Bloody crackdown quitens Iranian protests
Iranian opposition leader Mir Hossein Mousavi is calling for his supporters to stage more peaceful protests against the Presidential election results that have him losing in a landslide, but it appears the protests have subsided after a bloody crackdown that has killed at least 10 people. That brings the official total to 17 causalities, with nearly 500 arrests being made. Who knows what the real total will be, if it is ever made public.
Even with popular former reformist president Mohammad Khatami adding his voice to the opposition, it appears the crackdown on Saturday has quietened the protests and there is no guarantee the protesters will have the wherewithal to continue. After seeing their friends arrested and shot in cold blood, who can blame them.
The Iranian authorities have also cracked down on independent media sources and their reports on the protests. A BBC correspondent has been expelled and other reporters have been detained. Iranian authorities even claim to have confessions of British-controlled agents who have been inciting the street violence. It’s pretty clear to anyone who would look at this objectively that those who are in power in Iran have no intention of giving up their place and they are using every tool available to keep themselves in power. In a move that should come as no surprise to anyone, they are accusing Western powers of meddling with Iranian affairs and are trying to shift the blame from themselves.
With all of that being said, a lot of people in the United States have been calling for President Obama to step up his criticism of the Iranian elections. Most of that criticism seems to be coming from the Republican Party. Maybe they need to remember one thing. These protests are not about politics in the United States, they are only about a political revolution in Iran. If we want to make sure the protests in Iran are quelled, then the best way to do that would be for our political leaders to keep running their mouths and spouting off meaningless rhetoric. There may be nothing the leaders in Iran despise more than someone from the West trying to tell them how they should run their country and they are sure to rebel at everything the Republicans or President Obama may have to say.
There may be more that can be accomplished by these protests, but it may very well come with a high price tag attached. The Iranian authorities have already shown they are willing to use deadly force to keep the voice of the opposition at least muted, if not completely silent. No doubt they will continue to do so unless something changes the political landscape in Iran. If that starts to happen, more Iranian citizens will undoubtedly be killed in the ensuing violence. It makes me all the more grateful to be living in a country where the changing of the reins of power happens peacefully, instead of through violence.
We do have peaceful power transitions, Larry-now. But it is possible that what we are witnessing is something much larger than any one election. Perhaps this is the start of a powerful revolution. Of course, revolution is rarely peaceful and is always costly, like our country’s own bid for independence with 625,000 lives lost.
I agree that rhetoric from the United States is fuel to the fire, but I do have to say that I am relatively comfortable with what I’ve heard from Obama. And at this point, I tend to agree with him. I think history has taught us that without organic and organized opposition from a native people, these things almost always end badly and result in a leadership that is ill equipped to properly form and keep a sovereign nation.
That said, at what point do you think the United States will decide that the human rights abuses are too great and need our intervention? I’m a bit of a pessimist that we can and will stay out of this.
Laurie,
I have had no problem so far with how President Obama has been handling the situation. I see no reason for our government to insert themselves into this, except to express support for the Iranian people.
As for how long we can continue to stay out of it, if human rights abuses escalate, I am not sure how to answer that. I really do not believe we have a military option at this point. We are stretched very thin across the world. Concerning sanctions, those that are in place now do not seem to be doing much good, so I am not sure if we have any options there as well. It is indeed a sticky situation.
Larry, I have a big problem with the way that President Obama is handling this situation. Sure, we can’t dictate policy for other nations, but he has already been doing that by reaching out to the Iranian government and wanting to open dialogue with them despite their continual breaking of UN resolution after UN resolution.
Obama is a true fence sitter — if this were Reagan, he would speak forcefully as he did against the Polish government in 1982 when the Solidarity movement was under the government’s thumb and then several year’s later when he called on Mikhail Gorbachev to “tear down this wall” when visiting the wall separating the German states.
Our president is naive, just like Jimmy Carter was. You can’t negotiate with people who hate you — even with a change in government in Iran, there is a lot of anger towards Americans and Persian pride that gets in the way of dialogue.
I understand what you are saying, but I wonder if strong statements against the Iranian government is the way to go. The Iranian leadership seems to go out of their way to do exactly the opposite of what the US would want them to go. Is it possible that they would consider that kind of statement an even greater interference that they believe our government is already guilty of? I am not sure about that, just wondering aloud. I do believe we are dealing with an entirely different kind of scenario in Iran, compared to the Solidarity movement in Poland. I wonder if the same kind of response that helped in Poland will have the same affect in Iran?
As for Obama being a fence sitter, I will not disagree with you there. He does play both sides in an attempt to get his domestic agenda passed. He may very well be doing that with his foreign policy as well.