Barack Obama's Statement On the Events in Iran

Barack Obama has issued a statement on the protests taking place in Iran. His statement can be found here.

It is fine to have a private opinion about interfering in other nations’ affairs, for the better or worse welfare of that nation and its people. In the United States freedom of speech allows citizens to do that. However, Barack Obama’s statement on Iran is troubling in its implications. Although I and my readers may personally agree in the meaning and sentiments Obama expresses, and even though his feelings about Iran may be for the betterment of the people as a whole, they are imperialist in nature. While he attempted to remain neutral in the events taking place (as he should have) and although this statement is mild compared to what could have been said, it is nonetheless imperialistic. It would have been much better had Obama not made any comments toward the Iranian situation, and thus remained neutral.

It is not in our interests to promote or endorse candidates in elections across the world in the hope their people can turn out with the most individual freedom or be the most “America friendly” regime. That, at its core, is enforcing tyranny on others. The same type of tyranny we fought a revolution to end. It is the same type of tyranny Madison warned us against when he said that the United States should not look for monsters to destroy. The imposition of our values on other nations, however wonderful these values may be, is not the reason for the establishment of our government. Our government does not have the mandate from its people to spread the values of our revolution, or to aid others in shaking off the chains of tyranny. Our government was created to protect the life, liberty, and property, of its citizens.

However, let us hold these conditions and see if Americans would feel comfortable if China interfered with Iran’s elections. Perhaps China’s communistic values of equality and state planning are better served by Ahmadinejad’s presidency. According to the Chinese, they would be appalled if the election ended with a man who was for the impoverishing of the working class and the expansion of capitalist evils.

The point is that the imposition of values by the state, however good natured or good willed, is not the will of the people. Governments are derived from the consent of the governed, and the Ayatollah still has that consent, at least at the moment of this typing. Outside forces influencing the internal affairs of a sovereign nation, as we have used on multiple occasions in the post-World War II world, defy the most basic principles of the social contract. This is why, despite Obama’s efforts, he hurts the cause which he hopes will come to pass. Obama should instead promote trade and travel between our nations, and let the ideas of individual liberty and private property change the regime from within, as may have already occurred due to Iran’s westernised students. If freedom is desired, it cannot come through tyranny.