Posted 7:55 AM by steve

According to David Ignatius, "The stormy Iranian elections are one more sign of how the world has been shaken up in the age of Barack Obama"

Excuse me? What exactly does Obama have to do with any of what is going on in Iran? Or, put another way, in what way are the events in Iran a reaction to Obama?

Is Obama responsible for the level (however widespread it might be) of Iranian public dissatisfaction with Ahmadinejad (and the Mad Mullahs)? Put another way, if Obama wasn't around, would the Iranians be happy with the way things are going? I doubt it. It wasn't as if they were happy until Obama came around and only then figured out they didn't like the way things were going, dissatisfaction has been growing for years.

Is Obama responsible for their voting for the challenger? Put another way, if Obama wasn't in office, would they have fallen into line and voted for Ahmadinejad? Again, I doubt it. Whether they thought Ahmadinejad would ever step aside, they did view these elections as their opportunity to express their dissatisfaction.

Is Obama responsible for those who voted against Ahmadinejad pouring into the street protesting what they see as a stolen election? Put another way, if Obama wasn't the President, would they have meekly accepted the (rigged) outcome? Ignatius believes so, saying "Obama's opening to Iran seems to have encouraged the supporters of Mir Hossein Mousavi, the former prime minister who finished second in the official results"... but, again, I doubt it. They may have been encouraged by what they perceive as Obama's outreach, but they most certainly are not naive enough to think that Obama is going to do anything to help them overturn the election results - or that the Mad Mullahs are in either fear or thrall of Obama and will thus accede to popular will. They're protesting because they're not happy with the way things are going... and they would have done so no matter who was sitting in the White House.

Is Obama responsible for Ahmadinejad rigging the election results? Put another way, if Obama wasn't President, would Ahmadinejad have just let things play out and graciously left office? I doubt it, thugs don't give up power without a fight. There is no doubt that Ahmadinejad wasn't going to abide by election results that showed him losing... and rather than admit he lost and nullify or ignore the results, he simply fudged things to show that he won.

And is Obama responsible for Ahmadinejad's crackdown on the protesters? Put another way, if Obama wasn't President, would Ahmadinejad have let the protests go on? I doubt it, the first thing dictators do is make sure protests aren't allowed to spiral out of control. Whether in Egypt or Russia, people know protesting against dictatorships puts them at risk of attack by the ruling regime.

So just how has Obama affected the events in Iran? The answer: he hasn't, everything that is going on would have taken place regardless of who was occupying the White House. It's just silly for Ignatius to suggest otherwise.