Obama On Iran: Moral Clarity Requires Morals
June 15, 2009 / 10:44 am • By Dr. Melissa ClouthierWaiting for their dear leader to express his opinion, the “power to the people” crowd has kept silent. My take: the risk for making Obama look bad, or better yet being on the outs should an opinion differ from the Borg, has kept the Left mum about the Iranian uprising. [Or criticize anyone willing to note something IS happening in Iran.]
No one really knows why the Iranians are demonstrating yet. Is this just one faction of Mullah-endorsed candidate expressing discontent because another Mullah-endorsed candidate stole the election or is this public demonstration a desire for a more moderate Iran generally?
Time will tell. The fact is, it requires immense courage for the Iranian people to defy the police, the current leadership and Ahmadinijad’s minions to step out publicly and make their voices heard. “Down with the dictator!” they shout. Does that mean the people want another dictator? Or do they want an end to the tyrannical Iranian leadership?
We’ll see.
Either way, the instinct in this situation should be to support the people. The instinct should be to openly label tyranny in all it’s forms as wrong. The instinct should be to marginalize those who would use brute force to enforce domination and diminish freedom.
The moral position is to support freedom and liberty.
While this is patently obvious to anyone with a moral compass, it’s not obvious to President Obama or his followers. They’re still waiting to find out what happens so they can make “open dialogue” seem like a reasonable decision. They want to find a way to exploit the Iranian discontent, and possible revolution.
Here’s what a person with a moral compass says, “Americans support the Iranian people in their quest for free and fair elections that represents the will of the people. We respect their will and their voice and their courage in the face of the dangers they now face. Our hearts go out to the people of Iran.”
That’s it. It’s the right thing to say and it doesn’t presuppose an outcome. It still gives the American government an out to communicate with whatever regime ends up in charge, but it communicates to the people of Iran that America loves and supports them and is on their side.
Words matter. President Obama knows this. He uses words like others wield swords. Mostly, he uses them to benefit himself. It’s time for him to use words to benefit the oppressed people of the world. Iran is a nice start.
But using words in this case, takes a little bit of moral fortitude. It also means taking a stand. President Obama has shown little inclination to embrace any moral stand. He has shown an inclination to make self-serving speeches.
In this case, supporting the Iranian people could also serve himself. Of course, that outcome isn’t certain, so it does require a modicum of courage. Moral courage and moral clarity–two things he sorely lacks.
Note: To get the coverage you won’t get on the MSM, follow the #Iran and #Iranelection hashtags on Twitter. And, if you don’t know that those things are, learn at Mashable (via Michelle Malkin). More to come.
Also, tonight, I have foreign policy and military expert Steve Schippert of the National Review Online, The Tank, and Threatswatch.org and my co-blogger John Hawkins on Right Doctor my radio show tonight from 10 to 11:00 EST for RFCradio.com. Please join us in the chatroom with your questions. If you can’t make it, the podcast will be available on iTunes later–just search my name.
4 Responses to “Obama On Iran: Moral Clarity Requires Morals”
June 15 2009 / 12:21 pm
Reply
The “left” suggests persiankiwi on Twitter.
Constant coverage of the police crackdown including a recent report of shots fired and at least one dead. The Army is reported to be rolling in.
June 15 2009 / 12:51 pm
Reply
Um…what? Daily Kos is talking about nothing but the Iranian situation, almost, and all of the other major liberal blogs are talking about it, as well. And that Balloon Juice link has nothing to do with criticizing someone for daring to talk about it, it’s rather about what they’re saying.
June 16 2009 / 6:34 am
Reply
When he finally did speak last night, it almost seemed he was more concerned about dinnerjacket staying in power so he could meet him without pre-conditions. At least that is what I took away from his stuttering….
June 16 2009 / 1:55 pm
Reply
Artruen, perhaps you might have understood correctly if you had listened to the words. It is helpful to do that.
When Obama describes Ahmadinejad’s opinions as “odious”, a minimally reasonable person would not have understood that as an endorsement or as an effort in furtherance of Ahmadinejad’s continuation in office.