Letting Freedom Ring

Anyone following the news in recent days has probably heard about the protests in Iran over the recent elections and the accusations against the current regime regarding voter fraud and attempts to quell the election of a new leader vice the current President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. An angry public has taken to the streets in the days since the election results were announced (with nearly 76% of the votes going for incumbant Ahmadinejad) as opposed to what the vocal majority claims was it's choice for President, Mir-Hossein Mousavi. What has made the protests even more profound is the violence that has accompanied it from the government's side. Police and military forces within Iran have been accused of trying to stifle the protests by resorting to violence.

For the first time that I can remember, the attempts of a fledgling democracy to restore itself to a democratically elected government is being covered around the world through the new media sources such as Facebook, YouTube and other internet-based media. What this means is that now not only do those within the country of Iran know what is going on, the rest of the world does as well. And what this also means is that the rest of the world will let it's opinion be known whether it has any right to say anything or not. I say this as more and more people begin to protest the fact that here in the United States, President Obama has been accused by some of 'not doing enough to show support to Iranians struggling for freedom'. Not doing enough? Well what exactly are people expecting President Obama and the United States to do?

President Obama has issued statements directed towards Iran condemning the violence and stating that the United States and the world is watching the developments in Iran and strongly urges the government to seek peaceful means of determing the will of the people and what the elections truly show. Yet many opponents to Obama (let's call a spade a spade and just say Republicans) have come out to protest his 'limited' response and claim that this is a moment in history where the United States could have a profound impact on the future of Iran and what it could mean to the Middle East. Excuse me? Profound impact? Hasn't the assistance of the United States in the past had profound impact though not always in the best possible way? After the overthrow of the Shah in the late 1970's it was clear that Iran's stance towards the United States was not to friendly. After that time and in the years since Iran has been a country that has not received much attention from the media or anyone else for that matter until it was linked with the so-called 'Axis of Evil' by President Bush.

I'm not saying that Iran was ignored since those years but what I mean is that where were all of these people supporting freedom in Iran in the interim? Certainly the Iranian people haven't been quiet for so many years and now that they have banded together to protest what amounts to voter fraud on behalf of the government (and seeing as how they appear to be reeling against the loss of the White House after 8 years) Republicans are suddenly jumping up and down like organ-grinder monkeys telling the people and anyone else who will listen that the United States needs to offer up support to Iran. What support do they propose? The United States already has committed tremendous resources to the region in Iraq, Afghanistan and is offering support to Pakistan in its efforts against the Taliban. So what more do these protestors here in the United States think we should offer?

If that means military support then I think every able-bodied male will probably soon start getting calls from the military to enlist so that we can fill our ranks with sufficient numbers to help out in another country. If they mean monetary support I ask where they think that we'll be able to get the money? With the economy over here in shambles do they really think we should be spending more money abroad? That just leaves token support in my mind. By President Obama coming out and saying that he supports the 'freedom loving people of Iran' isn't going to make the situation better. If it comes down to a revolution in the vein of the American Revolution in Iran, what are we going to do? What can we do?

I think it's comendable and brave what the people of Iran are doing and I certainly hope that the will of the people perseveres and triumphs over the tyrannical rule that appears to be gripping the country but in all honesty, when other countries around the world in the past and even today fought for democratic freedom, did we jump to their aid or send troops? In some cases yes and some cases no but the end result was the same. When the people wanted it bad enough, the people got what they fought for. But if people are of the opinion that the United States needs to do more then where do we draw the line? If we help Iran then shouldn't we help the nations in Africa where genocide and regime changes occur with disturbing frequency? Or is it only because none of those countries possess nuclear weapons or don't pose a threat to us?

Is Iran different because we don't like Ahmadinejad because of statements he's made? Maybe so but then there are other despots around the globe who have made similar statements. Shouldn't we help those countries defeat such terrible people as well so that we'll be safer in the long run? I understand that we need to express support for the people of Iran and that it is an important point in that country's history, I just don't understand what more people want of the United States government. Like him or hate him, President Obama is the leader of the nation and while we may not like some of the things (or all of the things he does), I think he's taking the right tact at this point in time. Rather than backing a horse we know nothing about (Mousavi), it's better to get a little smarter before backing a horse that could end up having us lose more than we can afford at this point.