Obama Administration on Anniversary of Embassy and Hostage Seizure in Iran: We're trying to be Friends!
Equal parts day off from school and angry demonstration, Iranian school children commemorate the 1979 seizure of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran with anti-U.S. and anti-Israel chants and the burning of American, Israeli flags.
Barry Rubin
The Rubin Report
05 November 09
The Rubin Report
05 November 09
Will Rogers, the great American comedian of the 1920s and 1930s, famously said, “I never met a man I didn’t like.” The problem with the Obama Administration, at least so far, is that it has never met an enemy that it could identify as such.
Of course, the story isn’t over yet. Indeed, one does see signs of change. But we are still getting prologue. Consider for example the Statement by the President of November 4, 2009, on the thirtieth anniversary of the seizure of the U.S. embassy by Iran and the holding of American diplomats and citizens as hostages, an unprecedented act of terrestrial piracy.
Yes, there is a good case for not making such a statement an opportunity for blustering against Tehran, but—following on the similar announcement of the anniversary of the murder of 241 American servicemen in Beirut by Iran, Syria, and Hizballah—it doesn’t even mention who were the perpetrators.
After thanking the American victims—“unjustly held hostage”—the statement says in a rather neutral tone:
“This event helped set the United States and Iran on a path of sustained suspicion, mistrust, and confrontation.”
That’s sort of like saying that the attack on Pearl Harbor created certain problems between the United States and Japan.
President Barack Obama then says America “wants to move beyond this past, and seeks a relationship with the Islamic Republic of Iran based upon mutual interests and mutual respect.” Again, this is an understandable approach. But it is followed by no criticism, no threats, no pressure, and no remarks about Iran’s behavior in recent years or recent days, and then lists a series of nice things the United States has done for Iran:
“We do not interfere in Iran’s internal affairs. We have condemned terrorist attacks against Iran. We have recognized Iran’s international right to peaceful nuclear power. We have demonstrated our willingness to take confidence-building steps along with others in the international community. We have accepted a proposal by the International Atomic Energy Agency to meet Iran’s request for assistance in meeting the medical needs of its people. We have made clear that if Iran lives up to the obligations that every nation has, it will have a path to a more prosperous and productive relationship with the international community.”
And so, he concludes, “Iran must choose. We have heard for thirty years what the Iranian government is against; the question, now, is what kind of future it is for.”
Here’s the problem: the Iranian regime has chosen and shows us all every day what kind of future it is for. The only question is when or whether the Obama administration will recognize that fact.
Meanwhile, Iran's Supreme Guide, the country’s most powerful man in the country, made his own statement on the embassy seizure. It’s worth comparing to the one Obama issued.
Of course, the story isn’t over yet. Indeed, one does see signs of change. But we are still getting prologue. Consider for example the Statement by the President of November 4, 2009, on the thirtieth anniversary of the seizure of the U.S. embassy by Iran and the holding of American diplomats and citizens as hostages, an unprecedented act of terrestrial piracy.
Yes, there is a good case for not making such a statement an opportunity for blustering against Tehran, but—following on the similar announcement of the anniversary of the murder of 241 American servicemen in Beirut by Iran, Syria, and Hizballah—it doesn’t even mention who were the perpetrators.
After thanking the American victims—“unjustly held hostage”—the statement says in a rather neutral tone:
“This event helped set the United States and Iran on a path of sustained suspicion, mistrust, and confrontation.”
That’s sort of like saying that the attack on Pearl Harbor created certain problems between the United States and Japan.
President Barack Obama then says America “wants to move beyond this past, and seeks a relationship with the Islamic Republic of Iran based upon mutual interests and mutual respect.” Again, this is an understandable approach. But it is followed by no criticism, no threats, no pressure, and no remarks about Iran’s behavior in recent years or recent days, and then lists a series of nice things the United States has done for Iran:
“We do not interfere in Iran’s internal affairs. We have condemned terrorist attacks against Iran. We have recognized Iran’s international right to peaceful nuclear power. We have demonstrated our willingness to take confidence-building steps along with others in the international community. We have accepted a proposal by the International Atomic Energy Agency to meet Iran’s request for assistance in meeting the medical needs of its people. We have made clear that if Iran lives up to the obligations that every nation has, it will have a path to a more prosperous and productive relationship with the international community.”
And so, he concludes, “Iran must choose. We have heard for thirty years what the Iranian government is against; the question, now, is what kind of future it is for.”
Here’s the problem: the Iranian regime has chosen and shows us all every day what kind of future it is for. The only question is when or whether the Obama administration will recognize that fact.
Meanwhile, Iran's Supreme Guide, the country’s most powerful man in the country, made his own statement on the embassy seizure. It’s worth comparing to the one Obama issued.
Love of the Land: Obama Administration on Anniversary of Embassy and Hostage Seizure in Iran: We're trying to be Friends!
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment