I have been paying close attention. There are over a hundred confirmed dead (possibly more), thousands injured, and hundreds arrested.
I mean the government hasn't ordered its goons to open-fire on protesters yet and massacre them. It still could, but so far it has not.
Lerxst said:
Regardless, the government is already accusing the U.S. of influencing the issue. If they were going to use us as a scapegoat to massacre the people they would have done so by now. Our president speaking out in support of the protesters isn't going to be the catalyst to spark mass murder by the government.
Of course it is. The Iranian government recognizes how restrained Obama has been and they know that charges of an American conspiracy won't fly yet. That could change if Obama injects himself into the situation.
Lerxst said:
What I would like to point out is that the police and military are seeing scores of their leadership arrested because they are sympathetic to the protesters. Why is it that some police or military will open fire and kill protesters but others won't? Those that are using violence against the protesters are doing so on order from the government. It is my belief at this point that if the government ordered a move against the protesters it would be met with many instances of commanders and their troops refusing. Same with the police. The government isn't letting these massive protests happen because they want to, they don't have a choice.
Of course. But this has nothing to do with anything Obama does or does not say.
Lerxst said:
They Iranian regime has said we were trying to craft their downfall since they took power in 1979 Kandahar.
And for the most part, they've been right. Unless the protesters create a total revolution, we're still going to have to negotiate with some elements of the current government. And if we want to adopt a less hostile relationship and actually work with them, we're going to have to bring something to the table as well. And the most basic desire that any government wants is to not be overthrown. If we won't even stop trying to overthrow them, then why WOULD they want to work with us on anything else?
Lerxst said:
No that's not what I mean at all and I'm surprised that you would be so dismissive. Nobody knows for sure how many people in Iran are actually using twitter to get messages to the outside world, but estimates appear to be in the thousands. A few random people? If you want to disagree with me that's fine, but you don't need to be deliberately misleading about the situation.
And you are implying here that all of those thousands of Iranians using Twitter are hungering for American involvement (and that those protesters who use Twitter are representative of the entire reform movement in Iran). Who is being deliberately misleading?
Lerxst said:
Well if it's irrelevant why did you say it?
As I stated earlier, the regime in Iran is already accusing us of being agitators and supporting this thing. They are already shooting, beating, and arresting people. Obama speaking out in support of this won't change what the regime does. They've already made the accusation loud and clear, what they haven't done is massacred the protesters yet.
Every time Obama injects himself into the situation, their charge will become more credible in the eyes of government officials who are on the fence.
Lerxst said:
Yes he should, because he's not omnipotent nor is he the one thing that would trigger a massive Iranian crackdown. You are underestimating the situation in Iran and overestimating the impact of open U.S. support for the movement would have.
I don't even know what you mean by "underestimating the situation in Iran." As for overestimating the impact of open US support...I see a large possible downside and no possible upside.
Lerxst said:
Absolutely wrong. He can signal to the world that the U.S. government is a supportive friend to the Iranian people seeking Democracy in their country. He can avoid a future of looking like a President who didn't have an opinion on one of the most potentially game changing events in the modern middle east.
We have lots of issues on which we need to work with Iran. Obama does not have the luxury of basing his entire foreign policy toward Iran on a chaotic protest movement that could easily peter out in a few more days.
Lerxst said:
Wrong again. At best the protesters succeed and they view our nation and our government as having stood behind them in support without having tried to manipulate the outcome. A stark change from our historic stand on foreign policy in Iran. It would show the rest of the middle east that our intentions are sincere and we aren't simply singing "bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran" and seeking yet another military solution against a middle eastern nation.
Most Iranians already view us as standing behind them in support. They aren't stupid.
I notice that you didn't suggest any tangible benefit to the United States of Obama publicly backing the protesters. Whereas I suggested several tangible costs of doing so.
Lerxst said:
Wrong, wrong, wrong. Either you are being deliberately argumentative with me or you don't really understand the situation in Iran right now.
Neither do you. Neither do the Iranians.
Lerxst said:
The regime will attempt to crack down on the protests whether or not Obama says a word. Obama speaking out in support of the democracy movement isn't "American involvement."
Whether or not YOU think it is American involvement is irrelevant. You aren't the one wielding guns and batons on the streets of Tehran.
Lerxst said:
Iran has already accused us of agitating and inflaming the protests, stated we are behind them, and condemned us for that. So your claim that "American involvement" might trigger a crackdown is a moot point, the accusation of "American involvement" has already been made.
But it is not yet a credible accusation in the eyes of the people with guns and batons.
Lerxst said:
And there were no meaningful negotiations with Iran before this event. None. The international community was in a constant state of concern because Iran was being deliberately obstinate and refusing to negotiate on anything.
Until January 20, 2009, the United States was also being deliberately obstinate and refusing to negotiate on anything. Hostile extremism breeds hostile extremism. It's only been five months. What exactly did you expect?
Lerxst said:
Show me what exactly we stand to lose at the negotiation table with Iran, please.
We stand to lose co-opting the moderate elements of the Iranian regime to push for a more pro-Western foreign policy.
We stand to lose the support of reformists who resent American involvement in their affairs.
We stand to lose the ability to drive a wedge between Iran, Syria, and Hezbollah.
We stand to lose the ability to push Iran in a less confrontational direction, that doesn't make obnoxious threats toward Israel.
We stand to lose the ability to reestablish our oil trade with Iran.
We stand to lose the ability to push Iran toward merely being able to develop nuclear weapons, rather than actually doing so. (It's too late to get them to stop their nuclear program entirely.)
We stand to lose the ability to negotiate Iranian assistance in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
We stand to lose the ability to negotiate the Iranian role in Iraq.