Karim Sadjadpour Reminds Chris Wallace That U.S. Meddling in Middle East Politics is Not Productive
By Heather Monday Jun 22, 2009 4:00pm
From Fox News Sunday, Karim Sadjadpour reminds Chris Wallace of what happened when George H.W. Bush decided meddling in Iraq's politics was a good idea, and as a result countless numbers of Iraqis lost their lives, and the United States got blamed for their deaths rather than Saddam Hussein. As Sadjadpour noted, the Iranian regime may be hoping for the same thing to happen again now if the United States is silly enough to repeat the same mistake.
The Obama administration has apparently gotten the memo and is heeding his advice. The same cannot be said for all of the neocons and Republicans who apparently haven't read their history lessons.
Transcript below the fold.
WALLACE: Mr. Sadjadpour, first of all, is that true? The president went on to say either way, we’re going to be dealing with a regime that’s hostile to the U.S.
Do you believe that there is no great difference between what we would face with Mousavi as compared to what we have and would continue to face with Ahmadinejad? And how dispiriting was that statement to the protesters in the street?
SADJADPOUR: Well, Chris, I do believe that was a misstep by the president, and I think the White House acknowledges now in retrospect that was a misstep. And if you’ve noticed, the rhetoric has changed.
But I didn’t get the impression that this had made a tremendous impact on the demonstrations in Tehran and elsewhere.
WALLACE: But going back to the original question, would there be a difference, Mousavi versus Ahmadinejad?
SADJADPOUR: Absolutely. And what we have to recognize is this movement is much bigger than Mir Hossein Mousavi. This is not about Mir Hossein Mousavi anymore. This is about the political and social and economic discontents which have been brewing in Iran for three decades now.
WALLACE: Let’s look at how the statements of President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton have evolved this week. Here’s a series of clips.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
OBAMA: It’s not productive, given the history of U.S.-Iranian relations, to be seen as meddling.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CLINTON: Our intent is to pursue whatever opportunities might exist in the future with Iran to discuss these matters.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
OBAMA: The government of Iran recognizes that the world is watching.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
WALLACE: Mr. Sadjadpour, several questions. First of all -- and this speaks to something that Senator Bayh and Congressman Hoekstra were discussing -- what about this argument that if the president speaks out, it somehow empowers and gives more ammunition to the Iranian regime to say that these protesters are just puppets of the United States?
SADJADPOUR: Chris, that is a big concern I have as well, and that’s why I think the president’s rhetoric so far has been well calibrated.
And the historical analogy which concerns me, Chris, is Iraq in 1991 when George Bush senior encouraged Iraqis to rise up. Saddam slaughtered them, and then the rest of the world didn’t criticize Saddam for the slaughter but they criticized George Bush for encouraging Iraqis to speak out.
So I think this regime is looking for the United States to step into this trap so they have the license to slaughter the Iranian people and accuse them, you know, of being American (inaudible).
WALLACE: But they’re already saying this. In fact, you had President Ahmadinejad today say to the U.S. and Britain, “Stop interfering.” So whether we do it or not, they’re going to accuse us of doing it.
SADJADPOUR: Chris, I really defer to the leaders of these opposition movements themselves in Iran, the opposition leaders in Iran, and I have not heard from any of them who say that the United States should become directly involved.
They’ve all said that the United States should continue to denounce human rights abuses, and our plight should continue to be broadcast throughout the world, but none of them have asked the United States to play a more active, defiant role in domestic internal Iranian policy.
Login or Register to post comments.
...if this: "So whether we do it or not, they’re going to accuse us of doing it." Subtext reads, if they think we're stealing their chickens, we may as well go ahead and bust into the henhouse.
That's what it is and that Wallice guy is so smug about it too, like he's thinking "there, I outsmarted him". All Wallis needs is horns and pointy ears.
Wallis is part of the "he did it too" demographic.
Wallace completely sidestepped Sadjadpour's point.
Sadjadpour said the WORLD criticised Bush Sr for encouraging the Iraqis to rise up, instead of criticising Saddam for the slaughter.
By implication, he's saying, "Obama should not encourage what is already happening, or the world will blame Obama for the slaughter, instead of the Ruling Mullahs."
that the CIA is directly involved in all this chaos, it will be Obama's fault. It's his watch unfortunately.
[sarcasm] So, according to Chris, whether the CIA does it or not, they’re going to accuse the CIA of doing it anyway.
Funny how Chris never finishes the logical conclusion of that statement...
So i will. ...they’re going to accuse the CIA of doing it anyway, so the CIA might as well go ahead and do it! Is that what you think Chris Wallace?
even if i dont....i should?
IS THIS THE BEGINNING OF THE END OF THEOCRACY'S STRANGLEHOLD ON IRAN?
The initial movement to dispute the results of Iran's Presidential elections has now morphed into a struggle for freedom and a rebellion against theocracy's 30 year stranglehold.
The unelected Guardian Council headed by the Supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei was imposed upon Iran following the revolution of late Ayatollah Khomeini. This body of clerics and jurists has bestowed upon itself the ultimate power to veto any laws passed by the elected Majlis - the Iranian parliament. The Council also has the bestowed upon itself the power to stop any candidate from taking part in elections. This structure has nothing to do with Islam and is a draconian powerhouse created by Iranian theocracy to keep a stranglehold on Iran's body politic.
The cracks that appeared immediately after the Presidential election are not so much because Iranians want Mousavi to be their President, but because they are sick and tired of the draconian rule by the mullahs for the last thirty years.
Prior to the Islamic revolution, Iranians suffered under the brutal and self serving regime of Shah of Iran and his vicious secret service - Savak. The 1979 revolution was not so much pro Khomeini but an anti Shah uprising. However, the people did not bargain for a theocratic led stranglehold on their daily lives. The frustration spilling out on Iranian street today is because of restriction on personal liberties and imposition of harsh rules on daily lives of Iranians especially on women.
For the first time clergy's power and the Guardian Council's stranglehold has been seriously challenged. The question is, where do things go from here? Continued confrontation will lead to more bloodshed. The chances are that clergy and Ahmadinajed will win this round and keep their hold on power, but for how long that is the question? This may not be the end but the beginning of the end for the clergy.
Also, at this time there is no apparent alternative to the system in place. The mullahs were clever enough to have enshrined their powers in the constitution which they wrote and had Majlis approve it.
Will the Iranian Military take over and throw out the clergy and the constitution with it? That may get rid of the mullahs, but will not be a good thing in itself. Both Ahmadinajed and Khamenei have support in rural areas and in the mosque and that could lead to a major unrest and possibly a civil war in Iran and that is no one's interest.
It has to be seen how all this plays out. Beyond moral support and electronic enabling, the Iranian people must be left alone to fight their battle for freedom and democracy. Any hint of behind the scenes involvement of CIA, MI6 or any other western intelligence agency will severely damage the cause of the people. The Iranian Government will use that as an excuse to label protesters as American/Western backed and crack down on them even more severely. So however tempting it may be, my suggestion to CIA and MI6 is to back off
May it be the end of the oppression everywhere.
I have to take issue with the statement "United States got blamed for their deaths rather than Saddam Hussein", because it implies that Saddam would have been responsible for a level of violence that surpassed the Iran-Iraq war of the 1980's.
During Saddam's worst, most notorious years of the Anfal campaign, his destruction paled in comparison to the American attack of 2003.
We shouldn't even be uttering the word Iran without red flags going up everywhere.
go up whenever there is demonstrations in those "evil" nations. CIA involvement maybe stirring up the hornet's nest?
Meddling in the affairs of Iran serves two purposes for them: Slam Obama for not standing up for democracy (no snickering allowed) and harm the opposition. The neocons want Ahmedinejad, so they can have their wargasm. Ok, some of the neocons are too dumb to get this, but I think many of them know the game they're playing.
Wallace should keep in mind that some of these protesters would have been killed in US bombings anyways if the Republicans realized their wet dream of attacking Iran. Others would have starved in the war's aftermath. Let's especially not forget about the secretarian violence that would have followed too.
A few hours ago I left a comment on U.S. Rep. Pete Hoekstra's video on youtube slamming him about it. I'm pretty sure his censurers will delete it, but in the meantime, it's on the video titled: "Rep. Hoekstra on Fox News Sunday Part I 6-21-09". It reads: "The president should keep his mouth shut, we don't need the president running his mouth delegitimizing a movement by an Iranian movement. Nothing does a worse job than an idiot politician thinking that running some sound bits to gain vote will solve this situation. Do you want to help? Then shut the hell up and turn that Limbaugh off.
OMG, you people are idiots. The CIA were created for this purpose, let them do their jobs."
I left a similar message on Congressman Mike Pence's video titled: Mike Pence on Fox News Regarding Iran Protests. It reads: "With all due respect, you don't sound very smart, Mr. Pence. Nothing delegitimizes an uprising in the muslim world more than American politicians running their mouths like whores, thinking that they can gain a few votes from it. Do you really want to help? Then shut the hell up. We have the CIA to do counter intelligence and the work of supporting such movement without ruining it.
Maybe you sound good on Fox News, but to the average American you sound like an idiot."
I'm pretty sure they won't last too long, but if it does, I admit that they have more guts than some people.
done enough "counter intelligence" in the world? You do know, that CIA backed regime changes worldwide, usually come back to bite them in the ass right? Why? Because they are idiots.
I don't condone most things done by the CIA, but if their counter intelligence makes these zealots in Iran lose power, I can't say I oppose it. Do you?
Chris Wallace and the rest of this neocon warmongers are all for the US to get into the middle of this crisis because neither them or any of their families will be called on to fight in it.
And they understand them perfectly. It just doesn't matter to them. Now that war is firmly established as an "industry" and the franchises have been let, a war is just another commercial venture to these people, and the more wars ya got goin' on, the more bucks in those Cayman Island bank accounts. Ain't unfettered capitalism great?
Howard Dean said tonight on Countdown... that the healthcare depate in the Senate has become a discussion about what's better for the SENATE... NOT WHAT'S BETTER FOR THE PEOPLE.
This is an observation on a completely different issue... but Exactly the same probelm with our "elected" officials.
I don't like the CIA (US gov't) getting involved with any opposition movement; as they have a very bad habit of leaving the poor bastards in a lurch when it suits them.
I see McInsame will be on Larry King tomorrow night. Probably be critisizing Obama for not giving enough support to the demonstrators. Wonder if Larry will be man enough to tell him he is a f*&!g hypocrite. If not, maybe playing Barbara Ann in the background during the conversation would do it.
After they slapped Chris when he was born, did they slap you next? They should have.
Your idiot savant son degrades the name of journalism that you tried to uphold. Please do us a favor and publically disown this self centered mutant if he continues to work for the Fox Nutwork.
"The same cannot be said for all of the neocons and Republicans who apparently haven't read their history lessons."
Don't you know that history only began in January 2009? The GOP sez so. And, to quote Meghan McCain, those not yet born when any of this happened don't need to know about it.
as many videos about the situation in Iran as I have, one thing you can't help but notice is that the Cons are overwhelingly using the comments section to bash Obama for being "weak" and "timid." I just keep trying to point out that anyone who knows one fucking thing about the subject knows Obama is doing exactly the right thing. I also point out that the Cons in America are exactly the same as the people who support Ahmadinejad and Khamenei. The only difference is the name of the god they kill for.
How dare the guest not prove Chris right? Weasel Journalism Fail.
I am really glad you are seeing prominent Iranians coming out and saying that meddling in Iran is a bad thing for Obama to do. Last night on the Daily show, there was a clip of Jason Jones interviewing 3 Iranian dissidents before the elections. All 3 were subsequently jailed after the elections.
One of those has a son here in the United States, and Jon Stewart interviewed him. He obviously was quite distraught about his father's situation, but even he said that Obama should not use the tough language Republicans are advocating.
Our history of meddling in the middle east, and Iran in particular, is long and not good. Obama has been doing the right thing.
All these idiots trumpeting on the TeeVee machine saying Obama should get more involved in the Iran thing? Why? I think the prez is doing the right thing.
I keep hearing about the Iranians' right of speech, etc. Do they even have a constitution to guarantee these rights?
What good is a constitution when the president shits all over the constitution? See: Reagan, Ronald. Bush, George Walker.
Check out the "interactive" site outlining BushCo crimes/criminals:
http://www.slate.com/id/2195892/
When will the proceedings begin???
Login or Register to post comments.