We agree concerning the “complex and sensitive” aspect, certainly, and we agree concerning the remarks about “civil society” (i.e. public diplomacy). But public diplomacy and executive and more official diplomacy in general go hand-in-hand, they work best together, not separately, so we disagree concerning the substance of Obama’s commentary as applied to the current regime and as applied to related activities that could be initiated by the U.S. and other western powers (e.g., Radio Free Asia and other broadcasts and funding; bringing together a sanctions alliance with Germany, the U.S. and other nations; more pointed commentary and policies concerning proxies such as Hezbollah and Hamas or even internal oppressive police forces such as the Basji). The best single term I’ve seen applied to Obama’s commentary specifically has been “formulaic,” i.e. lacking any more vital and well tempered subjective connectedness. The worry over 1953/54 strikes me as especially silly, given what actually did occur during that period.

Still, I don’t wish to quibble or argue the point further.

I agree it’s a difficult and complex set of issues that need to be confronted. But “difficult and complex” situations are precisely one of the reasons we have an executive in the first place: to provide more decisive leadership and focus. No one is suggesting we send in armed forces, but there are assertive and decisive measures that can be adopted, that are far short of military engagement. For purposes of analogy, comparing the Carter administration to the Reagan administration vis-a-vis the Soviets is instructive.

The latest statement touches on all the right themes, and benefits from the trademark Obama eloquence to boot. The repeated use of ‘justice’ is key. Of course, I have no idea why he chose to release it as a written statement rather than get on camera. And why it took him 7 hours into the day to deliver it. But there are probably so many complex and sensitive considerations that go into such decisions that I’m not inclined to delve into.

What I have been saying to everyone (my friends, co-workers, etc.) is that the best thing is for American civil society to speak in people-to-people solidarity. That’s a much more powerful force anyway. So, if we really care about this issue, we need to reach out to elected officials, local media, people in our churches, synagogues, university groups, etc. etc. reminding them to not forget the Iranian people.

Apologies.

There is nothing “Pavlovian” about your own remarks whatsoever. I wasn’t intending to comment on your own commentary specifically, I was thinking more broadly, in terms of the commentary I’ve seen in general and relative to Obama’s remarks as applied to both Iran and Israel recently. A couple of other comments herein spurred my remarks, but I should have better edited and clarified my intentions. My fault, so, again, apologies for that lack of clarity.

(I do wonder, more intuitively and tentatively, whether or not you aren’t too readily satisfied with Obama’s comments - I believe his remarks to be tepid, marginal and equivocating, lacking in verve and lacking in a certain commitment - but I was not thinking of you in terms of my more acerbic comment.)

I had a certain set of criteria in mind for how the admin. should react to the situation. And I explained why they WERE met at the message delivered at the press conference.

What’s Pavlovian about my comment? I had a certain set of criteria in mind for how the admin. should react to the situation. And I explained why they weren’t met at the message delivered at the press conference.

Since then, the regime has cracked down even more forcefully. Hence why in the last 24 hours I’ve been advocating an even louder response. I believe we received that in Obama’s written statement released today:

“The Iranian government must understand that the world is watching. We mourn each and every innocent life that is lost. We call on the Iranian government to stop all violent and unjust actions against its own people. The universal rights to assembly and free speech must be respected, and the United States stands with all who seek to exercise those rights.

As I said in Cairo, suppressing ideas never succeeds in making them go away. The Iranian people will ultimately judge the actions of their own government. If the Iranian government seeks the respect of the international community, it must respect the dignity of its own people and govern through consent, not coercion.

Martin Luther King once said – “The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.” I believe that. The international community believes that. And right now, we are bearing witness to the Iranian peoples’ belief in that truth, and we will continue to bear witness.”

This was posted before President Obama had reacted to the situation in Iran. I actually appreciated very much the message he delivered in his joint press conference with Silvio Burlosconi. Obama effectively balanced the need to remove the US from the equation against the need to make it known where his heart is.

And of course you’ve probably heard how, behind the scenes, the Administration persuaded Twitter to reschedule their regularly-scheduled maintenance in order not to disrupt the Iranian people’s communication among themselves and with the outside world.

This is no simple parallel or presumptive and facile analogy, but I can’t help but think of how Chomsky and Herman counseled a decent interval post-April, 1975, in Cambodia. Other situations of note come to mind. Hindsight is 20/20, fine. But do elucidate the opening we are to expect, and do elaborate as to how the present interval reflects very much that can be considered as “decent”. I’d love to be persuaded, upon responsible and well argued grounds however, not a flimsy suggestiveness and based upon imaginatively wishful thinking.