Is U.S. president trying to be Iranian foil or silent accomplice?

But Obama said diplomacy is more complicated than people realize.

The grays run deeper than the blacks and whites.

It's the pundits job to second-guess, Obama said, but “only I'm the president of the United States.”

Which is why he tried to balance every hands-on critique of the Iranian government with a caveat that he's hands-off.

Hands on: “The United States and the international community have been appalled and outraged ...”

Hands off: The Iranian people can speak for themselves.”

Hands on: “We deplore the violence against innocent civilians anywhere it takes place.”

Hands off: “We have provided a path whereby Iran can reach out to the international community, engage and become a part of international norms.”

Hands on: “... threats, beatings and imprisonments ...”

Hands off: “The United States respects the sovereignty of the Islamic Republic of Iran, and is not at all interfering in Iran's affairs.”

One more example: In previous statements, Obama referred respectfully to Iran's most powerful cleric, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, as the “Supreme Leader.” But on Tuesday, he didn't use that term, and instead decried the “iron fist” that was trying to hold down the will of the Iraqi people.

Obama argued that his message has not changed. He pointed out that shortly after the Iranian election he expressed concerns and, after violence broke out, he called for calm. Both statements are true, but Obama conveniently ignored the fact that his comments — delivered from the White House as international newspapers were hitting their final deadlines — were more pointed than before and came only after days of violence.

With this new approach, Obama risks becoming the Iranian foil. Better that, Obama may be betting, than being seen as its silent accomplice.

1|2

SharePrintEmail

Write a Comment

Terms

Enter your comments - 3000 characters max

Type in image code

Submit

 Receive China Post promos
 Respond to this email