As I follow the intervention in Libya by the United States and coalition countries, I see people across the blogosphere asking "why not Iran?" but no one has any answers. Did we not see people live and in color slaughtered by Iranian Guards in the streets of Iran during the Green Revolution a/k/a Twitter Revolution? We saw videos of the fallen Iranian youth. We saw the face of the Green Revolution Neda Agha Sultan and saw her being killed in the streets of Tehran. But that was not enough to stir the world community, or even the leader of the free world?
The Iranian protesters truly wanted freedom. They were organized. They were willing to die and many did. They had leaders who could take over. An estimated 3 million took to the streets, dwarfing protests in any other country, especially Libya. Yet no one, not one country, came to their defense. We knew who the protesters were in Iran.
Yet in Libya we see no organized group, no leaders ready to step up, no organization, and Barack Obama chooses to launch a military action. We don't even know who the protesters rebels are in Libya. Are they tinged with religius fundamentalism, rather than liberal democracy? Some suggest they are al-Qaeda affiliated - Anti-American Extremists Among Libyan Rebels US Has Vowed To Protect. Anti-American?
Why Libya? Why not any of the many other Middle Eastern or Northern African nations where protesters were taking to the streets for freedom? The protesters in Iran were pro-American.
Their hopes and dreams were shattered as they begged for help and no help came. Move forward two years and we have people taking to the streets across the Middle East and Northern Africa, in Tunisia, Bahrain, Egypt, Yemen, Morroco, Algeria, Jordan, Syria, Saudi Arabia, ... The Iranians and freedom-seekers in other countries watch these countries, and especially Egypt where Obama demanded Mubarak step down and Libya now that military action has begun, and they ask "why not us, why not Iran?". Again they get no response.
The media rushed journalists and photographers to many of these countries, but what of Iran?
"Western journalists who couldn't reach -- or didn't bother reaching? -- people on the ground in Iran simply scrolled through the English-language tweets posted with tag #iranelection," quipped Esfandiari [Radio Free Europe's Golnaz Esfandiari]. "Through it all, no one seemed to wonder why people trying to coordinate protests in Iran would be writing in any language other than Farsi." (The Atlantic)
Twitter and FaceBook were used as communication to the outside world, used to organize protests, to share information, pictures and videos, but neither could remove a brutal government and free the people.
... "Twitter cannot stop a bullet," mused Charles Krauthammer on the Green Revolution's anniversary. "There was a lot of romantic outpouring here thinking that Facebook is going to stop the Revolutionary Guards. It doesn't. Thuggery, a determined regime that is oppressive, that will shoot, almost always wins." (The Atlantic)
Obama speaks out of both sides of his mouth, on the one hand Gaddafi must go, on the other hand we're not trying to remove Gaddafi. Now Obama says the goal in Libya is to establish a Democratic system of government.
StratFor says "The alliance’s full intention is not clear, nor is it clear that the allies are of one mind." Read Libya, The West and The Narrative of Democracy.
Obama says "the entire international community" had recognized the imminent threat Gadhafi posed to his own people", which is a lie. India, China, Russia, were against action in Libya and now condemning Operation Odessy Dawn.
Obama doesn't want to lead. He plans to turn over leadership of American troops to a Steering Committee run by NATO, basically Arab leadership. "There are some things you simply don’t farm out — and national security is one of those things."
What is different in Libya compared to Iran? Is it the type of Muslim religion followed by the leaders and majority? Does Barack Hussein Obama have a preference for Shia Islam over Sunni Islam, or vice versa?
There are arguments on the web that Obama has Shia preferences, but that does not seem to bear out in his actions. The author in the above article suggests several reasons why the author believes Obama may be a crypto-Shia practicing Taqiyya. I'll let you be the judge.
Libya, Algeria, Egypt, Jordan, Sudan, Kuwait, Syria, Turkey, the non-existent country of Palestine, are majority Sunni, if this source is correct, as is Indonesia where Barack Obama attended school for several years.
I see no reason why the form of Islam, whether Shiite or Sunni, would make any difference in why the US would step up to protect Libyans and not step up to protect Iranians. So why not Iran?
Iran is very close to having nuclear weapons that they will surely use on Israel. If they can produce missiles with enough long-range capacity, they will surely attack Europe and eventually the United States.
Libya has no WMD, no nukes (they are here in Tennessee) and poses no threat to the United States.
Iran has a president, Mahmoud Ahmadinajad, but the true rulers are the Mullahs, the religious leaders.
Other nations, including Libya and Egypt, where citizens are rising up have kings and/or dictators as leaders, not religious leaders.
Iran is considered Persian where the other nations with uprisings are Arab.
Iranians speak the Persian Language, also known as Farsi. Many of the countries with protestors have some Farsi-speaking residents, but the majority speak Arabic.
Barack Hussein Obama in his Nowruz Message to the Iranians (video here) said:
“...you – the young people of Iran – carry within you both the ancient greatness of Persian civilization, and the power to forge a country that is responsive to your aspirations. Your talent, your hopes, and your choices will shape the future of Iran, and help light the world. And though times may seem dark, I want you to know that I am with you,”
Apparently that's just another lie.
Why not Iran? I can't figure it out. If you do, let me know.
It might be that the consistent thread is ... Barry siding with ... Theological Islamists. Let's see if Muslim Brotherhood surfaces as a major element of the "rebel" force in Libya.
Posted by: LibertyAtStake | March 22, 2011 at 05:58 PM
"Why Not Iran?"
I will tell you why, precisely, Obama went into Libya.
(1) Iran is a Persian country, not an Arabic one, and Obama wants to look good in front of the Arab population (ostensibly because it has been neglected by U.S. policies in the past);
(2) Obama wants to look military in the eyes of his country. A quickie get in and do something makes him look like Bush without having to spend decades within a country. The problem with this, is that the Progressive/Liberals just don't get it. This is not about looking "military". It's about defending the United States of America.
(3) Obama has the attention span of a two-year-old. He wants to assume the presidency without adhering to matters of leadership. He already wants to turn over Libya to other nations. Then why go there in the first place?
Posted by: R.J. Godlewski | March 22, 2011 at 06:02 PM
because he is aiding and abetting the most hateful Izlamists..and getting away with it with impunity DEB!
Posted by: Angel | March 22, 2011 at 11:13 PM
The other thing about libya is that there are no wmds, and also what exactly is the threat against the United States. You know the very reasons liberal scum were caterwauling over when America liberated Iraq.
The truth is that obama once again showed how inexperienced and really quite ignorant he is. He thought the rebels would overthrow gaddafi quickly and wanted to be on the winning side.
But obama as usual didn't do his home work, the rebels can't pull off anything and now America is caught up in a war that obama doesn't have the balls to win.
Eventually obama will make some sort of half-assed cowardly excuse and weasel out of Libya, leaving the rebels and everyone else to the mercy of Gaddafi and his thugs.
Given the rebel leaderships hatred of the west and America, i can't say i'll lose any sleep over it, but there will be American soldiers and other innocents who will die for his stupidity.
Posted by: MK | March 23, 2011 at 05:22 AM
Simply and accurately put, Barry is an inept moron. Period.
Posted by: Skunkfeathers | March 23, 2011 at 10:03 AM
Weak and incompetent President's often turn to war to improve their ratings, as it is with HopeyMcChange.
Posted by: Random Blowhard | March 23, 2011 at 10:19 PM
very good post...
why not Iran? because TheUrkel is a wimp and actual leadership requires a pair which he doesn't have...
or its just whatever Jarrett or Soros wants done that day... no thought to previous day - what he says "now" is all taht matters...
to the deragned left
Posted by: Lisa G in NZ | March 24, 2011 at 02:57 AM