THE BIG QUESTION, June 16: Obama and Iran

The Big Question is a feature where influential lawmakers, pundits and interest group leaders give their answers to a question that’s driving discussion in news circles around the country.

Some responses are gathered via e-mail, while others are gathered in person via tape recorder.

Today’s Big Question is:

Has the Obama administration done enough to support protesters in Iran? If not, what else can or should be done?

Read the last Big Question here.

See responses below from Sen. Kit Bond (R-Mo.), Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), Sen. Ted Kaufman (D-Del.), Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.), Sen. Roland Burris (D-Ill.), Justin Logan, William Redpath and Herb London.

Sen. Kit Bond (R-Mo.), said:

Unfortunately, the Administration has missed out on a trifecta of key opportunities to pressure the Iranian regime; low oil prices, growing concern among Middle East neighbors about Iran’s attempted hegemony in the region, and now, increasing discontent among the pro-Western percentage of the populace.

But it’s not too late to act and a good first step would be full support of Lieberman’s Iran Sanctions Enhancement Act of 2009. I’m cosponsoring this critical bill because it would help weaken this oppressive regime’s stranglehold over the Iranian people. READ THE FULL RESPONSE HERE.

Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) said:

“Oh, I think they’ve got to play it as cool as they can, and this is something that has to sit before they can really do [thinks]. I’m sure they are doing a number of things behind the scenes.  They must be. But they’ve got to let the Iranian people make up their own minds.

Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) said:

“I think they are being thoughtful and are on the right track.”

Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) said:

“I think they are being very smart about Iran, which is, they are speaking more softly, but they are carrying a bigger stick.

Sen. Ted Kaufman (D-Del.) said:

“I think they are doing it just right. The administration does not want to become an issue in this. This is an internal thing. Ahmadinajhad would love for us to get involved in this thing. I think they are handling this issue perfectly.”

Sen. Roland Burris (D-Ill.) said:

I think President Obama’s comments were very appropriate. He can not get in the middle of a divisive situation that could become an international crisis. We do not want to be meddling into the internal affairs of Iran, even thought we want them to change. That change has to come from within.

Justin Logan, Associate Director of Foreign Policy Studies at The Cato Institute, said:

President Obama should keep quiet on the subject of Iran’s elections. At least two pernicious tendencies are on display in the Beltway discussion on the topic. First is the common Washington impulse to “do something!” without laying out clear objectives and tactics. What, after all, is President Obama or his administration supposed to do to “support protesters” in Iran in the first place? What would be the ultimate goal of such support? Most importantly, what is the mechanism by which the support is supposed to produce the desired outcome? That we are debating how America should intervene in Iran’s domestic politics indicates the sheer grandiosity of American foreign policy thought.

The second, related tendency is that of narcissism: to make foreign countries’ domestic politics all about us. In this game, American observers anoint from afar one side the “good,” “pro-Western” team and the other the “bad,” “radical” one and urge Washington to press its thumb on the good side of the scale. But doing so would risk winding up Iranian nationalism, a very real force that binds Iranians together more tightly than their differences pull them apart. READ THE FULL RESPONSE HERE.

William Redpath, Chairman of the Libertarian National Committee, said:

Quiet moral support of Iran’s protesters is the right policy for both prudential reasons and long-run efficacy in bringing Iran’s government to modernity. Nothing more should be done.

Herb London, President of the Hudson Institute, said:

As protestors fan across Iran challenging the mullahs shouting “death to the dictators,” President Obama has been conspicuously silent. So silent is he on working out a deal with Ahmadinejad and company that he has ignored the dissidents who stand on our side of historical forces.

If ever there was a moment for the president to speak out, to assure these youthful dissidents that we are with them, it is now.

Arguably this could be Iran’s velvet revolution; its moment of truth. How sad that an American government cannot summon the will to express solidarity with the army of moderation and, perhaps, even the tide of democracy.

Should the president remain silent, he will through this action throw in his lot with historical appeasers and forever be known as the twenty-first Neville Chamberlain.