Barack Obama's Baptism by Fire

In Washington, the Republicans and their media intermediaries are working to draw a “weak and timid” president who would sacrifice America’s founding values of liberty in order to better woo the mullahs.

It’s hard not to notice it. The protesters who express their anger and thirst for liberty in the streets of Tehran brandish several signs written in English. That, and also thanks to American technology – Twitter and YouTube – they’re trying to burst the wall of silence in which the Iranian regime wants to confine them. This isn’t an isolated “tweet” that links Iran and the United States: it’s a cry from the heart, a call for help.

Yet Barack Obama seems to also not have heard that call. Unfortunately, his first words seemed to minimize the importance of this uprising, having left a little less direct tone last weekend. “We stand behind those who are seeking justice in a peaceful way.” It serves still as a meager consolation for young Neda and the other Iranians whose deaths are probably being shown live in the West.

This is the baptism by fire for the American president. For him, it’s the moment to abandon a methodical strategy put in place to open the door to the unexpected. But can Obama really do any more?

In Washington, the Republicans and their media intermediaries are working to draw a “weak and timid” president who would sacrifice America’s founding values of liberty in order to better woo the mullahs. Their arguments aren’t wont for pertinence that points the finger on the contradictions of a president who embodies the biggest ideals but who, at the same time, appears to put up with a good dose of realpolitik.

Yet those same conservatives pass like a cat on embers when its the damages caused by other idealists who turn quasi-messianic, like in Iraq, or frankly cynical, like those who led under those same latitudes in the Iran Contra scandal, when it was about selling arms to Iran in the name of the same defense of liberty, albeit illegally.

Today, a too strong American intervention would only serve the interest of the supporters of Mir-Hossein Moussavi. The whole world agrees. And what if others make a profit from American inaction in order to speak with a stronger voice?