A former student of mine from Iran heard from his brother for the first time in a couple of days. When my student bemoaned the cautiousness of Obama administration’s statements, his brother confirmed one aspect of Spencer Ackerman’s account of the administration’s behavior, saying that government forces are already accusing protesters of collaborating with the U.S., and that protesters are actually worried that Obama will make an explicit show of support, as that would restore some credibility to what the government has said about the election and, more importantly, could undermine a reform coalition in which some factions are none-too-fond of America.
Everyone prematurely condemning the administration’s apparent silence on this matter may want to rethink the offensive idea that he’s merely “voting ‘present.’“ I’m not saying we should take my student’s brother’s word on this as definitive, but it does make one point absolutely clear: most of the people complaining about the administration’s response are more concerned with playing American politics than the situation on the ground in Iran.


10 comments
June 15, 2009 at 12:52 pm
Vance
I was a little surprised to see George Packer piling on. The case for caution and restraint seems obvious.
June 15, 2009 at 1:13 pm
CharleyCarp
A bunch of the people you link have long seemed more interested in the ‘near enemy’ than the ‘far enemy.’
June 15, 2009 at 1:52 pm
Daniel
This is true.
June 15, 2009 at 3:48 pm
Ahistoricality
In theory, then, the Obama administration ought to announce immediately and loudly that it accepts the results of the election as announced, and is looking forward to working with Ahmedinijad on critical regional and bilateral issues.
This would result in the implosion of any number of crania, probably to the good.
June 15, 2009 at 4:11 pm
andrew
George Packer is a very serious person.
June 15, 2009 at 5:53 pm
SEK
You can tell because he’s writing for The New Yorker.
June 15, 2009 at 6:34 pm
Vance
Andrew may mean “serious” in the sense of “regretfully bellicose”.
June 16, 2009 at 12:09 am
andrew
Yes, that’s the usage (which I think has become sort of common on a few liberal blogs). The key is where he refers to others with a less bellicose view as naive about the Iranian regime.
June 16, 2009 at 5:30 am
Barry
Vance: “I was a little surprised to see George Packer piling on. The case for caution and restraint seems obvious.”
ISTR Packer writing some pro-war with Iran article only a year or so ago, long after the debacle in Iraq was clear.
In the end, I’d classify him as a right-wing whack-job who occasionally sees reality, but only occasionally. And who probably finds it much more lucrative to not see reality.
June 16, 2009 at 7:09 am
dana
I’ve heard elsewhere (years ago, don’t remember where) that a fast way to kill a revolutionary movement in Iran is to give it the appearance that it’s being funded or supported by outsiders, particularly Americans.