Wuss Diplomacy

That big international test Joe Biden warned us about? It's here. As Iran struggles to find it's identity, Barack Obama sits on the fence.

Today's WSJ:

The President yesterday denounced the "extent of the fraud" and the "shocking" and "brutal" response of the Iranian regime to public demonstrations in Tehran these past four days.

"These elections are an atrocity," he said. "If [Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad had made such progress since the last elections, if he won two-thirds of the vote, why such violence?" The statement named the regime as the cause of the outrage in Iran and, without meddling or picking favorites, stood up for Iranian democracy.

The President who spoke those words was France's Nicolas Sarkozy.

The French are hardly known for their idealistic foreign policy and moral fortitude. Then again many global roles are reversing in the era of Obama. The American President didn't have anything to say the first two days after polls closed in Iran on Friday and an improbable landslide victory for Mr. Ahmadinejad sparked the protests. "I have deep concerns about the election," he said yesterday at the White House, when he finally did find his voice. "When I see violence directed at peaceful protestors, when I see peaceful dissent being suppressed, wherever that takes place, it is of concern to me and it's of concern to the American people."

(...)

The Obama Administration came into office with a realpolitik script to goad the mullahs into a "grand bargain" on its nuclear program. But Team Obama isn't proving to be good at the improv. His foreign policy gurus drew up an agenda defined mainly in opposition to the perceived Bush legacy: The U.S. will sit down with the likes of Iran, North Korea or Russia and hash out deals. In a Journal story on Monday, a senior U.S. official bordered on enthusiastic about confirming an Ahmadinejad victory as soon as possible. "Had there been a transition to a new government, a new president wouldn't have emerged until August. In some respects, this might allow Iran to engage the international community quicker." The popular uprising in Iran is so inconvenient to this agenda.

President Obama elaborates on this point with his now-frequent moral equivalance. Yesterday he invoked the CIA's role in the 1953 coup against Iranian leader Mohammad Mossadeq to explain his reticence. "Now, it's not productive, given the history of the U.S.-Iranian relations, to be seen as meddling -- the U.S. President meddling in Iranian elections," Mr. Obama said.

Krauthammer on Fox's All Stars:

I find the president's reaction bordering on the bizarre. It's not just little and late, but he had a statement today in which he welcomed the Iranian leader's gesture about redoing some of the vote, as you indicated.

And the president has said "I have seen in Iran's initial reaction from the supreme leader." He is using an honorific to apply to a man whose minions out there are breaking heads, shooting demonstrators, arresting students, shutting the press down, and basically trying to suppress a popular democratic revolution.

So he uses that honorific, and then says that this supreme leader — it indicates that he understand that the Iranian people have deep concerns about the election. Deep concerns? There is a revolution in the street.

And it is not about elections anymore. It started out about elections. It's about the legitimacy of a regime, this theocratic dictatorship in Iran, which is now at stake. That's the point.

What we have here is a regime whose legitimacy is challenged, and this revolution is going to end in one of two ways — suppressed, as was the Tiananmen revolution in China, or it will be a second Iranian revolution that will liberate Iran and change the region and the world.

And the president is taking a hands-off attitude. Instead of standing, as Reagan did, in the Polish uprising of 1981, and say we stand with the people in the street who believe in democracy. It is a simple statement. He ought to make it.

And it is a disgrace that the United States is not stating it as simply and honestly as that.

Iowahawk captures the true spirit of the administration's reaction in a message authored by "Barack Obama":

Now, I know that our two nations have had our differences in the past, and so it would be totally understandable if some of you were possibly upset my previous statements expressing "troubled concern" and "measured consternation" over your current situation. Please, do not interpret those statements as somehow taking one side or the other. I was not trying to be provocative or inflammatory, and far be it from me to interfere or play favorites. As we say over here in the Great Satan, "I don't have a dog in this fight," and so I was merely "calling 'em like I see 'em." Frankly, if America is going to regain respect as a geopolitical superpower, we need to make the tough call to sit quietly on the sidelines. That's why I have instructed my diplomatic team remain strictly neutral and to "let 'em play." With time and patience, I hope you will come to think of us as a bigger, flatter version of Switzerland. With less yodeling.

A closing thought from that WSJ piece above:

Less than a fortnight ago, in Cairo, Mr. Obama touted his commitment to "governments that reflect the will of the people." Now the President who likes to say that "words matter" refuses to utter a word of support to Iran's people.