Comments on: An Alternative View

By: boltonian

boltonian — Sat, 20 Jun 2009 07:56:14 +0000

The present mass protests and marches in Iran are instructive. On the one hand it just seems that half the population favours one anti-western candidate and the other half Ahmedinajad. Whoever is President matters little to us as neither would actually hold much power and they have both been endorsed by the anti-Western clerical elite.

On the other hand, however, we might just be seeing the beginnings of a nation saying, ‘Enough of this tyranny and corruption.’ I would say that it is a sign of unease (perhaps not yet panic) that the ruling cabal is trying to blame the UK for the opposition (O that we still had that sort of influence in the world).

I agree with you, ChooChoo, that style and delivery is often more important in these speeches to the world at large than the words but I also agree with Gordy that uncritical hero-worship and adulation of all things Obama is dangerous.

Part of the problem is trying to understand what the people in many (most?) Islamic states want and feel. Most are not democracies as we understand the term and freedom of speech and association is not encouraged. Everything is heavily filtered and distorted through the wishes and aims of the ruling elites.

We can be pretty sure what the bulk of the population of Zimbabwe would like, despite the tyranny of Mugabe, but the people of Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iran?

By: gordy

gordy — Sat, 20 Jun 2009 06:02:17 +0000

It seems to me that we do need an alternative view of President Obama and even though I feel hopelessly out of depth commenting on Middle Eastern affairs I take issue with the author for claiming that:
“No single nation should pick and choose which nations should hold nuclear weapons.”
equates to an acceptance of Iran’s nuclear ambitions. It does not and it would seem disingenuous to pretend otherwise.
As with any other politician, Obama will ultimately be judged not by his rhetoric but by his actions.

By: ChooChoo

ChooChoo — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 10:45:53 +0000

I’m not even close to a learned layman, let alone expert, on ME politics!

There is a damned-every-which-wayness with these speeches. And yet…there was quite a gap between some of the adulation in response and the bare bones of what he actually said.

I’m guessing the fact of delivery – as much as the speech itself – is the most significant aspect. After his predecessor, he needs to show a shift from the kind of talk which married democracy and regime change, which played on (and constructed) connotations of islam among the US population especially post 9-11. The fact of speaking is important not just for the “Muslim world” but also for his own population. Whether this necessitates the narratives he played with is another question. E.g. crusades – not the most important issue, you don’t have to be enamoured with crusading ideals to have serious qualms about making the same dubious associations between the crusades and the much later projects of western colonialism upon which both arab nationalists and islamists have rather opportunistically drawn in the past few decades.