President Obama held a media conference today at the White House addressing multiple issues; mainly health care and the political unrest in Iran. For those of you who don't know, the citizens of Tehran (the capital of Iran) have been actively and adamantly protesting the election of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, declaring that the election was fixed. Since the election, protesters have been violently attacked by police and little has been done within Tehran to protect the peaceful protesters. Protesters have been using social networking sites, like Facebook and Twitter, to document the upheaval, as there has been a government-enforced filter of journalistic documentation. The Tehran government has also attempted to clog internet network access. The Iranians have made it more than clear that their choice for president was Mir Hossein Mousavi. They have been calling on "western government" as some have called it online, to intervene and assist them; particularly regards to the unjust violence. A major casualty was Neda Soltan, a young protester who was shot and killed in the street, dying in a pool of her own blood. Videos of her being murdered have been circulating on the internet. Some have called the mass video circulation disrespectful, but some hope that the circulation will bring attention to the cause and will ultimately result in a U.S. or a United Nations intervention. There are videos on YouTube link capturing Neda’s death. View it at your own discretion; it is very graphic. Click the “links” tab on the left for the link.
Over the last few days, President Obama has taken the stance that the U.S. government will not intervene in the protest. Today, his position seemed to change some, stating that he was "appalled and outraged" by the violence and implied that the Tehran government may suffer consequences if they continue with "the threats, the beatings and imprisonments". When asked by reporters what those consequences may be, Obama declined to detail them. When asked why any actions haven’t been taken yet, Obama said that “We don't know yet how this thing is going to play out…It is not too late for the Iranian government to recognize that there is a peaceful path that will lead to stability and legitimacy and prosperity for the Iranian people. We hope they take it”.
Do I think that we should intervene? I am honestly on the fence. Perhaps I missed it, but Obama did not clearly explain today why we SHOULDN’T get involved. If he feels somehow that intervening will cause a foreign affairs issue or harm to the U.S., I would like to know. Another question to be raised is “if the U.S. DOES intervene, HOW will we do it? What will be the repercussions, if any?” Many have insisted that he intervene, but few have actually proposed how he (or we) can. I have also heard the argument that it’s an internal issue we have nothing to do with. “We wouldn’t want another country interfering with our election.” “Haven’t we interfered with the affairs of other countries enough?”
To address the “Haven’t we interfered with the affairs of other countries enough?” question, I find it interesting when we DO choose to “interfere”. If you look at our history, we have “interfered” often, even when we are not wanted by the local citizens. Yet the Iranians are crying for our help and we have denied them. Are we making the right choice? Is Obama doing the right thing? I sure hope so.
j.says
Over the last few days, President Obama has taken the stance that the U.S. government will not intervene in the protest. Today, his position seemed to change some, stating that he was "appalled and outraged" by the violence and implied that the Tehran government may suffer consequences if they continue with "the threats, the beatings and imprisonments". When asked by reporters what those consequences may be, Obama declined to detail them. When asked why any actions haven’t been taken yet, Obama said that “We don't know yet how this thing is going to play out…It is not too late for the Iranian government to recognize that there is a peaceful path that will lead to stability and legitimacy and prosperity for the Iranian people. We hope they take it”.
Do I think that we should intervene? I am honestly on the fence. Perhaps I missed it, but Obama did not clearly explain today why we SHOULDN’T get involved. If he feels somehow that intervening will cause a foreign affairs issue or harm to the U.S., I would like to know. Another question to be raised is “if the U.S. DOES intervene, HOW will we do it? What will be the repercussions, if any?” Many have insisted that he intervene, but few have actually proposed how he (or we) can. I have also heard the argument that it’s an internal issue we have nothing to do with. “We wouldn’t want another country interfering with our election.” “Haven’t we interfered with the affairs of other countries enough?”
To address the “Haven’t we interfered with the affairs of other countries enough?” question, I find it interesting when we DO choose to “interfere”. If you look at our history, we have “interfered” often, even when we are not wanted by the local citizens. Yet the Iranians are crying for our help and we have denied them. Are we making the right choice? Is Obama doing the right thing? I sure hope so.
j.says
RSS Feed