The Least, First

Monte Asbury's blog

How to help Iran – an Iranian view

with 10 comments

My friend Naj, who writes an excellent blog at, is certain that pro-reform statements or actions taken by American politicians can have only negative impact on Iranians. She urges us to ask our politicians to hold back:

How to Help Iran?

Tell your elected representatives, especially the American ones, Republican or Democrat, Liberal or Conservative to “SHUT THE HELL UP!”

Obama’s handled this PERFECTLY well so far!

Make him know that on behalf of your Iranian friend, Naj.

The slightest American meddling will throw all that spilled blood out of the window! Let us accomplish our own deed. Then, all we ask of your government, is to respect whatever government becomes official in Iran, even if it may be Ahmadinejad.

An American friend of mine just sent this to her congresswoman:

Dear Congresswoman Tsongas,

I am writing to you as a concerned American citizen who is an active member of the international community. With the recent electoral upheaval in Iran, there are many people, many friends of mine, who are caught between a rock and a hard place. They do not necessarily still live in Iran, but love for their family, country, and heritage is a huge part of their identity.

The main fear they have is that anything other than a course of neutrality by individual countries could very easily foment further bloodshed against civilians in an attempt to control protests, display power, and cultivate fear. President Obama has so far done an excellent job of maintaining neutrality, but it is concerning that various members of congress want to take a more hard-line stance, and are haranguing the president for not having done so.

As your constituent, Congresswoman Tsongas, I am asking you to please do what you can to maintain official US neutrality toward the current situation in Iran, and please do not support any bills that would involve US interests directly in this matter.

[name preserved]

Posted by Naj at Sunday, June 21, 2009

If only we could learn this lesson! For many reform movements, American support is the kiss of death, marking them as a threat by foreign enemy rather than an expression of the people.

You can contact your Senators and Representative by using the contact form in the right sidebar. Go for it!

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]


10 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. It just makes me think: What would have happened if Reagan would have kept his mouth shut. We may have a much different set of circumstances today…but I think Obama should AT LEAST be saying “let freedom ring”. He can pretend that he doesn’t have an audience in mind!

    I mean if things go back to normal isn’t all of the bloodshed-the woman bleeding out in the street for all to see in streaming video-all for nothing?

    America does have a world influence. Sometimes that influence is used badly. Other times it is used for good.

    I mean even Germany and France are taking a stronger stance and has a louder voice than America.

    I am trying to be a lover of peace…but it is so hard when people are being killed at the hand of a dictator and watching the most influential man in the free world be silent.

    Please correct me. Please teach me. Please put my mind at ease.

    Derin Beechner

    June 23, 2009 at 10:52 am

    • [UPDATE: Derrin: Your question seemed important to me, and this answer a little detailed, so I have made a blog post of them.]
      A good question, Derrin! Why is “the most influential man in the free world . . . silent?” Here are a few responses.

      1. Though one might not know it from listening to some on the right, Obama has been far from silent. Here are excerpts from his statement on Saturday:

      The Iranian government must understand that the world is watching. We mourn each and every innocent life that is lost. We call on the Iranian government to stop all violent and unjust actions against its own people. The universal rights to assembly and free speech must be respected, and the United States stands with all who seek to exercise those rights.

      See the whole statement at Obama statement on Iran violence.

      2. Those who understand Iran well are begging the USA not to go further than that. Even conservative Morning Joe agrees:

      SCARBOROUGH: All we would do is undermine those people in the street, who the second that they are attached to the United States of America, the country after all that’s been known in Iran as the great Satan since 1979, we will undermine their cause … It’s so shortsighted I find it stunning. […]

      What would John McCain and Lindsey Graham specifically have the president say? All of those people that are emailing in and telling me that I’m being liberal? Oh really? I’m being liberal? No I think it’s called restraint. Showing a little bit of restraint. Looking at the battlefield in front of you and not just running up Pickett’s Charge and getting gunned down. If you want to feel good about yourself — and you can only feel good about yourself by screaming about the evils of Iran — fine do that. But our leaders in Washington don’t need to do that because people will be routed in the street the second they are identified with the United States of America. Scarborough on Iran.

      3. Here’s the core issue: American support is the kiss of death for reform movements in countries like Iran. Ever since the CIA took down the Iranian democracy in 1953, the parties in power now have seen anything American as a threat to national security. If the President says one word that can be construed to suggest that the USA is behind the reformers, the Iranian government will believe it has a national security reason for radical, brutal action against them. It will give them an excuse to a) annihilate the movement, and b) ignore the movement’s issues and write them off as foreign-inspired nonsense. Here’s how the President said it on CBS’s Early Show yesterday:

      In an interview with CBS’ Early Show this morning, Obama responded similarly to Scarborough, saying the U.S. has to guard against being used as a scapegoat by the Iranian regime:

      “The last thing that I want to do,” the president said, “is to have the United States be a foil for — those forces inside Iran who would love nothing better than to make this an argument about the United States. That’s what they do. That’s what we’ve already seen. We shouldn’t be playing into that. There should be no distractions from the fact that the — Iranian people are seeking to — let their voices be heard.” [See the Scarborough link, above, for the text of this]

      McCain and Graham are growing increasingly isolated, as Republicans in Congress and conservatives in the media endorse Obama’s measured response.

      4. It’s a deadly game. Obama could win himself a lot of public support by really giving it to Iran. But, thank God, he knows the world well enough to resist the temptation to do that.

      For some reason, American foreign policy has often been tone-deaf, and almost intentionally so. Those who ridicule Obama for the hugely positive receptions he gets in Europe often say, “Who cares what other nations think?” And that becomes an excuse for deep ignorance of the impact of our actions on other nations. We get starry-eyed about our own goodness, and our foreign policy becomes one of doing what feels good to us.

      As a result, we often make situations worse rather than better. In this case, understanding Iran means walking more softly rather than letting it all hang out. Here are some historical reasons why:

      5. The Bush Administration accidentally torpedoed the reform movement in 2005. A reformer, either Rafsanjani or Khatami (I’ve forgotten which) was the president before Ahmadinejad. The Iranian President offered to open up relations with the USA, and to try to work together on Iraq, even writing a letter to Bush to propose it.

      Bush, ever un-aware of the impact of his actions, saw Iran as an enemy and snubbed the letter (not even responding, I believe). Iranians knew it, blamed their President for having no clout with the West, and replaced the reform-minded President with hard-liner Ahmadinejad. Bye-bye reform, thank you USA.

      6. And that is typical of the history of US policy toward Iran. Heavy-handed moves toward control, starting even prior to 1953 (in a move to force Iran to sell us oil at, perhaps, 10% of its value), are what Iranians expect from us. “Here they go again” is what they guard against. We’ve made that bed, and now we lie in it, having virtually disabled ourselves.

      We see America as good. They see America as the country that robbed them of democracy and set up a corrupt puppet dictatorship and trained merciless, dreaded secret police who killed thousands. Inside Iran the name of the government of the USA is a curse on anyone on whom it falls.

      The only way to improve that is to allow Iranians to make their own way until they can trust the USA again. It will take a long time, for we’ve spent half a century degrading ourselves there.


      June 23, 2009 at 12:22 pm

    • Dear,

      Can you mention couple of positive influence that US has used to make peace in the world?
      I’m iranian, in my opinion Obama is doing a good andpolitic job in this so far.

      How come that in war between Gaza and Israel, or Israel and Palestinians, there are everyday 100 of peoples being killed, childern were not receiving food etc..but nobody in the US was saying anything?
      The same in Iraq, Afganistan….

      but now all of the sudden you expect US to help us? Why US did not talk at that time? Why?

      As you know our media has restricted to publish many news, videos of violence. The same is for American people, TVs and media do not show anything abt their own violence and what they did in Iraq and Israel is and was doing with Palestinians.

      Pls. correct me if I’m wrong.

      Thank you


      June 23, 2009 at 3:16 pm

      • Positive Influences that the US used to make peace in the world: World War One, World War Two.

        However, I understand the violence that the US has caused or allowed. For that I am regretful and sorry.

        Derin Beechner

        June 23, 2009 at 3:27 pm

  2. Very nice piece. If you don’t mind, I would like to post a link to it on my site.


    June 21, 2009 at 8:50 pm

  3. True. Very true.

    In fact I am worried that the passionate protesters may be just pawns in somebody else’s game.


    June 21, 2009 at 1:58 pm

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: