Fareed Zakaria says Obama response on Iran protests correct
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 28, 2024, 10:24:47 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  International General Discussion (Moderators: afleitch, Hash)
  Fareed Zakaria says Obama response on Iran protests correct
« previous next »
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Fareed Zakaria says Obama response on Iran protests correct  (Read 699 times)
Beet
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,914


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: June 20, 2009, 11:54:46 AM »

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.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/06/19/zakaria.iran.elections/index.html?iref=mpstoryview
Logged
Frodo
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 24,572
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: June 20, 2009, 12:09:45 PM »

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.

And how does the Tiananmen Square Massacre fit into this narrative?

Logged
Beet
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,914


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: June 20, 2009, 12:51:20 PM »

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.

And how does the Tiananmen Square Massacre fit into this narrative?


It proves that provoking the regime to a brutal crackdown is a MISTAKE.

American speeches emboldenig protestors will BACKFIRE if it causes the opposition to overreach.
Logged
Beet
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,914


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: June 21, 2009, 06:15:31 PM »

Bump.
Logged
ilikeverin
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,409
Timor-Leste


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: June 22, 2009, 12:05:56 AM »

Amen.  Better Iran stays divided than becoming united against the United States.  (though, obviously, it would be even better if Iran become united for Mousavi and indirectly the US.  but... Wink)

This isn't to say the protesters aren't FFs, but rather that having us whine about the results won't make anyone act more FF-y.
Logged
○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└
jfern
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 53,740


Political Matrix
E: -7.38, S: -8.36

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: June 22, 2009, 12:16:37 AM »

But I thought saying "Bomb bomb bomb Iran" would have been the correct response.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.04 seconds with 11 queries.