NY Times: Trump Shouldn’t Stand Up For The Iranian Protesters

Leave it to the NY Times, as written by Philip Gordon, to recommend that Trump keep quiet on the latest Iranian protests, because 1) the Times has Trump Derangement Syndrome, and 2) because Obama was a complete failure during the Iranian Green Uprising and the Arab Spring, and they don’t want Trump to make Obama look bad.

How Can Trump Help Iran’s Protesters?  Be Quiet.

As anti-government rallies gather momentum across Iran — taking outside analysts and the Iranian government alike by surprise — President Trump and his foreign policy advisers are likely asking what they can do to support the protesters.

Mr. Trump, after all, has said Iran is responsible for nearly all the problems of the Middle East, and accuses the country of spreading “death destruction and chaos all around the globe.” The president would no doubt love to announce that his tough approach has delivered results by undermining the repressive Iranian government, and that his predecessor’s more conciliatory approach failed.

Um, they have been a nation for Bad Things in the Middle East. Roadside bombs traced to Iran. A stated policy of wiping Israel off the map. Backing numerous terrorist groups. Fomenting problems in nations across the ME. Looking to build nuclear weapons, which Obama’s Iran deal will allow in less than a decade. Creating long range missiles to carry those nuclear weapons. The list goes on and on. Oh, and let’s not remember how the Islamist government gets everyone to chant “death to America”.

I, too, want to see the government in Tehran weakened, moderated or even removed. So let me offer Mr. Trump some unsolicited advice: Keep quiet and do nothing.

On Friday night and again on Saturday, Mr. Trump sent out tweets calling on the Iranian government to “respect their people’s rights” and warning that “The world is watching!” That’s more than enough. At this stage, we have little idea what these protests are really about or where they will lead. But we can be fairly certain that high-profile public support from the United States government will do more harm than good.

Obviously, Mr. Gordon keeps going on in this vein, including an attempt to protect Obama’s horrible not good Iran deal, so, let’s switch tracks a bit

(Daily Caller) While his predecessor was hesitant and perhaps overly cautious, President Donald Trump was quick to offer his support to Iranian protesters that are critical of the country’s leadership. (snip)

The ongoing protests are the largest public anti-government outcry in Iran since the 2009 Green Revolution, a response to a prevailing belief that former Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad had stolen the election. As violence erupted in the streets and authorities cracked down on Iranian citizens, the Obama administration was initially silent on the acts of a hostile Islamic regime. For the first two days, the president failed to respond.

Obama finally chimed in on the 3rd day, giving a tepid, mealy mouthed response

“I think it would be wrong for me to be silent about what we’ve seen on the television over the last few days,” he said, adding, “I would say to those people who put so much hope and energy and optimism into the political process, I would say to them that the world is watching and inspired by their participation, regardless of what the ultimate outcome of the election was. And they should know that the world is watching.”

It is “up to Iranians to make decisions about who Iran’s leaders will be,” Obama explained.

The former president was, however, careful to avoid stepping on the toes on the Iranian government. “We respect Iranian sovereignty and want to avoid the United States being the issue inside of Iran.”

And it continued to be a tepid response, even as some protesters were asking from Obama and the U.S. to back them. Why? Because Obama wanted his negotiations, with no preconditions, with Iran.

(Weekly Standard) At this point, the evidence is irrefutable: The Obama administration got Iran wrong. So did the international foreign-policy establishment. So did the New York Times and nearly every major center-left media outlet in the United States and Europe.

In 2009, hundreds of thousands of Iranians protested a rigged election and the regime dispatched its thugs to crush the protest by assaulting, imprisoning, and in many cases murdering the protesters. The new president had campaigned on the need to “dialogue” with the regime and wanted to prove his foreign-policy prowess by securing a nuclear deal; so he responded with weak rhetorical criticisms and nothing more. A movement that might have blossomed into a democratic and peaceable Iran was instead crushed for the sake of an agreement—the 2015 nuclear deal—the Iranian government immediately began flouting.

Again, let’s not forget that Team Obama pretty much ignored the Arab Spring which followed the Green Uprising, until Egypt started having problems, and then Team Obama started backing the Muslim Brotherhood and Islamists in Egypt. Team O had no problem throwing an ally under the bus (though Mubarak wasn’t exactly a great person, let’s be clear), but, took a soft stance against the hardcore Iranian leaders.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

2 Responses to “NY Times: Trump Shouldn’t Stand Up For The Iranian Protesters”

  1. Dana says:

    Our esteemed host wrote:

    Leave it to the NY Times, as written by Philip Gordon, to recommend that Trump keep quiet on the latest Iranian protests,

    Fixed that for you. The editors of the Times routinely recommend that President Trump remain quiet on every subject that can possibly arrive.

  2. […] NY Times’ Philip Gordon argued the other day that Trump should stay out of the Iran protests. Obama luminaries such as John Kerry, […]

Bad Behavior has blocked 7134 access attempts in the last 7 days.