If Iranians overthrow the
horrid Ahmadinejad, the winner last week of an
obviously fishy election, that will be a vindication, the Obama administration will certainly maintain, of the president’s rhetorical restraint. If, on the other hand, the nascent rebellion is crushed by force or otherwise, then it would certainly seem that the president’s failure to join the side of righteousness is going to haunt him.
It could be similar to the 1950s chorus of blame heaped on the Democrats for losing China when it fell to Mao. This time it will be heaped on President Obama for failing to help save Iran when the opportunity presented itself.
Of course, he’s damned, the administration is already suggesting, whatever he does. If
he thumps his chest then Ahmadinejad and his lock-step Mullahs will call the uprising an American operation, which offers all the more reason to crush it. And if it is crushed, and Ahmadinejad remains the man we’ve got to do business with—remember, this president
will talk to anyone—it will be all the more difficult if we’ve doubled-down on our antipathy for him.
The president’s posture now is to openly overthink the situation. He’s a walking existential conundrum, and letting everybody know it. It’s public coolness, backed up by an obvious gnashing of teeth. In a way, it’s a kind of open invitation to everybody to spin their own scenarios. Indeed, his political theory seems to be to share the dilemma. A kind of actual-case Sim City: Would you be willing to put the rebellion at risk for the sake of your own political pride and capital? What if doing nothing does more but makes you look weaker? (The dilemma tends, of course, to be phrased so as to make the president seem courageous and right-thinking in any eventuality.)
(AP Photo)
Meanwhile, John McCain, who has been quiet and gracious for months, is suddenly as clear and emphatic as he can be: The president “should speak out that this is a corrupt, flawed sham of an election.”
And he should, obviously. Except if he shouldn’t.
Now, one of the differences between
this administration and most others is that he isn’t making a cold and calculated policy choice. His point—indeed his point nearly about everything—is that nothing ought to be binary. Firm policy is often at the expense of greater meaning. This in itself is a fine line to walk, because it gets near the one thing a politician never wants to appear to be: indecisive.
But whereas a less nuanced man might, like John McCain, embrace righteous indignation, and an honorable but inept politician might get squeezed by the uncertainties, the Barack model is to become heroic by openly expressing all the drama and concentration and imagination it takes to thread a needle.
It’s sort of a daring show.
More of Newser founder Michael Wolff's articles and commentary can be found at VanityFair.com, where he writes a regular column. He can be emailed at michael@newser.com.
