Phatscotty wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:He may have been silent for many reasons other than any reason involving Israel.
(1) Up to a certain time (and maybe to this day?), Obama may have not known what was actually happening Iran, i.e. which groups were doing what exactly.
(2) Up to a certain time (and maybe to this day?), the intelligence agencies didn't know either, didn't want to tell anyone, or did know, told Obama, and he didn't want to explicitly put his stamp of approval on it, for fear of... who knows, because I don't know what he knew at the time.
(3) it was politically profitable explicitly support on the uprisings
(4) it could have been disastrous to explicitly support the uprisings, as this may escalate the situation with Iran into an undesirable level of contentiousness. (With Egypt, the US could, I imagine, exert more control, but with Iran, they didn't want to find out the hard way).
SO, there's many reasons which don't directly and sometimes don't at all involve Israel.
That's all I'm getting at.
Of course there are many reasons.....I even named a few of the other reasons and things to consider. My statement was just an observation about the uprisen countries relations to Israel. Are you thinking it's just a coincidence? Do you think Obama really supports Israel?
Okay, your statement, "Obama supported the uprisings in any country that was at peace with Israel, and remained silent on the uprisings in any country that is hostile towards Israel," was an observation; however, you suspect:
Iran is hostile towards Israel, and Obama did not wish to see that change. It's further suspected because the countries Obama did speak up about and encourage and even help overthrow of governments.
Now, you've used your observation to lead yourself to two possible conclusions. So, you're not only observing, but you are also making an argument.
PS Conclusions:
(1) 'because Obama doesn't wish for relations between Israel and Iran to cool down'
(2) 'because other countries didn't encourage the US to encourage or help overthrow other countries'
I don't believe (1) is correct because Obama, and the US, would love for Iran to become either a more pro-US democracy or authoritarian government. Why? Because this would make things so much easier for the US. (but it could be the case that leaving Iran-Israel relations at a hot level could benefit the US by justifying its role, to expand its budget in certain areas, to justify foreign aid, to justify its pretense of security, etc., but this is beyond our ability to verify until maybe later). So, I quasi-agree with you but for different reasons on #1.
I don't believe (2) is correct because the US tends to do whatever it wants, and the opinions of other countries, which can be contradictory, are often used as a excuse for US intervention. Ultimately, it depends on the Executive, whose range of options is limited by the mindset/framework of the US foreign policy makers and their organizations.
For example, Bush 1 was a realist. Bush 2 was a... liberal internationalist (i.e. democracy exporter). Obama acts like a "humanitarian interventionist"/idealist--but he's really a variant of the liberal internationalist. The executive agenda frames the windows of the US policymakers. Sometimes, the executive opts toward a more multilateral approach (working with more countries and/or using the UN), or he opts for a more unilateral approach. Obama is more multilateral than Bush (e.g. Libya 2011, Iranian sanctions).
Anyway,What explains Obama's lackluster response to the Iranian Green Revolution? My previous list likely covers the possible reasons, and in my opinion, your reasons are incorrect.
(A)
Are you thinking it's just a coincidence? No. The answer lies in one or several of my stated reasons, but we don't have access to that kind of information--until maybe 30 years later.
(B)
Do you think Obama really supports Israel?Of course. Actions speak louder than words. The US gives Israel >$1 billion per year. Maybe Obama can't affect that, but he can certainly make life more difficult for Israel by not seeking to impose further sanctions on Iran, by making unfavorable demands of Israel on the Palestinian question, by leveraging the foreign "aid" against Israel to compel them to behave in a certain way, etc. To my knowledge, he hasn't, but US foreign policy is not transparent to us. Nevertheless, Obama views US security interests as more limited and relatively less aggressive/in tune with Israelis policies. That's about it.
