.jpg)
A.P. photo/ Ron Edward
The New York Times editors called President Obama “…right to condemn the violence against Iranian citizens and to place the U.S. on their side, as he did in his speech accepting the Nobel Peace Prize and in comments on Monday” (12/29).
The Wall St. Journal Opinion section welcomes the Monday speech, but feels it must be followed up or it be too little and too late. It felt that the Nobel speech merely mentioned the Iranian people. Indeed, the Iranian protesters started to accuse the President of being against them. The Journal noted Obama’s general appeasement of dictators and snubbing of democrats, as with Honduras. If the Iranian people turn anti-American, it would be one of Obama’s worst failures. If he were wise, he would have encouraged them, and perhaps assisted in a change of regime before the Islamist one acquires nuclear weapons. Instead, Obama conceitedly appeased the dictators, with whom he felt he could make a deal. He is finding he cannot. Will he learn in time, or is he too obstinately radical?
Imagine if George Bush or Ronald Reagan were President now. They most likely would have understood the opportunity for democracy in Iran, would have sided with the people, and would have condemned their evil rulers.
(For more on Iran’s foreign policy success, click here For a prior piece on Obama’s diplomacy, click here
Comments