More Progressive idol worship, courtesy of the Iranian Revolution.

The Iranian "Green Revolution," as it is being called, certainly has some very complex and often confusing facets to it. But I don't think anyone would have ever expected it to confuse the political ambient here in the States.

Yesterday, Robert Kagan, a neo-conservative foreign policy expert, in his monthly op-ed column for the Washington Post, wrote about the difficulties opposition protests are creating for President Obama and his strategy on dealing with Iran.

Kagan's thoughts on the situation are simple, a return to normalcy within Iran's political structure is key for the Obama plan of directly engaging the Ahmadinejad regime. My own personal feelings aside, Kagan's analysis is not that unbelievable, even though I think this is going to go in quite a different direction than anyone could have guessed.

However what I found rather pathetic was the attempted rebuttal by the Left. I was immensely surprised by the pitiful criticism offered by Johnathan Chait of the New Republic. And of course the other cast of infant talking pointers who never fail to disappoint with their absurd and ridiculous squawking. It seems witless observations are all these folks are worth these days.


On the top of the list is Matthew Yglesias of Think Regress who seems to be very enamored of his "colleague," Matt Duss's appraisal.

Meanwhile, my colleague Matt Duss was on MSNBC yesterday offering a much more reasonable take on Obama’s restrained response:

DUSS: I think the lesson to be learned is the United States’ ability to intervene and change these outcomes is rather limited. As Americans, we like to believe that our ability to move, to promote democracy and to move events in the world at our will is a lot bigger than it actually is. … Right now President Obama’s treatment of the demonstrations going on in Iran is pretty near perfect. He has taken the United States to the extent possible out of this equation, he, the United States, and our role in the Middle East is not — he’s not going to give that to the hard liners as an excuse for an even greater crackdown.

I don't dispute the that Americans tend to overstate our ability to intervene and change outcomes. However, in their attempt to blindly worship the President they have overlooked one small and very significant fact, a usual trait amongst the "intellectual progressives." Here is a photo from Kagan's article.



Notice this little lady's proclamation is in anglais not Iranian, as are many other protesters. It really isn't that hard to figure out that Iranian reformist protesters are sending a message to the West, more specifically the United States, about what they feel is happening to them. If this isn't the case then what are they trying to prove to us, ACORN rigged their election too?

Now please don't mistake this for me trying to make a case for sending in troops or raise the stakes against the Iranian government, but, it does seem to indicate some attempt at outreach to people in America. Nevertheless, the Obama administration is concerned over Ahmadinejad and the crazed Mullah's using any pro-reformist language from his administration as a talking point to prove American interference in domestic Iranian affairs. So, he has remained somewhat quiet on the subject.

Oh darn, Obama didn't have to wait very long for Mahmoud to start spreading that propaganda, now did he?

Another "genius" who misses the point is Taylor Marsh, whose brain has been soaking too long in the boggy topography which shares her surname.

Whatever the Iranian people are doing right now, however heartening it is, it is not a revolution in the sense of a democratic republic. The distinction of what we’d prefer for them, well, that is irrelevant and not for us to decide.

No, it isn't for us to decide, it is not for us to intervene, it is not ours. Does that mean we turn a blind eye and not support the ideals of a people who want to move in a different direction? A people who are obviously reaching out to us for some unknown reason? Does it not demand investigation into why they are doing this or why Mousavi is obviously sanctioning his supporters to proceed with messages in English? Besides, Mahmoud has already jumped the shark with an opening salvo against Obama by invoking American interventionism. I guess these two dolts like to haphazardly dismiss or ignore certain facts to make themselves appear more informed than they are to their brainwashed readership.

Now there is also this little find. courtesy of Foreign Policy Magazine. Just say it is straight from the Persian horse's mouth. This is an excerpt from FP's interview with Mohsen Makhmalbaf, Mousavi's external spokesman.

Foreign Policy: You were involved in the 1979 Iranian Revolution as a young man, and your films have touched on it extensively. What parallels do you see between then and today's situation?

Mohsen Makhmalbaf: There are some similarities and some differences. In both situations, people were in the streets. In the [earlier] revolution, there were young people in the streets who were not as modern as the people are today. And they were in the streets following the lead of a leader, a mullah -- in those times Ayatollah Khomeini. Now, the young people in the streets are more modern: They use SMS; they use the Internet. And they are not being actually led by anyone, but they are connected to each other.

These young people who are in the streets are looking for peace and democracy. The previous revolution was a revolution of traditionalism against modernism; but now this is a revolution of modernism against traditionalism. The previous revolution had a frown; this one has a smile on its face. The previous revolution was red; this one is green. We can say that this is a 21st-century revolution, but the other was a 20th-century revolution. That revolution was led by the people who were educated by the epoch of the shah, and this generation was brought up by the mullahs inside the Islamic Revolution. We have many young people, and maturity is killing the fathers. In each generation, we kill our fathers. And our fathers [today] are the mullahs.

This is not about Mousavi, Ahmadinejad, or the Supreme Leader, it as about what the people in Iran want. This is about enough people, on their own accord and not bused in by the government, demonstrating against what they feel is a repressive and tyrannical regime. A regime which will not allow a country, who two thirds of its population in under 30, to mature on its own.

Please let me reiterate that I am not advocating military intervention or hostile sanctions against Iran. Just the Obama administration letting the people of Iran know we get it and are with them and their personal quest for against freedom to grow on their own. Not stick our heads in the sand like frightened little children who are fearful of ever making a decision.