Why Obama is soft on Iran's Mullahs

If President Obama shares the view of the man he nominated to head the National Intelligence Council, his slowness in condemning Iran's repression comes into clear focus. Remember Chas Freeman, President Obama's nominee for the chair of the National Intelligence Council, who withdrew after relentless attacks by the "Zionist lobby?"

Here he is, in his own words, at the height of his RealPolitik wisdom while e-mailing his thoughts on Tiananmen Square massacre:

"I do not believe it is acceptable for any country to allow the heart of its national capital to be occupied by dissidents intent on disrupting the normal functions of government, however appealing to foreigners their propaganda may be. Such folk, whether they represent a veterans' "Bonus Army" or a "student uprising" on behalf of "the goddess of democracy" should expect to be displaced with despatch (sic) from the ground they occupy."

Also sprach Zarathustra - sorry, Chas Freeman -- the man our President entrusted with his ear insofar as international events were concerned. Would he be thus elevated had his political philosophy differed in the least from that of President Obama?

One very much doubts it.

So why are we puzzled by our President's but tepid protestations against mullahs' brutal suppression of their own people?

No need to dive deep into deep and mysterious ocean of hidden political reasoning, or split hairs this way and that. The reality might be much closer to the surface. Given our Dear Leader's RealPolitik thinking, perhaps he simply agrees with his friend-and-advisor Ambassador Freeman in thinking that the Mullahs are in the right when they act to ‘displace' ‘a "student uprising" on behalf of "the goddess of democracy"' - and do so ‘with despatch,' thus not repeating Freeman-lamented ‘truly unforgivable mistake of the Chinese authorities [that] was the failure to intervene on a timely basis to nip the demonstrations in the bud.'
If President Obama shares the view of the man he nominated to head the National Intelligence Council, his slowness in condemning Iran's repression comes into clear focus. Remember Chas Freeman, President Obama's nominee for the chair of the National Intelligence Council, who withdrew after relentless attacks by the "Zionist lobby?"

Here he is, in his own words, at the height of his RealPolitik wisdom while e-mailing his thoughts on Tiananmen Square massacre:

"I do not believe it is acceptable for any country to allow the heart of its national capital to be occupied by dissidents intent on disrupting the normal functions of government, however appealing to foreigners their propaganda may be. Such folk, whether they represent a veterans' "Bonus Army" or a "student uprising" on behalf of "the goddess of democracy" should expect to be displaced with despatch (sic) from the ground they occupy."

Also sprach Zarathustra - sorry, Chas Freeman -- the man our President entrusted with his ear insofar as international events were concerned. Would he be thus elevated had his political philosophy differed in the least from that of President Obama?

One very much doubts it.

So why are we puzzled by our President's but tepid protestations against mullahs' brutal suppression of their own people?

No need to dive deep into deep and mysterious ocean of hidden political reasoning, or split hairs this way and that. The reality might be much closer to the surface. Given our Dear Leader's RealPolitik thinking, perhaps he simply agrees with his friend-and-advisor Ambassador Freeman in thinking that the Mullahs are in the right when they act to ‘displace' ‘a "student uprising" on behalf of "the goddess of democracy"' - and do so ‘with despatch,' thus not repeating Freeman-lamented ‘truly unforgivable mistake of the Chinese authorities [that] was the failure to intervene on a timely basis to nip the demonstrations in the bud.'