Iran, Revolution, and the U. S. President

Posted on

Today there have been a lot of articles in the news about the reaction, or lack thereof, from President Obama's Administration regarding the protests and prelude to revolution in Iran.  Instead of whole-hearted praise and warm greetings to those protesting what appeared to be a rigged election, it has been a measured, cautious approach.  Some call this outrageous, others call it being too weak.  I, on the other hand, see it as exactly what the US should be doing, and here is why:

In 1989, when protesters in Berlin began to bring down the Berlin Wall, the world was elated.  Everyone wanted a piece of the wall (and I think you can still find some pieces on eBay, though I'm not sure if they are authentic), and everyone was talking about the success of the US policy against Russia.  The media was praising this, and looking to the President, then President George Bush (Sr.) for words of support and praise.  Instead, President Bush was reserved, much like President Obama is currently.  He was criticized for his apparent lack of concern or support for what almost every President since John F. Kennedy had called for:  the fall of the Berlin Wall.

But President Bush had a reason to be reserved:  Having worked for the CIA, he knew of a common technique used by the KGB where rumors of CIA and US support would come to those who revolt against Soviet rule.  The protests would then be made with the hope and understanding that the CIA would back the revolt, and the KGB would then sweep in and quickly wipe out all dissidents.  President Bush didn't want the same technique used in Germany, and so merely said he was watching things closely and didn't say anything regarding the fall of the Wall. 

As a result, the fall of East Germany under the rule of the Soviets was completely a German matter, and was not controlled or instigated by the US.  As such, the reunification has since been a German decision, and no one can claim that Germany is by any means under the control of the US Government.  Also, other countries were able to break free from the Soviet State, and become independent without US intervention, and therefore their governments became truly theirs, representative of the people. 

So now let's look at Iran.  There is a lot going on there that is promising to those looking for freedom and a true democracy in that country, free from the influences of the US or any other nation.  These demonstrations are truly Iranian in nature, and President Obama is determined to keep it that way.  It's worthy of President Bush, and I imagine he probably had counseled with the former President on this very issue.  There are no other sitting Presidents who have had this type of experience, and no other President that could have boasted such a successful outcome. 

So, to the people of the Media, before you criticize the President for taking such a cautious and reserved stance, keep in mind what is at stake here.  The minute the US is seen supporting any type of demonstration, the current regime can dismiss it as foreign intervention, and kill people without conscience.  But if it remains purely an Iranian event, the Iranians can decide for themselves if a regime change is necessary to bring true democracy to the country, or even if they really want a true democracy.