Some in Obama’s camp seem to think that the protests in Iran were precipitated, or at the very least encouraged, by Obama’s words in his Cairo speech.
Not the actual living breathing example of the dawn of freedom and democracy in Iraq, which is right next door to Iran. No— a single speech, and one that actually didn’t much feature a call to rise up against the tyrants themselves. Ace helpfully points out that all Obama said in it about Iran was the following:
This issue has been a source of tension between the United States and the Islamic Republic of Iran. For many years, Iran has defined itself in part by its opposition to my country, and there is in fact a tumultuous history between us. In the middle of the Cold War, the United States played a role in the overthrow of a democratically elected Iranian government. Since the Islamic Revolution, Iran has played a role in acts of hostage-taking and violence against U.S. troops and civilians. This history is well known. Rather than remain trapped in the past, I’ve made it clear to Iran’s leaders and people that my country is prepared to move forward. The question now is not what Iran is against, but rather what future it wants to build.
I recognize it will be hard to overcome decades of mistrust, but we will proceed with courage, rectitude, and resolve. There will be many issues to discuss between our two countries, and we are willing to move forward without preconditions on the basis of mutual respect. But it is clear to all concerned that when it comes to nuclear weapons, we have reached a decisive point. This is not simply about America’s interests. It’s about preventing a nuclear arms race in the Middle East that could lead this region and the world down a hugely dangerous path.
I understand those who protest that some countries have weapons that others do not. No single nation should pick and choose which nation holds nuclear weapons. And that’s why I strongly reaffirmed America’s commitment to seek a world in which no nations hold nuclear weapons. (Applause.) And any nation — including Iran — should have the right to access peaceful nuclear power if it complies with its responsibilities under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. That commitment is at the core of the treaty, and it must be kept for all who fully abide by it. And I’m hopeful that all countries in the region can share in this goal.
Now I don’t know about you, but I’m sure that such inspiring words would motivate me to risk death to demonstrate against the mullahs and Ahmadinejad, to whom Obama shows such respect, and whose right to nuclear power (and even to complain about not having nuclear weapons) Obama so champions.
Does Obama himself actually believe his speech caused the people of Iran to protest the elections and to demonstrate for their freedom? I don’t know. But if he does, it would fit in with something I’ve noticed before, both in Obama and on the Left in general: their elevation of the power of words over acts. After all, it’s worked that way for Obama his whole life so far. (see this for a discussion of why wordsmiths tend to go ga-ga over Obama).
When the Right, in trying to figure Obama out, says “watch what he does, not what he says,” they’re using a principle that seems self-evident. But it’s not that way for liberals and the Left, who are often far more interested in declarations of intent, in eloquence rather than achievement. If a person has the right goals in mind, if a person sounds like a good person, that’s the most important thing. And if liberals and the soft Left (the hard Left is quite different) are moved so mightily by words and speeches, they tend to conclude that everyone in the world shares that tendency.
Aha, you might ask, but what about Reagan? When conservatives credit Reagan’s bold words in a speech for the fall of the Soviets, they’re making the same mistake, aren’t they? But when Reagan said “tear down this wall” the words were not spoken in isolation. There was conviction behind them, but far more importantly, they were not “mere words.” They were embedded in a lengthy policy of many years’ duration towards the USSR (he made the speech in June of 1987), plus knowledge of Russia’s own internal weaknesses and the ascension of Gorbachev the reformer.
It is highly instructive to take a closer look at at this article from Time, which describes Reagan’s fight to retain those now-famous words in his speech [emphasis mine]:
[O]n the morning of June 12, 1987, Reagan arrived in Berlin, on the occasion of the city’s 750th birthday. He was scheduled to speak on the Western side of the Brandenburg Gate, for years the city’s symbolic dividing line. His speechwriters had drafted an address intended as much for Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev, with whom Reagan was forging a close relationship, as for the 20,000 people who gathered to hear him speak. In the speech, Reagan would call on Gorbachev to tear down the Berlin Wall, but that language was opposed strongly by Reagan’s National Security Council and the State Department, who feared it would be used by hard-liners in the Kremlin to discredit Gorbachev. When the President’s entourage arrived in Berlin, Reagan’s team was still arguing over the final wording. State and NSC submitted yet another draft of the speech. But in the limousine ride to the Wall, Reagan told his deputy chief of staff, Kenneth Duberstein, that he intended to issue the fateful challenge to Gorbachev. “It’s the right thing to do,” he said.
This is of great interest, too:
Earlier in the day Reagan had looked across the wall into East Berlin from a balcony of the Reichstag. He later said that his forceful tone had been influenced by his learning that East German police had forced people away from the wall to prevent them from hearing his speech over the loudspeakers…
At the time, the Soviet news agency TASS called Reagan’s visit to the Wall “openly provocative, war-mongering.” But listen closely to a recording of it today: the speech sounds as much like an invitation as it does a challenge. “There is one sign the Soviets can make that would be unmistakable, that would advance dramatically the cause of freedom and peace,” Reagan says. As he goes on, you hear scattered claps and hollers. “General Secretary Gorbachev, if you seek peace, if you seek prosperity for the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, if you seek liberalization: Come here to this gate!” Reagan says. The crowd starts to erupt. “Mr. Gorbachev, open this gate!” At this point, 20,000 Berliners are cheering Reagan on.
Now, there are words that move people, spoken with passion and conviction. The addressee was a specific person, one who was likely to be responsive: Gorbachev (imagine the effect of the same words on Stalin. If there had been such a wall in his time, he probably would have laughed and built it higher.) The words were uttered by Reagan in the place in question, Berlin, in front of the gate itself. The crowd understood exactly and precisely what Reagan meant; there was no ambiguity and nothing to intuit.
That speech truly was inspirational. But it would have had no effect at all if the pre-conditions for the Soviet capitulation had not been in place already, partly as a result of Reagan’s efforts over the length of his presidency, and partly because of long-term forces brewing in Russia itself.
[NOTE: Interestingly enough, the Time article (written in 2007, for the 20th anniversary of Reagan’s speech) features an interview with then 86-year-old George Schultz, who had been Reagan’s Secretary of State. He mentions Iran briefly, and comes down in favor of finding ways to “communicate” with the mullahs. But he also makes it clear that any such efforts would only be part of a long-term and comprehensive attempt to change the Islamic world.]
