Not this Time

President Obama recently appeared on the CBS Early Show. During the interview, Harry Smith pressed him about his silence on the protests in Iran. Similar to previous responses, the president said:

The last thing that I want to do is to have the United States be a foil for those forces inside Iran who would love nothing better than to make this an argument about the United States. That's what they do. That's what we've already seen. We shouldn't be playing into that.

This is an interesting theory, but the president's neutrality (which is actually an endorsement of the current regime) has not stopped Iranian leaders from lobbing accusations of Western meddling. This from the LA Times:

Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Hassan Qashqavi has accused Western nations and media of supporting violent protests in an attempt to create anarchy and split apart the Islamic Republic.

The BBC and Voice of America "are the mouthpiece of their government's public diplomacy,"  Qashqavi said during a press conference today. "They have two guidelines regarding Iran. One is to intensify ethnic and racial rifts within Iran and secondly to disintegrate the Iranian territories."

Obama's strategy of avoiding the bad guy label has been no deterrent to Iran's propagandists. So why would Obama cling for a second week to this obviously failed tactic?

Naiveté? Pride? Arrogance? Maybe there is a component of those involved, but there is something more here.

The speeches across Europe, in Latin America, and most recently in Cairo, have told us one thing: Obama believes, on some significant level, the propaganda promoted by America's enemies that the United States is the main instigator and perpetrator of international unrest.

So shockingly, amazingly, unbelievably, Obama is saying that Iran may very well use America as a propaganda tool, but at least this time they won't be right.


President Obama recently appeared on the CBS Early Show. During the interview, Harry Smith pressed him about his silence on the protests in Iran. Similar to previous responses, the president said:

The last thing that I want to do is to have the United States be a foil for those forces inside Iran who would love nothing better than to make this an argument about the United States. That's what they do. That's what we've already seen. We shouldn't be playing into that.

This is an interesting theory, but the president's neutrality (which is actually an endorsement of the current regime) has not stopped Iranian leaders from lobbing accusations of Western meddling. This from the LA Times:

Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Hassan Qashqavi has accused Western nations and media of supporting violent protests in an attempt to create anarchy and split apart the Islamic Republic.

The BBC and Voice of America "are the mouthpiece of their government's public diplomacy,"  Qashqavi said during a press conference today. "They have two guidelines regarding Iran. One is to intensify ethnic and racial rifts within Iran and secondly to disintegrate the Iranian territories."

Obama's strategy of avoiding the bad guy label has been no deterrent to Iran's propagandists. So why would Obama cling for a second week to this obviously failed tactic?

Naiveté? Pride? Arrogance? Maybe there is a component of those involved, but there is something more here.

The speeches across Europe, in Latin America, and most recently in Cairo, have told us one thing: Obama believes, on some significant level, the propaganda promoted by America's enemies that the United States is the main instigator and perpetrator of international unrest.

So shockingly, amazingly, unbelievably, Obama is saying that Iran may very well use America as a propaganda tool, but at least this time they won't be right.