I've been particularly interested in the debate as to whether Obama should have strongly supported the Mousavi camp in its rebellion against the ruling Iranian regime. Most of the commentators from the right (McCain, Mike Pence, Lindsey Graham) have criticised the president for being too "timid" on Iran . . . i however have a different opinion.

I think Obama was right in refusing to do more than merely condemn the post-election violence for the following reason:

1. We dont know that the election was rigged . . . infact it seems Ahmedinejad won the election fair and square. Obama throwing American support for Mousavi with no concrete proof that he actually won the elections would have strengthened the Iranian clerics.

what is your opinion on this issue?

I agree with you for once, but that does not mean you don't smoke that thing richyblack accused you of smoking, or erase the fact that you are a 1964 Zombie.

In 1956 when the Americans condemned the government of Hungary for communism, and strongly encouraged the protesters, am sure davidylan you're too young to know this?

The Russian tanks rolled in to support the then government of Hungary, the Hungarian protesters were eagerly awaiting the American forces, but low and behold the Americans did nothing.

The Hungarian protesters were heavily crushed and the ones who lived to tell the story deemed it stupid to ever trust the Americans.

Obama is a man who knows his history, guys like McCain would never mislead him.

The American forces are overstretched at the moment in Afghan and Iraq, a call for Iran is just impossible. Lets not mention the economic toll.

Not only are we not sure whether the election was rigged, at least to an extent as to determine the winner, there is practically no difference between Mousavi and Ahmadinejad.

The question is whether Obama should have been harsher in his condemnation of Iran's heavy handed policing,electoral irregularities, etc . But then, where the facts are unclear, it's hard to calibrate the harshness of your criticism.

Obama is very cautious in making statements that may fuel the current crises.

davidylan:


1. [b]We dont know that the election was rigged . . . [/b]infact it seems Ahmedinejad won the election fair and square. Obama throwing American support for Mousavi with no concrete proof that he actually won the elections would have strengthened the Iranian clerics.

The content in bold refers, when objective comments like these come to the fore you begin to see the likes of ElRazur and Tunku insulting others simply because they lack the capacity to think in a logical manner.

Obama may choose to support any of the parties involved as long as he understands the consequences.

I will always draw a parallel with Mugabe in Zimbabwe when the West claimed that he rigged the election and even old men threatened to join the army to defend Zimbabwe from the opposition leader and his Western backers.

How can a "dictator" like Mugabe allow an opposition leader to get more than 40% of the votes when it was reported that he rigged the election and shut out international media etc?

I guess a lot of people talking about rigging the election here know very little about Saddam's style where well over 90% of the votes usually go to him in elections.

Those who find it supremely difficult to tolerate views that are not original to them will always find enough time on a public forum to self destruct and embarrass themselves to the extent that their over bloated egos would make them look and act stupid.

The devil you know is better than the devil you dont.

i'd like to believe Obama is exercising restraint because he knows little or nothing of Mousavi and what he stands for. He'd rather have Ahmedinajad hang on to power forever. That way, he'll know how to package his criticisms and what not.

The McCain's of this world and the GOPers do not understand Iranian politics

If Obama took side with Mousavi, the protesters would have been painted western puppets being used to spread imperialism. Nothing unites the Iranians more and weakens any form of dissent as much as the perception of western interference.

However, I think Obama should have forcefully warned Tehran to dessist from brutalising its own people. He should have also made the point that having nuclear talks with Tehran is ultimately in Tehran's interest and that it questions the essence of such meeting when the administration is willing to use lethal weapons on their own people.

I also think the Republicans should chill as they are 4 months late on strategy as far as Iran is concerned. Obama's strategy in Iran began when in his Innuaguration speech he ascerted that:

For those who seek to sow hatred and conflict, know that your people will judge you by what you can build and not what you can destroy (paraphrasing a line from Obama's Jan 20 speech.)

So by not making Anti-Americanism the issue in Iran, Ahmadi-Nejad had no records in terms of economic development to run on. It became easy for Iranians to see how hollow Ahmadinejad is as a leader.
To buttress this fact, you can see the Iranian Regime is all over the place trying to blame the West. As at today they have singled out France's Nicholas Sarkozy to blame, even though their Supreme leader prefered Britain 2 days ago. Unfortunately this time none of it sticks.

So generally I think Obama's strategy has been the right one, but he should also speak out in support of respect for human rights regardless of the political calculation.

And most importantly, don't buy the noise that the WhiteHouse does not like the current politically impasse in Tehran being made by CNN.

Obama could not have had it any better, because the duo of Ayotoallah Khamanei / Ahmadinejad will come out of this weaker even if both of them are still in office in 6 months time. Besides that a Mousavi elected on a mandate to re-engage Iran with the rest of the World will dare not go back to Isolationists policies.

rightly said mike,
Obama is doing the right thing by keeping mute(officially) on the current impasse in Iran.
He knows the implication of a direct comment and he wouldn't want khanemi and almadinejad to use his words/comments as a Player in this battle they are loosing.

@topic,

I agree with all the posts so far to an extent. However, where I think you've all seem a little naive is the fact that the ruling clerics do not need any proof to point accusing fingers at the US.  What did Britain do to deserve the rhetorics coming from Khomeni? The ruling clerics are set  in their ways and lack of reference to Obama may just be the fear that their people will continue to draw a parallel between what Obama seemingly stands for and their own present movement.

Obama does not need to condemn the clerics. What he needs to do is to stand up for the principles that the people aree fighting for - democracy, freedom of association and representation within their govt. America's indifference only shows that we stand for nothing and will take whatever comes our way.  That may be pragmatic but what happens to the moral high ground that Obama has been talking about?

Bush made the case since 911 that the solution to terrorism is for the ME to embrace democracy. He promoted freedom and engaged the people of the ME to demand it from their rulers. This may just be the fruits of that stance and it only makes sense that we do not keep silent at this time.

Obama does not potray himself as a decisive person when he had to wait to make a tough statement only after the House and the Senate adopted a motion condemning the crackdown in Iran.

Tayo-D:


Bush made the case since 911 that the solution to terrorism is for the ME to embrace democracy. He promoted freedom and engaged the people of the ME to demand it from their rulers. This may just be the fruits of that stance and it only makes sense that we do not keep silent at this time.

Like Iraq, Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia?

Afam:

Like Iraq, Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia?

So was Iraq and Afghanistan less democratic than they were under Saddam and the Taliban?

There's doing the 'right' thing, then there's doing the politically right thing - and Obama has chosen the latter.

Whichever way he responds and whichever way you slice it, its a lose-lose situation, he just has to pick which loss he'll prefer to endure.

Tayo-D:

So was Iraq and Afghanistan less democratic than they were under Saddam and the Taliban?

Mr Man, I asked a question.

In case you missed it the first time

Afam:

Like Iraq, Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia?

JeSoul:

There's doing the 'right' thing, then there's doing the politically right thing - and Obama has chosen the latter.

Whichever way he responds and whichever way you slice it, its a lose-lose situation, he just has to pick which loss he'll prefer to endure.

This comment comes from inadequate historical knowledge. Just a brief one.

In 1953 when President Mosadek had a plan to take away Iran's oil from American Comapnies, and stop them from making excess profit from it, at the expense of Iranians, the then American govt. paid rogues and thugs to stage protest, in other that the army would have a reason to unseat Mosadek. The plan was successful, Mosadek was thrown out of power and the Shah of Iran who was in Exile in America went back to Iran and became the President.

Mosadek was so popular with the Iranians and he was a democraticaly elected president. So the US actions did not go down well with the Iranian people, and so came the Islamic revolution of 1979, that revolution had two major theme behind it, non interference of foreign power in Iran politics and the installation of the leader of the people. This is where Ayatollah came from.

Mosavi pledges allegiance to the Ayatollah, he played a major role in this revolution, Obama routing for him would not neccessarily bring many changes to Irans foreign policy, and Obama knows this.

Secondly Mousavi does not want the Americans support, its like a kiss of death. He would loose popularity in Iran immediately he is said to be supported by foreing powers, Alhmadenajad and Khameni know this, that is why they are already trying to say that it is the British and US that are supporting the protest.

Thirdly who can really proof that Alhmadinajad did not win that election, why are most of the protesters, good with twitter and youtube, if that is the case then there is a great chance Alhmadinajad won the election, cause most of the illiterates and Islamic fundamentalist are not technical savvy, and in Iran they are more in number, and could have voted for Alhmadinajad.

Those who say Obama should back the prostesters are the same people that helped Bush sell the Iraq war. They look for nothing but trouble.

Afam:

Mr Man, I asked a question.

In case you missed it the first time

No dey answer that boy.

When you ask him a question or answer him you give grace to nonsence.

@Afam,

Mr Man, I asked a question.

In case you missed it the first time Like Iraq, Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia?

The folly of a question can be revealed in two ways.  The first is to ask a rhetorical question that will make the questioner to think through his question as he obviously did not do so the first time.  The second way is to answer the question in such a ridiculous way that the questioner will be embarassed by his question.  I have chosen the former.

So once again, my response will be the same rhetorical question: "So is Iraq and Afghanistan less democratic than they were under Saddam and the Taliban?"

Ikomi:


No dey answer that boy.

When you ask him a question or answer him you give grace to nonsence.

I can se you have taken my advise. You do better when you attack personalities than when you try to contribute to a debate. The former shows your creative side, while the latter reveals the paucity of your knowledge. Keep it up bro.

Tayo-D:

@Afam,
The folly of a question can be revealed in two ways.  The first is to ask a rhetorical question that will make the questioner to think through his question as he obviously did not do so the first time.  The second way is to answer the question in such a ridiculous way that the questioner will be embarassed by his question.  I have chosen the former.

So once again, my response will be the same rhetorical question: "So is Iraq and Afghanistan less democratic than they were under Saddam and the Taliban?"

Why do you like being wrong?

Where did you get the idea that the folly of a question can be revealed in 2 ways? Why 2? Why not 3?

You can ignore a question to reveal the folly inherent in it. This is another choice and this makes the total number of choices 3 and not 2.

I decided to respond this way so that you realize that though you think you are usually right that in reality most of the time you are dead wrong but way too blind to see it.

The correctness or otherwise of any issue is not at all dependent of your acceptance of a position.

Repeat this line 3 times every night before you sleep and in 2 years you will become a better debater.

Enjoy the rest of the week.

Tayo-D:

@Afam,
The folly of a question can be revealed in two ways. The first is to ask a rhetorical question that will make the questioner to think through his question as he obviously did not do so the first time. The second way is to answer the question in such a ridiculous way that the questioner will be embarassed by his question. I have chosen the former.

So once again, my response will be the same rhetorical question: "So is Iraq and Afghanistan less democratic than they were under Saddam and the Taliban?"

Afam:

Why do you like being wrong?

Where did you get the idea that the folly of a question can be revealed in 2 ways? Why 2? Why not 3?

You can ignore a question to reveal the folly inherent in it. This is another choice and this makes the total number of choices 3 and not 2.

I decided to respond this way so that you realize that though you think you are usually right that in reality most of the time you are dead wrong but way too blind to see it.

The correctness or otherwise of any issue is not at all dependent of your acceptance of a position.

Repeat this line 3 times every night before you sleep and in 2 years you will become a better debater.
Enjoy the rest of the week.

Na fly wey no get legal adviser dey follow dead body enter grave. In other words, "Wise people store up knowledge, but the mouth of a fool makes ruin imminent".

Once its been said, twice I have heard it.

Afam how can I thank you?   

@Afam,

I can see that my response has eaten deep into your pride. That I mentioned two ways does not make it exhauistive. If you think you are smart, I'll reveal something else to you which you could add to the growing list.

One other way to answer a question is to attack the personality of the person who asked the question. This is obviously your prefered option and you have done that several times on nairaland.

So while I never said the list was exhaustive, you implied the one you created is. See your folly again?

Perhaps you will do well to take the advise you gave me. You need it much more than I do. I am not so proud to think I am always right. You probably think everyone entertains such silly thought like you do. I do not. I have room to learn, to grow and to evolve.

So while you go to bed or lay on your mat tonight, you will do well to talk yourself out of the lies you've fed yourself over the years - that you are always right!

Tayo-D:

@Afam,

I can see that my response has eaten deep into your pride. That I mentioned two ways does not make it exhauistive. If you think you are smart, I'll reveal something else to you which you could add to the growing list.

One other way to answer a question is to attack the personality of the person who asked the question. This is obviously your prefered option and you have done that several times on nairaland.

So while I never said the list was exhaustive, you implied the one you created is. See your folly again?

Perhaps you will do well to take the advise you gave me. You need it much more than I do. I am not so proud to think I am always right. You probably think everyone entertains such silly thought like you do. I do not. I have room to learn, to grow and to evolve.

So while you go to bed or lay on your mat tonight, you will do well to talk yourself out of the lies you've fed yourself over the years - that you are always right!

Guy, you are clutching at thin air this time around. Maybe you need to be more precise when you communicate with people and stop making excuses and trying to justify your blunders.

Tayo-D:

@Afam,
The folly of a question can be revealed in two ways.  The first is to ask a rhetorical question that will make the questioner to think through his question as he obviously did not do so the first time.  The second way is to answer the question in such a ridiculous way that the questioner will be embarassed by his question.  I have chosen the former.

Back to the 2 way stuff.

Not only did you inform us that you can do something in 2 ways you went ahead and categorically broke them down into "the first" and "the second".

This problem has been with many of your posts. You make a statement, you get challenged and before you know it you make a u-turn, introduce some diversions and round up with many meaningless or irrelevant questions just to appear to be making sense.

Stick to the issues raised.

Meanwhile, I do not believe that I am always right but I try as much as possible to be right all the time if I can, nothing wrong with that.

He that knows not and knows not that he knows not is a fool - Tayo-D.

He that knows not and knows that he knows not is a wise man - Afam.

That is the difference between the two of us.

So, on issues I don't have enough information to be able to take a stand on I read and learn from what others are putting down and independently read up related materials to confirm some of the positions.

I don't jump into issues and I don't believe that the US and Israel are two perfect countries in the world regardless of atrocities they commit.

I certainly do not also believe that Islam is evil, every Arab is a terrorist or suicide bomber or that Palestinians are just pawns in spite of their plights.

@Afam,

I can now see you've decided to stop the pretending and come out swinging with your best shot.  Like I noted above, one other way of responding to a question is to come out attacking personalities. By the time this is over, I'm sure you'll be crying you only reponded to insult in kind, never minding the fact that you started throwing it around first. Apart from folly of course, hypocrisy is a "virtue" you exhibit so well.

It is not my job to educate you, so I will not bother.  I can not hope to impact knowledge to someone who wasted all the years he spent in school.  If people who are paid to do the job failed at it, what hope do I have?

He that knows not and knows not that he knows not is a fool - Tayo-D.
He that knows not and knows that he knows not is a wise man - Afam.

Do you see a man wise in his own eyes? (Afam) There is more hope for a fool (Tayo-D)  than for him. - Proverbs 26:12.

Tayo-D:

@Afam,

I can now see you've decided to stop the pretending and come out swinging with your best shot.  Like I noted above, one other way of responding to a question is to come out attacking personalities. By the time this is over, I'm sure you'll be crying you only reponded to insult in kind, never minding the fact that you started throwing it around first. Apart from folly of course, hypocrisy is a "virtue" you exhibit so well.

It is not my job to educate you, so I will not bother.  I can not hope to impact knowledge to someone who wasted all the years he spent in school.  If people who are paid to do the job failed at it, what hope do I have?
Do you see a man wise in his own eyes? (Afam) There is more hope for a fool (Tayo-D)  than for him. - Proverbs 26:12.

Of course, I always respond to posts in kind and on time too.

I am certain you have carefully ignored some of the words you have used in these exchanges while hoping to claim that I started any form of insults.

As stated earlier, what you think is right does not equate to what is right.

Thanks for putting the names in the bible verse you reproduced above, at least we can refer to that from time to time.

Well Afam at this point I would dissapoint you I strongly Agree with Tayo-D on this one

Tayo-D:

@Afam,
Do you see a man wise in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool (Tayo-D)  than for him. - Proverbs 26:12.

Afam remember I asked you to approach him with caution. His about to drag you in the mud.

Surely Tayo-D there is hope for you, if only you would keep quite sometimes. 

So dear Tayo-D whenever we use the FO word you know who we are referring to.

Ikomi:

This comment comes from inadequate historical knowledge. Just a brief one.

In 1953 when President Mosadek had a plan to take away Iran's oil from American Comapnies, and stop them from making excess profit from it, at the expense of Iranians, the then American govt. paid rogues and thugs to stage protest, in other that the army would have a reason to unseat Mosadek. The plan was successful, Mosadek was thrown out of power and the Shah of Iran who was in Exile in America went back to Iran and became the President.

Mosadek was so popular with the Iranians and he was a democraticaly elected president. So the US actions did not go down well with the Iranian people, and so came the Islamic revolution of 1979, that revolution had two major theme behind it, non interference of foreign power in Iran politics and the installation of the leader of the people. This is where Ayatollah came from.

Mosavi pledges allegiance to the Ayatollah, he played a major role in this revolution, Obama routing for him would not neccessarily bring many changes to Irans foreign policy, and Obama knows this.

Secondly Mousavi does not want the Americans support, its like a kiss of death. He would loose popularity in Iran immediately he is said to be supported by foreing powers, Alhmadenajad and Khameni know this, that is why they are already trying to say that it is the British and US that are supporting the protest.

Thirdly who can really proof that Alhmadinajad did not win that election, why are most of the protesters, good with twitter and youtube, if that is the case then there is a great chance Alhmadinajad won the election, cause most of the illiterates and Islamic fundamentalist are not technical savvy, and in Iran they are more in number, and could have voted for Alhmadinajad.

  Lol . . . thank you for addressing the 'inadequacies' in my historical knowledge. Now, I'm just curious as to how you deduced from my post that I stood in disagreement to any of the points - generally accepted by many if I may say - you raised? 

  All I was trying to say is what Tayo nicely surmised here"

Tayo-D:

Obama does not need to condemn the clerics. What he needs to do is to stand up for the principles that the people aree fighting for - democracy, freedom of association and representation within their govt. America's indifference only shows that we stand for nothing and will take whatever comes our way.  That may be pragmatic but what happens to the moral high ground that Obama has been talking about?

Shikena.

@Topic
Time would tell at Obama's approach. If there isnt a need for America to get involve, then there really isnt a need. This matter to some is totally an internal matter. But should nation stand back and say nothing when innocent people are paying the price with their lives for making a peaceful demonstration with regards to their votes?


**Observartion**

I see that the usual "attack the man" person is on board again. **shakes head in disgust**

Afam:

Of course, I always respond to posts in kind and on time too.
I am certain you have carefully ignored some of the words you have used in these exchanges while hoping to claim that I started any form of insults.
As stated earlier, what you think is right does not equate to what is right.
Thanks for putting the names in the bible verse you reproduced above, at least we can refer to that from time to time.

Do you see a man wise in his own eyes? (Afam) There is more hope for a fool (Tayo-D)  than for him. - Proverbs 26:12

I just love the Bible.  There is no way one can top its wisdom or the succint way it expresses it. A truly wise man will accept its wisdom and make corrections, but fools, who think of themselves to be wise will continue in their folly.

Afam here is a case in point. He thinks himself to be wise and thinks of me to be a fool. Yet the Good Book declares that the one who thinks himself to be wise is hopeless when compared to the one he thinks to be a fool.  While Afam is not needed to prove the infallibility of the Bible, he sure is proof that the scriptures cannot be broken.

ElRazur:

@Topic
Time would tell at Obama's approach. If there isnt a need for America to get involve, then there really isnt a need. This matter to some is totally an internal matter. But should nation stand back and say nothing when innocent people are paying the price with their lives for making a peaceful demonstration with regards to their votes?


**Observartion**

I see that the usual "attack the man" person is on board again. **shakes head in disgust**

Exactly. It's not about supporting the protesters or the government over the elections but about condemning the preventable and unneccesary loss of life.

JeSoul:

Exactly. It's not about supporting the protesters or the government over the elections but about condemning the preventable and unneccesary loss of life.

Allow me to play devil's advocate here.

People die on a daily basis in America, but hardly do Iran make comments on them? I dont know if this is a water tight arguement. However, should nation really interfere in internal matters?

Ikomi:

Well Afam at this point I would dissapoint you I strongly Agree with Tayo-D on this one

Afam remember I asked you to approach him with caution. His about to drag you in the mud.

Surely Tayo-D there is hope for you, if only you would keep quite sometimes. 

So dear Tayo-D whenever we use the FO word you know who we are referring to.

In fact I knew that was where he was heading to. Whenever he is cornered he tries to drag people down with him.

See how the thread has turned into bible verse.

As usual he prefers to see his own views as the most correct. Na wah!

Afam:

In fact I knew that was where he was heading to. Whenever he is cornered he tries to drag people down with him.
See how the thread has turned into bible verse.
As usual he prefers to see his own views as the most correct. Na wah!

That is so predictable. One fool who thinks he is wise in his own eyes will seek the alliance of another fool who thinks he is wise in his own eyes.  And what will the two fools be talking about? Nothing but personalities and their over-inflated egos. Keep at it boys, keep at it.  It's been a while that nairaland has seen a congregation of fools displaying their folly on the www.  About time we got such entertainment from you two.