Obama's Ally on Iran Policy: Pat Buchanan

In this era of Democratic domination of the executive and legislative branches of the federal government, who is the new go-to man for counsel with regard to wise foreign policy strategies?

Pat Buchanan.

The former aide to presidents Nixon and Reagan who bid without success for the Republican presidential nod in 1992, 1996 and 2000 has long been a critic of U.S. interventionism -- especially in the Middle East and southern Asia. An "old-right" conservative whose views on international affairs bow to the memory of former Ohio Senator Robert Taft Sr., Buchanan is a stalwart critic of foreign adventures. As such, Buchanan has battled the neo-conservative impulse in his own party and beyond its borders, as a commentator and with his contributions to the intellectually-adventurous American Conservative magazine.

So when President Obama shied away from joining other world leaders who have aggressively criticized Iran's disputed election and condemned post-election violence -- an approach The Hill newspaper describes as "hands-off" -- he got high marks from Buchanan.

While most Republicans, led by the ever-bombastic John McCain (in alliance with the ever-bloviating Joe Lieberman), have been pillorying Obama for not doing enough, the paleoconservative commentator is hailing Obama as a savvy player on the international stage.

On Friday, Buchanan wrote:

It is impossible to believe a denunciation of the regime by Obama will cause it to stay its hand if it believes its power is imperiled. But it is certain that if Obama denounces Tehran, those demonstrators will be portrayed as dupes and agents of America before and after they meet their fate.

If standing up and denouncing the Ayatollah and Ahmadinejad from 7,000 miles away is moral heroism, it is moral heroism at other people's expense.

That got Democrats all excited.

Declared Missouri Senator Claire McCaskill, about as close an Obama ally as you will find in Congress: "It's an ironic moment in history when I say I agree with Pat Buchanan, but I agree with Pat Buchanan. The president is being very smart and strategic here. Sometimes it's more important to use a velvet glove than to pound your chest and in this instance the reformers are going to be more effective if no one senses they're being driven by the west."

There is room for serious argument about the wisdom of Obama's stance, especially the president's suggestion that the U.S. does not see much difference between Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his challenger, Mir-Hossein Mousavi. Clearly, a great many young Iranians do see a difference -- and are risking their lives to press the point -- and Obama would do well to reconsider his line.

Additionally, Obama's caution places him in the unsettling position of suggesting that the United States has only two options: do nothing or meddle aggressively (perhaps even militarily) in the affairs of a repressive country. Obama, in particular, has an international bully pulpit, and he should begin staking out an new high ground for America: where this country's leaders speak well and wisely on behalf of international democracy without meddling in the affairs of other countries in a manner that discredits the language of freedom.

But that's not where Obama is going at this point.

He's following the counsel of diplomats who say any U.S. messaging that suggests a side is being taken will make things worse for the dissenters in Iran. Like it or not, this is a line best articulated by Buchanan, when he argues:

Tehran appears to be facing its Tiananmen moment.

Hundreds of thousands are still demonstrating against Friday's election and the regime that validated it. They are now being joined by crowds in cities where Baluchi, Arabs, Kurds and Azeris outnumber Persians, thus imperiling the unity of this diverse nation.

It is hard to believe that this theocratic regime, backed by the Revolutionary Guard and clerics, will not do whatever is necessary to preserve its power and national unity.

This is another reason President Obama is right not to declare that the United States is on the side of the demonstrators in Tehran or the other cities - and against the regime.

Should this end in bloodshed, Obama would be blamed for having instigated it, and then abandoned the demonstrators, as Ike's U.S. Information Agency was blamed for having urged the Hungarians to rise and then left them to their fate.

When Vice President Nixon went to the bridge at Andau to welcome the Hungarian patriots fleeing the bloodbath, many cursed America for having misled them into believing we would be at their side.

If Obama cannot assist the demonstrators, why declare we are with them? That would call into question the nationalist credentials of the protesters by tying them to a power not universally loved in Iran.

Comments (18)

1. I think Buchanan has nailed it. If we aren't willing to go to the mat for the protestors what's the point of egging them on? So we can feel good about ourselves?

   Sometimes the best thing to do when the neighbors are having a domestic brawl is to stay the hell out of it.

   Posted by vertigoskippy at 06/20/2009 @ 12:04pm

2. What do you know?! Buchannan and Obama are both right. Buchannan is right: mere cheerleading, indeed anything the U.S. does, will harm more than help the protesters. Obama is right: there isn't a dime's worth of difference between Moussavi and Ahmedinejad. This is ultimately a fight over how long a chador ought to be. Westerners should stay out until Iranians learn Islam is the problem.

   Posted by DP in TC at 06/20/2009 @ 1:46pm

3. No, they're both wrong. Neither has any business criticizing Iranians, not with the continuing US record of stolen elections & repression of dissent, from Chicago '68 thru FL '00, OH '04 & multibillionaire Bloomberg's disgraceful antidemocratic reign in NYC, to name just a few sterling homemade examples.

   Posted by sloper at 06/20/2009 @ 2:48pm

4. After overthrowing Iran's 60 year old democracy in 1953 and installing and supporting the extreme right dictatorship of the Shaw for nearly three decades it's difficult for me to imagine there could be a debate about our further meddling in Iranian politics. The US hardly has a stellar history since WWII, in helping ANY nation achieve a democratic society; how could we possibly think we are able to behave positively now. Look at the mess we're perpetuating in Iraq and Afganistan.

   Posted by selchie at 06/20/2009 @ 6:55pm

5. Until I could get CNNI and the BBC World News, cable news was Neocon heaven. Every "expert" came out of the AEI or some other pro Israel think tank. Like MacCaskill, I found that Buchanan was one of the few who had a balanced view of the Middle East. By the way, I like MacCaskill for President someday. It was a surprise to find that I agreed with him on anything. But, it just goes to show that there are some issues where very different people can agree. The Neocons went after him in the Republican Primaries, which is one reason he never made it in the Republican Party. I wouldn't vote for him, but I don't dislike him!

   Posted by pjcasey at 06/20/2009 @ 11:07pm

6. Until I could get CNNI and the BBC World News, cable news was Neocon heaven. Every "expert" came out of the AEI or some other pro Israel think tank. Like MacCaskill, I found that Buchanan was one of the few who had a balanced view of the Middle East. By the way, I like MacCaskill for President someday. It was a surprise to find that I agreed with him on anything. But, it just goes to show that there are some issues where very different people can agree. The Neocons went after him in the Republican Primaries, which is one reason he never made it in the Republican Party. I wouldn't vote for him, but I don't dislike him!

   Posted by pjcasey at 06/20/2009 @ 11:07pm

7. Why does the philosophy of the rest of the world..... let others sort out their own problems..... seem so radical and bizarre here in America? Could it be, perhaps, a way of thinking that is inconvenient and unprofitable for our defense contractors, gargantuan military establishment, the CIA, FBI, Pentagon, the GOP and the banking establishment that feeds from the trough?

   Posted by DejaVu at 06/20/2009 @ 11:49pm

8. I think the most the US should do is support "international" efforts to monitor Iranian elections to make sure they are representative of the will of the Iranian people.

   We should support the democratic process, even if it doesn't produce leaders that we like. Otherwise, we are no different than any other two-bit dictator who wants to "take" power and doesn't care whether he has popular support.

   Posted by Metteyya at 06/21/2009 @ 08:12am

9. Posted by DejaVu at 06/20/2009 @ 11:49pm | ignore this person | warn this person You forgot the DNC in your list of trough feeders!

   Posted by liberty4all at 06/21/2009 @ 12:38pm

10. Watch Chris Matthews and Pat speak in code about the Neocon/AIPAC War for Israel agenda: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wjPsqoy-FR4 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ugesi_gaqLU http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vu6IhQOt0n4

    Read Buchanan's op-ed on the eve of the Iraq invasion in 2003: www.amconmag.com/03_24_03/cover.html

    Also check out Buchanan's article just days after 9/11/2001: http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/2001-09-27-ncguest1.htm

    Posted by NoMoreWarForIsrael at 06/21/2009 @ 6:20pm

11. Philip Weiss on the Neoconservative agenda:

    "In terms of their politics, they were almost all Democrats and then as soon as the Democratic party suggested that it wasn't going to have a strong military, Norman Podhoretz and Irving Kristol, the grandfathers of this movement, they went Republican. Why? Because they said, back in the 70's, a strong American military is needed to protect Israel."

    Download an mp3 of Phil saying the above here (9:45 minutes in) antiwar.com/radio/2008/07/12/philip-weiss/

    Listen to Salon.com's Glenn Greenwald discussing "Israel-centric" neocons: antiwar.com/blog/2007/06/27/glenn-greenwald-2/

    Watch the BBC documentary "The War Party" youtube.com/watch?v=8vWZTTrceV8

    Posted by NoMoreWarForIsrael at 06/21/2009 @ 6:28pm

12. I agree with Buchanan. And with the author, it's always worth praising the rare neocon who manages to bypass the bludgeon and offer up some nuance.

    Posted by winyahn at 06/21/2009 @ 6:42pm

13. Why does the philosophy of the rest of the world..... let others sort out their own problems..... seem so radical and bizarre here in America? Posted by DejaVu at 06/20/2009 @ 11:49pm

    Deja...good questions and I think your answers are part of it. However, the US became interventionist in WWI and the result of that was a delayed entrance into WWII. After WWII and the eruption of the Cold War, the defense contractors, as you so rightly point out, became so powerful and that, with the constant drumbeat from (mostly) Republicans but also some Democrats (Johnson primarily) for war, the defense establishment became such an entranced part of our economy, that it's proving almost impossible to dislodge them. Any time anyone in Congress even speaks about cutting the "defense" budget (in quotations because it stopped being about defense decades ago), they get shouted down or called unpatriotic.

    But what's the solution? The Military-Industrial Complex (MIC) warned about by Eisenhower (one of the many reasons I admire him) has become the employer of well over 5000000 people (if not more...I haven't done the research). How do we do the surgery to remove (or at least) lessen the impact of the MIC without doing even more damage to our economy? The nightmare Ike warned us about has become true, so what are we to do?

    Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 06/21/2009 @ 10:00pm

14. Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

    Posted by Contumax at 06/22/2009 @ 01:19am

15. The US became interventionist long before WW1 - try the Spanish-American War, and the Mexican-American War, and the aggregation of territorial conquests after both .... interventionism is an old US tradition.

    Posted by sloper at 06/22/2009 @ 02:41am

16. I'm with Buchanan. While I don't like most of what he is about, from time to time he hits the right note. The worst thing for the people trying to protest the heavy hand of the theocracy would be for Obama to start yelling about it.

    Posted by misskaren at 06/22/2009 @ 07:24am

17. As of Sunday, the Right and their "Obama isn't saying enough" attack line just lost another ally besides Pat Buchanan....

    George Will.

    Posted by Mask at 06/22/2009 @ 08:10am

18. No matter if the u.s. interferes or not.We..the children of Iran have spoken to the world: We DO NOT want this tyrannic system. Not Ahmadinejads, not Mussavis All these comments made by politicians are part of a masterplan not only made for Iran. If Ahmadinejad and his allies should succeed to remain in power, the whole world is under threat, otherwise these PUPPETS wouldn't repeat themselves like a prayer wheel about atomic enrichment and stuff. Maybe that is why another Puppet like Obama couldnt be as harsh as he should be. The USA and the Europeans obviously NEED their enemies and nowadays we Iranians serve as enemies Thank YOU for this gift

    Posted by Gaiaschild at 06/23/2009 @ 08:30am