Why Obama’s Measured Tones Are The Right Course
Hoffmania links to salient comments by Fareed Zakaria (right), who explains clearly why Obama’s cautious approach toward Iran right now is appropriate.
CNN: What should the United States do?
Zakaria: I would say continue what we have been doing. By reaching out to Iran, publicly and repeatedly, President Obama has made it extremely difficult for the Iranian regime to claim that they are battling an aggressive America bent on attacking Iran. In his inaugural address, his New Year greetings, and his Cairo speech, there is a consistent effort to convey respect and friendship for Iranians. That is why Khamenei reacted so angrily to the New Year greeting. It undermined the image of the Great Satan that he routinely paints in his sermons. In his Friday sermon, Khamenei said that the United States, Israel, and especially the United Kingdom were behind the street protests, an accusation that will surely sound ridiculous to most Iranians. The fact that Obama has been cautious in his reaction makes it all the harder for Khamenei and Ahmadinejad to wrap themselves in a nationalist flag.
CNN: But shouldn’t we be more vocal in our support for the Iranian protesters?
Zakaria: I think a good historic analogy is President George H.W. Bush’s cautious response to the cracks in the Soviet empire in 1989. Then, many neo-conservatives were livid with Bush for not loudly supporting those trying to topple the communist regimes in Eastern Europe. But Bush’s concern was that the situation was fragile. Those regimes could easily crack down on the protestors and the Soviet Union could send in tanks. Handing the communists reasons to react forcefully would help no one, least of all the protesters. Bush’s basic approach was correct and has been vindicated by history.
Perhaps its a good sign that Obama is getting it from all sides. But the last thing we should be is a lightning rod for hardliners who could easily use the United States as an excuse to crack down on dissidents. Of course, they’re doing that anyway, but we shouldn’t fuel the fire.
So far, so good.
Stay out of it.
The Bush 41 reference is thought provoking.
Gotta give the man credit for that.
jasperjava Reply:
June 22nd, 2009 at 1:57 am
President Bush was not much of a president, but compared to his idiot son he was a great statesman.
June 21st, 2009 at 11:08 am
The brain-dead neanderthals of the radical right aren’t happy unless they’re beating people to death with baseball bats, or “curing” the world’s problems with nuclear weapons.
Fortunately, we’ve now got a president with a triple-digit IQ.
Um Cara Reply:
June 21st, 2009 at 11:54 am
Fortunately, we’ve now got a president with a triple-digit IQ.
Bush Jr. was a terrible president, but he certainly was not a stupid man.
Rocky the Liberal Rottweiler Reply:
June 21st, 2009 at 3:46 pm
Well you know what the republikkkans say.
If it quacks like a duck, and it quacks, and it quacks, and it just goes on quacking and quacking with quack-quack here and a quack-quack there, here a quack, there a quack, everywhere a quack-quack…then it probably ain’t Steven Hawking.
Um Cara Reply:
June 21st, 2009 at 3:53 pm
You’ve been drinking again, I see.
jasperjava Reply:
June 22nd, 2009 at 1:52 am
I don’t see any evidence of intelligence. He couldn’t speak worth a damn (even when reading off a teleprompter), he couldn’t keep his facts straight, he said things that no intelligent person could possibly believe. He discounted intelligence that didn’t conform to his preconceived notions. He had no use for science at all. He thought that beliefs were more important than facts. He prided himself on his ignorance and stupidity, boasting that he made decisions with his “gut” instead of his head.
Someone once said that the definition of stupidity is doing the same thing over and over again, and expecting different results. That’s what you get with a stubborn ideologue like B*sh, who insisted on “staying the course”, even when the policies were clearly failing.
average james Reply:
June 22nd, 2009 at 12:36 pm
Ah yes,
I am fond of that definition of insanity, and it seems that is exactly what the conservative right would have us do. More of the same bullying and meddling that has got us where we are, with much of the world(including allies)distrusting and even hating us, F#ck that.
Daddio Reply:
June 21st, 2009 at 3:51 pm
“Fortunately, we’ve now got a president with a triple-digit IQ.”
You’re nothing but a sheep who will follow Obama off a cliff. Be my guest Rocky.
TDro319 Reply:
June 22nd, 2009 at 1:40 pm
Daddio:
So it’s okay for you to be a sheep and follow Dubya and the Dick off a cliff, but not Rocky with Obama.
EricG Reply:
June 24th, 2009 at 4:22 pm
“You’re nothing but a sheep who will follow Obama off a cliff. Be my guest Rocky”
You’re nothing but a partisan who hates everything not from the conservative ideology before you even bother to listen to it.
Useless for American, useless for democracy.
Just one more propaganda agent bent on one-sided government and one-sided debate in America.
You all followed Bush right off a cliff of communist torture and illegal invasion. Then you all have the unpatriotic nerve to claim you broke the law for the ‘good of the nation’ and continue to support the idea of not holding anyone responsible for the first American Torture Program and other offenses against the US Constitution under Bush.
If there are ’sheep’ and ‘people’ meeting together in a big pool to be decieved and tricked into being monsters and breaking all that is America into hate and violence … those would be conservatives.
The people fighting for the truth, justice and American way of life are liberals.
Wake up and take a look around you. The facts are quite glaring once you stop showing yourself only the pretty little flowers produced for you at FOX or EIB or whatever biased agency you choose to exclusively listen to.
Thus doing a disservice to the nation by allowing yourself to be so close-minded that your votes are completely meaningless because they were bought and sold like a product on the media.
All because you can’t think for yourself, like an individual.
June 21st, 2009 at 11:48 am
[...] Obama on Iran I agree that President Obama is handling this correctly. If he is too vocal, then the opposition can be painted as a US puppet. That would be terrible. Fareed Zakaria agrees. [...]
June 21st, 2009 at 12:10 pm
Did any country meddle in the 2000 presidential election which the supreme court decided the outcome?
We are all pretending that there is no cheating in
US election!!
Only rogue nations cheat! what a joke!!
And I predict if The US SUP.COURT make the same decision
again, there would be riotting in the streets!!And how do you think the party in power would react?
average james Reply:
June 21st, 2009 at 1:16 pm
Pierre,
I think that it was no other country’s buissness in 2000. Likewise it is not our buissness to meddle in another county’s affairs.
Sovereignty.
Rocky the Liberal Rottweiler Reply:
June 21st, 2009 at 3:50 pm
There would have been riots and more if SCOTUS had decided in favor of Gore, because the radical evangelical right has no respect for the rule of law, and, despite their constant braying, no ethical principles and no morals.
jasperjava Reply:
June 22nd, 2009 at 1:54 am
Amen to that.
June 21st, 2009 at 1:11 pm
Zakaria – “Those regimes could easily crack down on the protestors and the Soviet Union could send in tanks”
This is pretty critical to understand. It’s one thing to be in support of an overthrow of a regime, but quite another to be sending them support from across the seas via the highest office. These Republicans who want him to scream and shout, also wanted him to stay quiet when he was supporting the notion of peace.
It is clear to me that Republicans do not understand the world, nor do they understand the very game they play: politics.
If they did, they wouldn’t have come out against Obama for his ‘apology tour’ nor would they have voiced that he should be out there waving a green flag and screaming “Smash the Dictator!”
June 21st, 2009 at 1:24 pm
I’m glad that obama is taking a wait and see attitude with Iran but North Korea is a different story. I think they should board that ship if the intel is correct about having nuclear material as they have a missile able to reach the Hawian Islands. If they have none then shake hands and have a nice day but if they do then they have violated a UN resolution. Obama says he has a plan I hope its a good one for the sake of the Hawian Islands
GuidoVanHorn Reply:
June 23rd, 2009 at 1:57 am
what if the intel is wrong? Would we be able to say that Obama Lied/People Died?
EricG Reply:
June 24th, 2009 at 4:13 pm
“I think they should board that ship”
That’s nice. That would lead to war. You just said you want war. God I am so glad that neo-cons are gone from the high branches of power.
If McCain was elected we would be in THREE wars right now. All because of what you are advocating in regards in how to handle NK.
“Obama says he has a plan I hope its a good one for the sake of the Hawian Islands”
This is hard for me to deal with in person. I would be laughing in your face and pointing at you at that point in your statement. It’s beyond rude, and I suck for being that way but seriously … do you sleep with a gun under your pillow and have traps set all along your property line?
That’s crazy-talk. NK is ‘chest-thumping’ like they have done with every single new president. It might make some warhawks feel good to drum up fears of an attack on Hawaiii but the reality is far, far away from this dark fantasy.
I guess there is no convincing people of some things. If you think they are moments away from destroying the islands (and then being completely and forever annihilated immdiately thereafter) then I really can’t stop you.
June 22nd, 2009 at 6:22 pm
I would like to know why we all blindly follow whoever happens to win the Presidency of the United States whether he be a Democrat or a Republican? Who even chooses who gets to run? Someone has to put their money and power behind a no one or a name or that no one or name would never get elected, and whoever puts their money behind the person running is then the one who gets to choose. Who says that chooser is qualified to choose? Who says that Obama is the best man for the job? Certainly there are any number of individuals who would be better at the job than he is. At this point it’s safe to say that any joe blow sitting on his couch today could do a better job. Since I happen to have a 3 digit IQ, I think I’m qualified to state whether or not this man has any sense at all. I don’t believe he has. He is a puppet.
EricG Reply:
June 24th, 2009 at 4:07 pm
“Who says that Obama is the best man for the job?”
The millions and millions of supporters he has who voted for him and continue to support him in tackling some of the toughest issues an American President has faced in decades if not longer.
“At this point it’s safe to say that any joe blow sitting on his couch today could do a better job”
That’s your opinion but it’s downright silly and dead wrong in my view. ‘Joe blow’ would have trumpeted the illegality of the Iranian election and hampered the process of revolution, he would have failed to address the issues effecting American like healthcare & the markets, he would have forsaken the need for bipartisanship (seeing as how he can’t define it) and gone roughshod over Congress with anything he saw as important.
“Since I happen to have a 3 digit IQ”
I have a negative IQ. I’m so stupid, I’m smart.
“I think I’m qualified to state whether or not this man has any sense at all”
I think I’m qulaified to identify bias. And you’re biased against Obama or perhaps all Democrats.
It’s a shame. In America we have a republic that relies upon democratically elected representatives to reflect the views of the people but when the people are so arrogant and hateful of all thought not their own the entire system degrades into useless sniping and stupid carp like you claiming because you scored high on some arbitary test you can demean the character of the President of the United States.
Shameful and partisan BS never impressed anyone.
You talk big.
If you were dealing with HALF of what the president deals with on a daily basis, you would apologize for your arrogant and ill-informed words.
June 24th, 2009 at 3:58 pm
[...] Other people know this: Hoffmania links to salient comments by Fareed Zakaria (right), who explains clearly why Obama’s cautious approach toward Iran right now is appropriate. [...]
June 25th, 2009 at 10:16 am