If it wasn't for the past week of Obama simplistic hesitation toward the Iran protests and violence while even trading partners Germany and France put out harsh words over it, this pic of him getting Ice Cream with his
daughters wouldn't bug me.
But after the
reports of today it really does get under my skin.


BBC,
Washington Post and
NYTIMES running bodyguard duty for Obama saying his nice tone earlier in the week and previous
overtures are confusing the Mullahs. State stooges are taking credit for the "debate" taking place in Iran.
The measured approach and offer of talks, which was repeated this week, may have also been highly unnerving for Iran's hardliners, who are more used to hostility from the West and whose positions were solidified during the Bush administration, which included Iran in the "axis of evil".
"In offering negotiation and conciliation, [President Obama] has put the region's extremists on the defensive," wrote Senator John Kerry in the New York Times on Thursday.
Mr Kerry, a Massachusetts Democrat and former presidential candidate, now chairs the Senate's Foreign Relations Committee.
While events unfolded slowly, Mr Kerry cautioned the administration against voicing strong support for the demonstrators or tougher condemnation of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
"Returning to harsh criticism now would only erase this progress, empower hardliners in Iran who want to see negotiations fail and undercut those who have risen up in support of a better relationship," added Mr Kerry.
Domestic crisis
State department official Phillip Crowley said the offer of engagement appeared to have contributed to the dynamic of events in Iran even though "the debate is mostly among Iranians and about the future of Iran".
"The offer of engagement by the president helped start a debate in Iran that was perhaps more robust than the Iranian government anticipated," he said.
"In the midst of this debate, it would appear the government overreacted and the results of the election have lacked credibility in the eyes of the Iranian people."
The US administration has been at pains to stress that the crisis in Iran is a domestic one and that it is up to the Iranians to decide who they want as their leaders. |
NYTIMES
Could there be something to all the talk of an Obama effect, after all? A stealth effect, perhaps?
As the silent protests in Tehran dominated television screens around the world last week, a peculiar debate in Washington erupted. On one side, a handful of supporters of President Bush said Iranian protesters had taken to the streets because they were emboldened by President Bush’s pro-democracy stance, and the example of Shiite democracy he set up in Iraq. On the other side, some of President Obama’s backers countered that the mere election of Barack Obama in the United States had galvanized reformers in Iran to demand change.
Both of those arguments gave the United States an outsize role at the epicenter of an unfolding story that most experts, and a great many Iranians who talked to pollsters, said was actually not about America at all; it was about Iran and its own problems, notably a highly disputable vote count and the performance of its president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
“We have to be a little humble about our understanding about what’s going on in Iran,” said R. Nicholas Burns, who was a State Department under secretary for President Bush. “There’s been massive disappointment in Ahmadinejad’s stewardship over the years.”
Even so, something else was also at play: the wistful comments of many Iranian protesters who dreamed of better relations with the world. That strand of thought, however slender among the other huge issues, was evident at the protest demonstrations on behalf of Mr. Ahmadinejad’s principal challenger, Mir Hussein Moussavi. Sign after sign at his rallies was emblazoned: “A new greeting to the world.”
“Behind closed doors, most Iranian officials have long recognized that the ‘death to America’ culture of 1979 is bankrupt, and that Iran will never achieve its enormous potential as long as relations with the United States remain adversarial,” said Karim Sadjadpour, an Iran expert at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. He and others argue that many Iranian pragmatists and moderates believe that their country in 2009 is facing a now-or-never moment.
“If Tehran’s hardliners are incapable of making nice with an American president named Barack Hussein Obama who preaches mutual respect and wishes them a happy Nowruz, it’s pretty obvious the problem is in Tehran, not Washington,” Mr. Sadjadpour said. |
Wash Post:
Daniel W. Drezner, professor of international politics at Tufts University's Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, said that "off-key note" was "probably right about a week ago, but the situation has changed when you had tens of thousands of people in streets" in support of Mousavi.
Drezner said that otherwise, "Obama has played it about right." He said yesterday's statement was "rather artful" in citing the government's obligations to its people.
"He's playing to multiple audiences. He's talking not only to the Iranians but also the Russians and the Chinese," two key partners in the effort to restrain Iran's nuclear ambitions, Drezner said. "The more ambitious and, for lack of a better word, Bush-like his language is, the more it will upset the Russians and Chinese."
Tom Malinowski, Washington advocacy director for Human Rights Watch, agreed that Obama has struck the right balance. "Our Iranian-dissident contacts want a certain degree of moral support, but from a significant distance," he said. They believe anything more forceful "will be used to discredit them."
"Some people are saying 'bearing witness' is a passive stance, but I'm not sure what an active stance would be," Malinowski said. "What else could he do? The more the demands of the opposition become associated with the United States, the harder it will be for a spontaneous opposition movement in Iran to make progress." |
Only the NYTIMES comes close to the real reason which is this is all about the election and Iran internal problems. For years we have known that the middle class and younger Iranians desired better relations not only with America but the world. But also under Ahmadinejad and the clerics, the domestic issues, economic and social wise have gotten worse.
That all came to ahead when the elections were stolen in a not so subtle way. The Obama effect is his stand of not taking a stand gives him wiggle room to try and take credit for events he never had a hand in the first place.
No one is saying to order troops to the Iranian border but the "concerned" demeanor doesn't help at this point and certainly still thinking of making with this regime over nukes and other issues will be a horrendous move that will show a sign of weakness to the Mullahs.