WaPo: Obama's Cairo Speech Encouraged Iranian Revolt
The recent protests in Iran, as well as Hezbollah's political defeat in Lebanon days earlier, are the result of Barack Obama's speech in Cairo on June 4.
Such nonsense was actually reported by the Washington Post Tuesday.
At this time, it appears the real Obama Derangement Syndrome is creating a nexis between anything good that happens anywhere on the planet to some presidential deed (h/t Hot Air):
Obama's approach to Iran, including his assertion that the unrest there represents a debate among Iranians unrelated to the United States, is an acknowledgment that a U.S. president's words have a limited ability to alter foreign events in real time and could do more harm than good. But privately Obama advisers are crediting his Cairo speech for inspiring the protesters, especially the young ones, who are now posing the most direct challenge to the republic's Islamic authority in its 30-year history.
One senior administration official with experience in the Middle East said, "There clearly is in the region a sense of new possibilities," adding that "I was struck in the aftermath of the president's speech that there was a connection. It was very sweeping in terms of its reach." [...]His Cairo speech sought to clear the air -- in Iran's case, by acknowledging the U.S. role in the 1953 coup that toppled the democratically elected prime minister, Mohammad Mossadegh. Translated into Farsi, the speech was delivered to Iranians in real time through a State Department-sponsored text-messaging service.
Obama's advisers say the outreach may have contributed to the defeat in Lebanese elections a few days later of a coalition led by Hezbollah, an Iranian-backed party, that had been predicted to win. In recent days, administration officials have pointed to the Iranian demonstrations as further evidence of Obama's possible influence in the region.
Asked Friday whether the administration believes Obama's outreach to Iran and the Muslim world is affecting events on the ground, press secretary Robert Gibbs said, "You're witnessing something that many people might not have presumed or imagined . . . just a few -- even a few weeks or a few days ago."
To be sure, it is not at all surprising to witness this kind of arrogance from the current White House. It just would have been nice to see the Post cite some Middle East experts with a different view than that being offered by the Administration.
For example, isn't it equally likely if not more so that Iranians and Lebanese see a free and democratic Iraq as something to emulate?
Unfortunately, the Post didn't offer this alternative explanation.
I wonder why.