The Chain that Binds

The sole responsibility of a political leader is to act in the best interest of the country in which they represent. All personal interests, vendettas and ambitions must be relinquished in order to ensure that all actions seek the amelioration of the society in which they rule.

Initially this would seem an easy charge; listen to your constituents and act accordingly. Of course this assumes that your constituents know what is best for them. While all will think they know, in reality, it is difficult for the average citizen to aggregate all information available to determine what is best for them. For instance, employees of a specific industry will demand protection from foreign competition, often in the form of tariffs. The result of restricting free trade frequently will restrain an economy as a whole, but protect said group of workers. An elected official beholden to this electorate will often push for legislation to protect this domestic industry, all the while knowing the harm it may cause to the economy on a larger scale.

Assuming that the public is often incapable of understanding every political issue, or understanding how a certain political action may affect the country as a whole, it can be surmised that the constituent’s vote is primarily based on emotion. It then becomes perfectly rational for a voter to choose a candidate whose moral character aligns more closely with their own, even though their policies may not lead to the best overall outcome for the voter or the country.

What we are left with is a complex system of judging our elected officials–a system that often places moral standards above political standards–or even confuses the two with one another. When acting in good moral faith comes into direct conflict with acting in the best interest of the country, a leader can become compromised. In many circumstances, the people will demand a course of action the leader knows to be detrimental to their society, however, failure to respond in accordance with societal mores and expectations may cause the politician to fall out of graces with the public.

Hence the current predicament President Obama finds himself in regarding the protests in Iran. President Obama won the presidency on a campaign based on change and the power of the people to enact that change. Almost overnight a wave of political resurgence swept across the nation, wiping out the apathy that had existed for years. Voters felt rejuvenated, re-energized and invigorated by this man who shouted from his podium, “Yes We Can!” A man who himself broke through the race barrier by proclaiming that belief in oneself and in the people was enough to overcome any injustice.

Surely then this man, this defender of freedom, would throw his undivided support behind any group of repressed individuals who seek justice, anywhere in the world. No doubt the courage of the people in the streets of Tehran would send a jolt of satisfaction through his body; no doubt the passion of the protestors must bring a tear to his eye. Their resolve must be a testament to all he stands for; after all it is their will that he summoned during his election. Every idealist, every romantic, every advocate of freedom listened with anticipation to see how this revered leader would respond; and his answer echoed with disappointing silence.

No support, no words of praise or encouragement, no apothegm of hope: nothing. Obama toed the line as much as possible, saying that the U.S. wished to stay out of the conflict and respect the sovereignty of Iran. He later stated that he was troubled by the violence that may be occurring and government attempts to silence the voice of opposition; barely a slap on the wrist to Iran’s leaders.

Is Obama’s response a sign of weakness like some Republicans claims? Surely the last administration would have “gone with their gut” and jumped at the chance to overthrow a leader in the “Axis of Evil”. And how could the great defender of freedom not realize that the events in Iran are exactly what he had preached to the American public during his campaign? Would Jesus, after rising from the dead and revealing himself as the Messiah, fail to support those who converted to Christianity? Would he suddenly say, “that was fun for awhile, but now I think I might try Buddhism?”

Now clearly Obama is not divine, nor should he be held to God like standards, that was not my point. But inspiration comes in many forms and, just as Christ inspires his believers, Obama has inspired millions throughout the world. Inspiration is inspiration, no matter what form it takes.

The reality of the situation is that Obama, in weighing all sides of the situation, and acting in the best interest of his country and the Iranians, had no rational choice but to act as he did. The U.S. and Iran have a long, turbulent history. It was, after all, the U.S. that helped to overthrow the Iranian government in 1953 and consolidated the power of the shah who would rule repressively for 26 years. This led to the revolution of 1979, a backlash against the pro-west monarchy and the establishment of a new theocracy.

The 1979 revolution was largely seen as an anti-west revolt and an attempt to establish an Islamic Republic free of western influence. The leaders of Iran, especially Ayatollah Khamenei, have been critical of the west and often accused them of meddling in internal affairs with anti-Islamic intent. Any statement in direct support of the Moussavi followers would appear as an American endorsement for Moussavi over Ahmadinejad and anti-Islamic. This would serve only to validate claims by Khamenei of the western world’s plan to destroy Islam.

If Khamenei were able to tie the U.S. and Iranian protesters together, then he could easily build a case among Islamic fundamentalists for the use of extreme violence against their own people. Further government crackdowns at rallies and violence in the streets would occur. Terrorism would ramp up against Iranian civilians as well as against the U.S. Thus for the U.S. to come out and openly support the overthrow of the Iranian government would be disastrous for the protestors in Iran and only lead to intensified acts of violence against them.

Knowing this, Obama really is handcuffed in how he can handle the Iranian situation. While as an individual who is not beholden to his people, Obama no doubt supports the protesters and is pleased by such a pro-freedom movement. As an elected leader with a responsibility for the well being of an entire country, and a desire to keep violence at a minimum in Iran, he has little choice in the matter. Obama the man has come into direct conflict with Obama the leader.

This is the dilemma of all rational leaders; the conflict between ones moral conviction and political obligation. Yesterday Obama became harsher in his criticism of Iran by condemning the increased violence against Moussavi supporters. The question is how far can the Iranian government push the boundary until some sort of foreign intervention is warranted? For real revolution to occur, it must come from within. Foreign intervention only serves to delegitimize the people revolting in the first place.

It must be tough for President Obama to go to bed every night knowing that he can’t openly support a movement he must feel so proud to be witnessing. It must be hard to know that with a simple command he could protect the people being beaten and killed for simply exercising their right to free speech. But rest easy Mr. President; you may be doing more than you think. For you created a spirit and energy in this country where people believe in and want change, and it is that sentiment that has led to public support for the people in Iran.

And as for the judging public, those who are quick to call out the President for not doing more to protect the “sea of green”; take a step back and ask yourself what you want out of your leader. Someone who does what is in the best interest of his country and all involved, no matter how difficult it may be personally; or a gut player, who puts emotion and personal values ahead of rationality and facts? If you are struggling for an example of the latter, the last eight years should serve as an adequate reminder.