Obama: Setting the Tone on Iran a Little Flat

I think that President Obama has done a pretty good job in terms of his public pronouncements concerning the unrest, revolt, or incipient revolution in Iran. He has, however not been pitch perfect. His critics have a compelling moral point. His is a conflict between political pragmatism and ethical idealism.

As is his wont, he's been subtle and nuanced in public. Giving outright support to those protesting and being beaten and killed in the streets, would not be doing them a favor. Iran's illegitimate president is already calling the protestors terrorists and puppets of England and America.

Obama has criticized the violence of the regime without endorsing, perhaps fatally, the followers of Mir Hossein Mousavi. He has warned the regime that "The world is watching." He has rightly refused to predict that Mir Hossein Mousavi would be far better for America. Even if we knew this to be true--which we don't (he was an original companion of Ayatollah Khomeini), I'm pretty secure that Mousavi would not find our endorsement helpful--even as I'm sure he is not delighted by Netanyahu's praise.

Obama's critics, mostly on the right, say that his pronouncements have been tepid, weak and not very stirring. His defenders say that the critics are crazed warmongers encouraging us to recklessness and giving the protestors hope of help they will never receive. As we encouraged East Germans to revolt and abandoned them, as we enticed Hungarians to rebel and sent no aid, as we baited the Shiites in Iraq after the First Gulf War and left them to be slaughtered by Saddam, false hope is not a friendly gift.

And yet, as well as Obama has done, I do not think that the views of some of his critics are without merit. We do say that we believe in free elections. We do support people's right to protest peacefully. We deplore the slaughter of innocents and general political thuggery. So why not speak out? Why is it wrong to state our beliefs and principals? Do pragmatic politics trump ethics and values? This is a fair question.

During WWII two great Jewish leaders battled over how hard to lobby FDR about the persecution of the Jews in Europe. This persecution, of course, became much more and much worse--growing into the Shoah, the Holocaust, the attempted destruction of the Jewish People. Both leaders were good and decent people. Stephan S. Wise counseled caution and understanding of the political pressures on FDR. He loved the cause no less than Abba Hillel Silverman, but he didn't want to make political waves. He was a realist. Silverman was less cautious. He counseled activism. Damn FDR and his political needs or the blowback from those who already charged Roosevelt with being a secret Jew (Kind of like Obama being a secret Muslim). He believed the disaster was so great that political calculations were immoral.

After the war, this conflict was much discussed. Had FDR spoken more forcefully about the evil of the Nazis and the horrors of the Holocaust, I am not sure a single Jewish life would have been saved. That is a pragmatic calculation. However, I believe that FDR should have spoken the truth, our truth, put in a word for us and even if the trains had still run on time to Auschwitz, we would have known that the world was watching--and not simply watching but speaking, protesting and weeping for us.

Yes, nuance is important and restraint is to be admired, but sometimes the transgressions are so egregious, so horrifying that verbal caution needs to be cast aside and truth--uncomfortable and harsh truth--has to be proclaimed to power.

Protestors shot down in the streets are not subtle acts, and subtle responses are lost on a regime that already hates us and many of its own people. Speaking with passion against the violence of the Iranian government could hardly make them despise us more, and it would give some company and comfort to those bleeding in the streets.
©2009 Jonathan Dobrer
www.Dobrer.com