It’s now clear that Iran's election of 17 days ago isn’t producing the desired regime change, either via votes or street action. With some perspective, we ask again why did Les Gelb, a foreign policy insider who talks to everyone in the know, get it so wrong?
I already provided a reason, quoting Newsweek editor Evan Thomas’ saying, "I mean in a way Obama’s standing above the country, above – above the world, he’s sort of God." They thought “Obama god” could generate the right outcome in Iran, as they believed Obama did in the earlier June 7 Lebanon election, an election that followed Obama’s Cairo address to Muslims by 3 days. First Lebanon, then Iran.
I also think Obama and company got off on the wrong track during last year’s campaign, while defending Obama’s promise to meet “Iran’s leader” without preconditions during his first year in office. Obama’s pledge to meet Iran president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad proved a real problem because of Ahmadinejad’s raging anti-Semitism, his denial of the Holocaust, and his promise to wipe out Israel. So Obama’s people countered by advancing the argument that Ayatollah Sayyid Ali Khamenei [picture] is Iran’s supreme leader, and therefore Khamenei, not Ahmadinejad, would be Obama’s most appropriate interlocutor.
From there, Obama’s folks apparently reasoned that since Khamenei controlled Iran, and since Khamenei allowed a June election that featured Mir Hussein Mousavi openly campaigning against (Obama problem leader) Ahmadinejad, maybe Khamenei was orchestrating the very change that would ease Iran’s anti-U.S hostility: allowing Mousavi to replace Ahmadinejad.
It’s just that such wishful thinking is so remarkably removed from true understanding of how Iran works. Ahmadinejad is Khamenei’s man; he has been from the beginning.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment