Hillary Clinton said what about Iran?

This is pretty tone deaf - even for our Secretary of State. Lamenting the idea that Iran used to be a a society with fair elections and different points of view exchanged in the leadership when Ayatollah Khomeini was Supreme Leader is just plain batty, as Abe Greenwald at Commentary points out:

The following is not hyperbole: the U.S. secretary of state has praised the freedom and pluralism of Iran's Khomeinist revolution. In a lamentation for the passing of the good ol' days, Hillary Clinton told an audience in Doha, Qatar, that today's Iran is "a far cry from the Islamic republic that had elections and different points of view within the leadership circle."However, it's what this praise is offered in service of that's most reprehensible: the reassertion of centralized power by Tehran's autocratic clerics and politicians. Clinton has determined that a Revolutionary Guard coup is underway, and she urged the government to "take back the authority which they should be exercising on behalf of the people."

Because we know how admirably it wields such authority.

The way the Obama administration sees things, the pre-June 12 mullahgarchy was fine and dandy. Sure, it was "death to America, death to Israel" every day, and there were public child-hangings and other exotic goodies that go with any "great country"; but with a little "mutual respect" and "open-hand" treatment, the mullahs would deal on the nuclear issue. So when hordes of democratic protesters took to the streets to topple Washington's negotiating partners, the administration would have none of it. President Obama would "bear witness" as the regime broke Iranian skulls and leave things at that. As Reuel Marc Gerecht put it, Obama "gives the distinct impression that he'd rather have a nuclear deal with Khamenei than see the messiness that comes when autocracy gives way to representative government." A weak argument could be mounted in Obama's defense if a nuclear deal with Khamenei were even the vaguest possibility.

This week, Obama has Clinton running around the Middle East calling Iran all sorts of names and offering as surprising news the fact that the Revolutionary Guards have taken over the government for all intents and purposes. It may be news to the administration but many, less naive observers noticed the rise of the Rev Guards these past few years as one of their own - President Ahmadinejhad - has become the most influential president in Iran's history. The Guards are under the command of Supreme Leader Khamenei, and he has allowed them to stake claims on 2/3 of the economy while moving into the various government ministries. Ahmadinejad's close relationship with the Guards has assured him a larger role in government.

Whatever Clinton and Obama are trying to accomplish with this increased chest thumping will come to naught. They are too late. After spending the last year trying to appease the Iranians, even going so far as to keep virtually silent in the face of the Iranian government's aggression against its own people, they have precious little credibility when they criticize the Islamic Republic now.

 

Hat Tip: Ed Lasky



This is pretty tone deaf - even for our Secretary of State. Lamenting the idea that Iran used to be a a society with fair elections and different points of view exchanged in the leadership when Ayatollah Khomeini was Supreme Leader is just plain batty, as Abe Greenwald at Commentary points out:

The following is not hyperbole: the U.S. secretary of state has praised the freedom and pluralism of Iran's Khomeinist revolution. In a lamentation for the passing of the good ol' days, Hillary Clinton told an audience in Doha, Qatar, that today's Iran is "a far cry from the Islamic republic that had elections and different points of view within the leadership circle."

However, it's what this praise is offered in service of that's most reprehensible: the reassertion of centralized power by Tehran's autocratic clerics and politicians. Clinton has determined that a Revolutionary Guard coup is underway, and she urged the government to "take back the authority which they should be exercising on behalf of the people."

Because we know how admirably it wields such authority.

The way the Obama administration sees things, the pre-June 12 mullahgarchy was fine and dandy. Sure, it was "death to America, death to Israel" every day, and there were public child-hangings and other exotic goodies that go with any "great country"; but with a little "mutual respect" and "open-hand" treatment, the mullahs would deal on the nuclear issue. So when hordes of democratic protesters took to the streets to topple Washington's negotiating partners, the administration would have none of it. President Obama would "bear witness" as the regime broke Iranian skulls and leave things at that. As Reuel Marc Gerecht put it, Obama "gives the distinct impression that he'd rather have a nuclear deal with Khamenei than see the messiness that comes when autocracy gives way to representative government." A weak argument could be mounted in Obama's defense if a nuclear deal with Khamenei were even the vaguest possibility.

This week, Obama has Clinton running around the Middle East calling Iran all sorts of names and offering as surprising news the fact that the Revolutionary Guards have taken over the government for all intents and purposes. It may be news to the administration but many, less naive observers noticed the rise of the Rev Guards these past few years as one of their own - President Ahmadinejhad - has become the most influential president in Iran's history. The Guards are under the command of Supreme Leader Khamenei, and he has allowed them to stake claims on 2/3 of the economy while moving into the various government ministries. Ahmadinejad's close relationship with the Guards has assured him a larger role in government.

Whatever Clinton and Obama are trying to accomplish with this increased chest thumping will come to naught. They are too late. After spending the last year trying to appease the Iranians, even going so far as to keep virtually silent in the face of the Iranian government's aggression against its own people, they have precious little credibility when they criticize the Islamic Republic now.

 

Hat Tip: Ed Lasky



RECENT VIDEOS