. In fact, he would prefer that the people of Iran do their own work for freedom so he can take credit for it; like the politician he is; who, like a modern day Chamberlain, has no sense of cause and effect. He wants the credit for Iranian aspirations while he does everything he can to destroy freedom in his own country; and while he is asking the enemies of freedom to love him. This is a man who is unwilling and ideologically incapable of taking a stand for freedom. You have to know how rare it is before you are willing to put your life on the line for it. The people of Iran, who are getting beaten on the streets today could teach him a few things about meddling.

1 comment:

  1. You and I are thinking along the same lines. See this: http://principlex.blogspot.com/2009/06/cowardice-as-foreign-policy.html