Ah… the media was a’flurry with reports that the Eunuch in Chief was actually about to take a definitive stand INRE the freedom fighters in the streets of Iran. Little did they know that the only ones he *was* getting tough on were his critics… like me… calling him a wuss.
I watched and listened to the press conference. The deadpan POTUS – sans his favorite sidekick, TOTUS – delivered the following prepared statement from his cue cards.
I’d like to say a few words about the situation in Iran. The United States and the international community have been appalled and outraged by the threats, beatings, and imprisonments of the last few days. I strongly condemn these unjust actions, and I join with the American people in mourning each and every innocent life that is lost.
I have made it clear that the United States respects the sovereignty of the Islamic Republic of Iran, and is not at all interfering in Iran’s affairs. But we must also bear witness to the courage and dignity of the Iranian people, and to a remarkable opening within Iranian society. And we deplore violence against innocent civilians anywhere that it takes place.
The Iranian people are trying to have a debate about their future.
Some in the Iranian government are trying to avoid that debate by accusing the United States and others outside of Iran of instigating protests over the elections. These accusations are patently false and absurd. They are an obvious attempt to distract people from what is truly taking place within Iran’s borders. This tired strategy of using old tensions to scapegoat other countries won’t work anymore in Iran. This is not about the United States and the West; this is about the people of Iran, and the future that they — and only they — will choose.The Iranian people can speak for themselves. That is precisely what has happened these last few days. In 2009, no iron fist is strong enough to shut off the world from bearing witness to the peaceful pursuit of justice. Despite the Iranian government’s efforts to expel journalists and isolate itself, powerful images and poignant words have made their way to us through cell phones and computers, and so we have watched what the Iranian people are doing.
This is what we have witnessed. We have seen the timeless dignity of tens of thousands Iranians marching in silence. We have seen people of all ages risk everything to insist that their votes are counted and their voices heard. Above all, we have seen courageous women stand up to brutality and threats, and we have experienced the searing image of a woman bleeding to death on the streets. While this loss is raw and painful, we also know this: those who stand up for justice are always on the right side of history.
As I said in Cairo, suppressing ideas never succeeds in making them go away. The Iranian people have a universal right to assembly and free speech. If the Iranian government seeks the respect of the international community, it must respect those rights, and heed the will of its own people. It must govern through consent, not coercion. That is what Iran’s own people are calling for, and the Iranian people will ultimately judge the actions of their own government.
Oh my… where to start? Naturally there is the token “me and my Cairo speech” plug. But where is this man’s perspective?
What we have been witnessing is not a “debate”, and to label it such is embarrassingly naive… if not borderline criminal. And to “condemn” and call it “unjust”, while stressing that the Iranian people must “respect” their government is equally absurd. Eloquent mutterings of oxymorons may look good on paper, but they are the hallmark of Obama’s leadership weakness.
The youth of Iran have not respected their government for quite some time. And despite Obama’s pie-in-the-sky assurance that the Iranian regime “still has time” to follow that path to brotherly love with the citizens and international acceptance, these events cannot be erased by johnny-come-lately feigned appeasement by the Ayatollah’s extension for voting complaints.
Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has accepted a request by Iran’s top legislative body to extend the deadline by five days for receiving and looking into election complaints, state television said on Tuesday.
The Guardian Council, which investigates complaints submitted by defeated candidates about the disputed June 12 election, earlier made the request in a letter to Khamenei. The initial deadline was set for June 24.
“The Supreme Leader accepted the request by the secretary of the Guardian Council to extend by five days (the deadline) for following up complaints by candidates,” state television said.
The Guardian Council, which must approve the results of the election, has said it is ready to recount a random 10 percent of the votes but has ruled out cancelling the election, as demanded by two moderate candidates.
Under no circumstances would this “extension” – a showcase at best to emulate fairness” – have occurred had it not been for the strong statements of the international community… not withstanding the US eunuch in chief’s wishy washy commentary. Obama deserves no credit whatsoever for this stage play the Ayatollah now puts on.
Instead in response to Major Garrett’s question, “what took so long?”, Obama recants and goes right back to the US as a “foil” argument that he used in a Friday CBS interview…
“The last thing that I want to do is to have the United States be a foil for those forces inside Iran who would love nothing better than to make this an argument about the United States,” Obama said in an interview broadcast Monday on CBS’ “The Early Show.”
“We shouldn’t be playing into that,” he said in the interview, which was recorded Friday.
He told Pakistan’s Dawn newspaper, in an interview published Sunday, that the United States has no way of knowing whether the disputed Iranian election 10 days ago was fair or not. Iranians should be able to peacefully protest the results in any case, Obama said.
Today’s version remains the same ol’, same ol’. Phrased as:
As soon as violence broke out — in fact, in anticipation of potential violence — we were very clear in saying that violence was unacceptable, that that was not how governments operate with respect to their people.
So we’ve been entirely consistent, Major, in terms of how we’ve approached this. My role has been to say the United States is not going to be a foil for the Iranian government to try to blame what’s happening on the streets of Tehran on the CIA or on the White House, that this is an issue that is led by and given voice to the frustrations of the Iranian people.
And so we’ve been very consistent the first day, and we’re going to continue to be consistent in saying this is not an issue about the United States, this is about an issue of the Iranian people.
Frankly that “foil” argument is adeptly “foiled” since… even with Obama’s wishy washy comments… the violence, mayhem, arrests in the dead of night, shut down of communications to the outside world and abuse of citizens happens, and continues. Despite Obama’s castrated leadership, [correction] Ahmadinejad the Ayatollah himself still blames US interference, while Ahmadinejad – likely of the same mentality – remains unusually low key at the recommendation of his peers.
As a matter of fact, the media is filled with instances where Iran “blames” the US for virtually everything.
Iran blames U.S. for bitter post-election dispute Iran’s Ahmadinejad Blames the US for Global Financial Crisis
Ahmadinejad blames US policies for global insecurities
Ahmadinejad blames US military meddling for market collapse
Ahmadinejad blames US, Israel for shrine attack
Ahmadinejad blames US militarism for Wall St crisis
Ahmadinejad blames US and Israel for int’l problems
This would be the same Iranian leadership who responded to Obama’s March overture of a “new beginning” with a “you change, our behavior will change”.
Were that not enough, the also took aim at the UN with their blame game as well. And not to play favorites, they’ve also pointed their fingers at Germany and the UK.
Obviously, Iran hasn’t got that “hope’y change” bit down to a tee yet.
To continue the “US as a foil” argument as fact, instead of a parallel universe fiction, requires the “willing suspension of disbelief” PLUS an inherent faith that the Easter Bunny truly exists. The point is, whether the US stands firm publicly for American values… or not… Iran has, and will always, use America as a “foil”.
If what is happening now is not a “bloodbath”, just what should we call it? As Curt posts, is it that Obama requires even heavier artillery than sniper weaponry and batons used on their unarmed demonstrators before he believes this to be dire?
INRE Obama’s preposterous notions about the election being “fair”? From what planet does this man hail? What horse manure. He again demonstrates his fence straddling balance act – aka “voting present” in his non-response to a zinger of a question from Huffpo’s Nico Pitney. Pitney’s question was solicited from one of the Iranian protesters direct, and asked to the eunuch in chief by Pitney on their behalf.
Under which conditions would you accept the election of Ahmadinejad? And if you do accept it without any significant changes in the conditions there, isn’t that a betrayal of what the demonstrators there are working towards.
Below, Obama’s long winded response that never once touches the “betrayal” segment of the question.
Obama doesn’t pronounce the election results as fair or not, and notes there were no int’l observers. While this is a fair enough diplomatic response, what is most revealing about Obama’s comments on the election itself is that he says that election doesn’t need to appear “legitimate” to the eyes of the world, but only to the Iranian’s themselves. Uh… since when?
Ultimately, the most important thing for the Irani government to consider is legitimacy in the eyes of it’s own people… not in the eyes of the United States and that’s why I have been very clear ultimately this is up to the Iranian people to decide who their leadership is going to be and the structure of their government.
Look around, Obama. The Iranians are on record, with their blood and very lives, stating in no uncertain terms that this election is not legitimate. They are being murdered, beaten, arrested and assaulted while questioning the “legitimate” structure of their government.
In direct juxtaposition to Obama’s paraphrased opinion that the US’s opinion of the election results as legitimate don’t matter, is the opinion of the Iranian demonstrators themselves.
And just one additional thing, and this is very interesting. A number of students came up to me today, and said that they want to appeal to President Obama. They said is he going to accept this result, because if he does… then we are doomed. So I’ve heard alot about … a lot about appeals to Obama and the international community today from the University students.
Perhaps the American Appeaser in Chief can’t hear their pleas from the ice cream stand. Maybe the US media reports of the US demonstrations, and others around the world, don’t reach the WH cable service. And most certainly, his advisers are impressing upon him to never be as bold in support of American values as his predecessor lest he suffer the same fate of unpopularity…. an event we already see this President cannot handle.
Instead, the liberal journalist hack, Robin Wright, reverently touts Obama’s Cairo speech as an icon of impressive diplomacy, likening the Iranian plight to Obama’s “Berlin Wall moment” and a “diplomatic dream”, … and in the next breath admitting that this admin, and none before it can take credit for the uprising of the Iranian youth.
Who would have thought that a Berlin Wall moment for the region might happen in the strict Islamic republic, where a revolution 30 years ago unleashed Islam as a modern political idiom and extremism as a tool to confront the West?
Unlikely as it seems, the rise of a popular movement relying on civil disobedience to confront authoritarian rule – in the last bloc of countries to hold out against the tide of change that has swept the rest of the world over the past quarter century – is almost a diplomatic dream for the Obama Administration.
I’m not talking about the regime’s obstinate reaction or the brutality it unleashed on the streets of Tehran this past weekend. Even in his terse comments since the beginning of the electoral chaos in Iran, Barack Obama has made it clear the violence upsets him greatly. But in his speech to the Islamic world in Cairo on June 4, Obama spoke about the same principles that just eight days later galvanized millions of people throughout Iran to take to the streets.
“All people yearn for certain things: the ability to speak your mind and have a say in how you are governed; confidence in the rule of law and the equal administration of justice; government that is transparent and doesn’t steal from the people; the freedom to live as you choose,” Obama said. (Read “Dennis Ross, Iran Adviser, Moves to White House.”)
With what now looks like uncanny prescience, he added, “There is no straight line to realize this promise … Suppressing ideas never succeeds in making them go away.”
Uncanny prescience? Bush, and anyone in the country with a modicum of observation skills have seen that Iran’s youth have been ripe for internal rebellion for years. Wright, instead, throws undeserved bones to Obama, setting him up for taking credit where none is due. This is, bar none, as absurd as Obama taking credit for troop withdrawal from Iraq – which was decided by the Bush admin and Iraq’s SOFA agreement prior to the Inaugural. Fact is, a successful Iraq will happen *in spite* of Obama and his merry band of “withdraw now” protagonists in the Dem party.
Nor was it Obama’s grandstanding in Cairo that set the current Iranian events into motion. It was blatant electoral fraud, followed by oppressive regime tactics on demonstrators.
For those of us who pine for a President with genuine leadership and balls, we turn to an earlier era… as captured by Lorie Byrd at Townhall today.
President Obama has spent much of the past six months talking about all the things he inherited from George Bush. Unfortunately there are a lot of things he did not inherit from Bush, among them how to be the leader of the free world. The uprising in Iran has revealed Obama’s lack of leadership, but even worse, an apparent weakness when it comes to speaking up for freedom for everyone in the world.
~~~Those on the left, and some on the right, have praised President Obama’s approach. George Will said, “The president is being roundly criticized for insufficient rhetorical support for what’s going on over there. It seems to me foolish criticism. The people on the streets know full well what the American attitude toward that regime is, and they don’t need that reinforced.”
I don’t know that the people on the streets do “know full well what the American attitude toward that regime is.” They know what it was. (Does “axis of evil” ring a bell?) But maybe they also know how strongly President Obama has denounced his predecessor’s approach to foreign policy and his world view in general. Add to that Obama’s recent response to the protests and there are probably a lot of people around the world who don’t “know full well” what the American attitude now is.
President Bush spoke forcefully, and often, about freedom and liberty and democracy. The often tongue-tied public speaker Bush was most eloquent and at ease when talking about those principles. His desire to see freedom and democracy spread throughout the world is deeply heartfelt and that was evident in his speeches.
~~~To some extent President Obama has relinquished our country’s role as leader of the free world. He is reacting rather than leading. It is not necessary, nor would it be wise, for Obama to make the United States the issue. But what he could do is use some of his famous speechifying to really inspire and encourage those seeking freedom. There are people literally giving their lives in the streets in the pursuit of freedom and the supposed leader of the free world has been largely silent.
President Obama’s wait and see and try to say as little as possible approach on Iran stands in stark contrast to that of President George W. Bush. I wish Obama had inherited George Bush’s passion and commitment to those pursuing liberty and democracy around the world.
The following is from Bush’s 2006 State of the Union speech:
“Every step toward freedom in the world makes our country safer, and so we will act boldly in freedom’s cause. Far from being a hopeless dream, the advance of freedom is the great story of our time…”
“At the start of 2006, more than half the people of our world live in democratic nations. And we do not forget the other half — in places like Syria and Burma, Zimbabwe, North Korea and Iran — because the demands of justice and the peace of this world require their freedom as well. No one can deny the success of freedom, but some men rage and fight against it…”
“Democracies in the Middle East will not look like our own, because they will reflect the traditions of their own citizens. Yet liberty is the future of every nation in the Middle East, because liberty is the right and hope of all humanity. The same is true of Iran, a nation now held hostage by a small clerical elite that is isolating and repressing its people. The regime in that country sponsors terrorists in the Palestinian territories and in Lebanon, and that must come to an end. The Iranian government is defying the world with its nuclear ambitions, and the nations of the world must not permit the Iranian regime to gain nuclear weapons.”
“America will continue to rally the world to confront these threats. And, tonight, let me speak directly to the citizens of Iran: America respects you and we respect your country. We respect your right to choose your own future and win your own freedom. And our nation hopes one day to be the closest of friends with a free and democratic Iran.”
That is, without question, leadership.
Already those disgruntled people like me, who are thoroughly embarrassed by the Eunuch in Chief, are facing the accusations of pounding the war drums. That leap is one they take totally in their narrow focus, or ignorance, of history.
In the past, the US has indeed used military force to aid the oppressed in foreign nations… i.e. Bosnia, Kosovo, Vietnam, Korea and the World Wars. But the US has also used other forms of support… from harsh sanctions (which generally prove ineffective) to covert funding of rebellion movements, as we did in the 80s in Afghanistan when funding the Afghan mujahideen against the Soviets, and the Nicaraguan rebels thru arms sales to Iran. When civil wars between the citizens and known tyrants and despots occur, often the playing field for military might and arms must be leveled… and this does not necessarily require US boots on the ground.
And yes, sometimes the rebel leadership turns out to be as corrupt as the overthrown regime. And perhaps that’s a checkmark in the plus column when you consider the US coalition, carefully eyeing the Iraqi’s progress when they were forming their Constitution instead of just bolting the country and leaving them to the powerful dogs left behind to seize power. But sometimes the dice must be rolled when the stakes are high.
For Iran, there should be no options taken off the table. While direct US military intervention should not be flaunted as the first and only remedy, nor should it be taken off the table. At the other end of the spectrum, none of the free world should stand idly by and watch the Iranian military powers mow down unarmed citizens with no 2nd Amendment rights. (And there by the grace of God go we…)
Speak loudly and unapologetically about Iran’s obvious tyranny. Pull the sanctions card from the sleeves. And do not hint at the international punishment for such barbarian rule…. promise it.
Most important… *never* abandon those who fight for freedom… covertly offering everything from words of support and inspiration to arms to defend themselves from a Totalitarian government. And for heavens sake… be prepared to stand along side them in their quest for a modern Iranian democracy.
All of the above appears to be beyond Obama’s capability as he remains focused on the false “hope” of talks with a corrupt regime. And in doing so, he will “doom” the demonstrators and youth. For his isolationist stance proves to those shedding blood on the streets in Iran that Obama’s America is not there for them… not in words, nor deeds.
Inevitably we’re back to the “preconditions vs. preparations” argument. Preconditions are something you enforce on the opposite party before allowing them to negotiate (and in a way let them control the debate); preparations are something enforce on yourself to establish leverage with which to negotiate. Obviously telling Iran that we won’t talk to them until they stop enriching uranium is not the same as developing missile defense before we talk with the Soviets. So have true preconditions ever worked? History showed that Reagan had done the necessary preparations to have strong leverage, though many of the people who disagreed with him then repeat the same complaint with respect to Iran.
So what do we have: It’s perfectly reasonable to negotiate and ally yourself with an internally repressive or un-democratic state (like Saudi Arabia) as long as we share external common interests that are benefited; It’s also perfectly reasonable to engage with enemy states as long as we have the proper leverage – in fact, even failed negotiations (as was Reagan’s first summit) are useful to open lines of communication and size-up the needs of the enemy. Essentially what you’re saying is “negotiations are good when they work“.
Iran is obviously different from the Soviet Union, and our openings for leverage are much smaller, but we’ve been playing this preconditions game for decades now – either Bush’s silent preparations are enough and it’s time to meet or they aren’t working and it’s time to meet. Regardless, you may not believe that Obama has done the necessary preparations in this case, as Kraut and Buckley did with Reagan, but his high-level approach to diplomacy is certainly no departure from how we’ve dealt with difficult despots in the past.
Hard to be “back” to a preconditions v preparations” argument since we’ve never been there, triz. I’ll simplify yet one more time… Reagan’s preparations of superior arms and thwarted Soviet inroads to enlarging empire led to enforceable preconditions… ala zero option and SDI is non-negotiable. The Soviets were well aware that Reagan would be coming in with arms discussions and wouldn’t be budging.
Iran’s preconditions not only include enrichment, but recognizing Israel. If they have no intent to move on either point, any negotiation is moot, and Obama has no bag of tricks in preparations to change their mind.
You still place Saudi in a category I don’t. Also moot to drag out that argument. Just because you believe they are the “most repressive” regime doesn’t make it true. Done with you there.
Failed negotiations leading to future successes? Perhaps. But not with a current regime that won’t budge unless preparations are done to corner them. Negotiating with Arafat was an utter waste of time. It did not lead to future successes. Only when Abbas came to power was that door opened. The same applies to Iran. Unless there is a regime change, or additional leverage gained, it’s a vicious circle in Dante’s levels of Hell.
Your concept of “high-level approach to diplomacy” actually translates into what constitutes a moral equivalency approach. Empty as the Zero suit himself, and bears no resemblence to any one save da Jimmah Carter himself. Dependence upon moral equivalene as leverage falls on deaf ears with the likes of the Ayatolla, Ahmadinejad, Hamas and Hezbollah. Probably because they’re laughing too loudly at the Eunuch in Chief.
Btw, let’s not pretend that the zero option was a forceful maneuver – it was a bi-lateral move for disarmament, including many strategic positions in Europe. Read The Hammer’s response on that point as well (and I’m mostly pointing this out because I just found that you can search newspaper archives on Google; 80′s Krauthammer alone is worth all the effort that must’ve gone in to this – why do these dreadful pundits still have credibility?).
A “bi-lateral move”? You think this was a US concession? News flash… Reagan’s goal was for both superpowers to reduce nuclear stockpiles. His words to Gorbachev?
That is a man standing firm on preconditions and conditions. It was not a concession, but part of his negotiations all along.
You can persist against the “most repressive” statement, but a sharia government is repressive and un-democratic by definition, and yet we have no problems negotiating with them. So we can skip the moral outrage when Obama proposes talking with Iran.
This kind of parsing is pure sophism – the preconditions we’re talking about are enforced against the other party, not yourself, prior to negotiations. Reagan went into the negotiations with certain internal positions that he was not willing to back down on, he did not force Gorbachev to make concessions before these negotiations were held like Bush had done with Iran. Obama, too has emphasized that there are certain issues which he will not change, that he’s not going to Iran with potentially endless appeasement. If you want to call that preconditions I won’t argue over the syntax. You act like he’s going to talk with Iran and come back with Michelle in a burka – an agreement to negotiate is not an agreement to appease.
INRE Reagan, I never argued that this was a concession, but that it was a compromise. In hind-sight, it was one that was beneficial to the US, but at the time many saw it as a strategic blunder (my link to Krauthammer had him eagerly anticipating doomsday, for example). Likewise, Obama can work towards a compromise that benefits the US, especially now that Iran is internally unstable. The specifics are a whole separate debate, but we do have some leverage in working multi-laterally with Europe, Russia, and the Saudis (more at BICOM, and CFR then and now). As with Reagan, we do not know for sure if these compromises can be negotiated, but we must stop letting Iran effectively dictate the terms of the debate by expecting preconditions before even getting to the table.
@trizzlor:
Yep, it sounds familiar, confirms what D’Souza was saying in his book. Reagan had all kinds of critics, they turned out to be wrong and then the wall went down.
My daughter has a little tiny piece of that wall and a photo of the dismanteling of it that she had made into a poster. Ahh, memories.
What’s this “we” stuff, kemosabi? Speak for yourself and your own moral outrage. Just because you feel that way, the rest of the world doesn’t have to, nor does it make you correct. It is your opinion… period. And a very narrow-minded one at that.
Reagan showed up with a stacked deck and knew Gorbachev/Russia had to make the concessions, or bankrupt their nation. Bush had no such stacked deck, and neither does Obama. Bush just recognized a waste of time. If you’d pay attention, you’d know the int’l community has been engaging Iran in nuke talks all along, absent the US. And that’s accomplished what?
Spoken like a true, uneducated westerner. Don’t know much about the Muslim attitudes INRE negotiations, do you? Hint… go back thru Pakistan’s history with the Taliban and their militant factions and you’ll get clue. The short of it? Sign of weakness, and is disregarded. Promise and agree all you want. It is not honored, and the appeaser is dishonored. You view the enemy as if they were western in their culture and belief. Which is why you’re not in charge of diplomacy and foreign affairs.
A compromise is when you yield some of what you want. Considering that Reagan’s goal was both nations reducing nuke capability, it was not a compromise. He got exactly what he walked in there to get… zero option in 1986, and SDI still a demand. The INF came one year after. All done in two years since they first sat down at the table in 1985.
Who cares? Reagan did not see it as a strategic blunder, and he was correct. You will always have advisors and pundits that dissent. Why do I care what Krauthammer said at the time? I agree with him sometimes, and others not. He is not the guiding light for my opinions and analyses.
The big Zero sealed his fate on Iran with his wishy washy approach. He demonstrated no convictions for freedom and value for human rights until the rest of Europe led the way. By not supporting the rights of the supporters (without actually supporting either scumbag candidate), an opportunity was lost. Now that it’s known thru the world that the current instilled regime is illegitimate, and watched their violent crowd control, no leader can shake hands with Iran on a deal and walk away without blood on their own hands. Obama’s lost… just not figured it out yet.
BTW, as I pointed out, Reagan did not “compromise” since he went into the agreement demanding both the US and USSR reduce arms. You will note the only “compromise” Obama is suggesting is on behalf of Israel… which he has no right to promise.
Your outrage and insistence that the US unquestionably stands behind the force of democracy. If you’re not even willing to concede that the Kingdom is un-democratic then let’s stop pulling teeth over this. Perhaps your intent was to demonstrate the fruitlessness of negotiation by example
This is arm-chair sociology; “Muslim attitudes” were not a problem during US/Israeli negotiation with Egypt and Jordan.
Wonderful, and Obama does not see engagement as a strategic blunder, so your claims to the contrary can be discounted just as history has discounted those of the 80′s neo-cons?
So the Iranian violence is worse than Tienanmen and the Soviet regime? We seem to have walked away fine with those deals. For all your moral bluster, it has no basis in previous successful US foreign policy; your main contention is simply that you think negotiation is a waste of time.
Bingo.
Your problem, triz, is associating everything “sharia” with “undemocratic”. I’m sure Britian, who has a parallel Sharia judicial system would take issue with your misinterpretation. Additionally, Saudi is a monarchy who defers their code and laws to Sharia law. This differs somewhat from a pure theocracy, as in Iran.
“Muslim attitudes” were not a problem with the US/Israeli negotiations because Egypt and Jordan are not Iran and the Iranian leadership. Nor were they dealing with jihad groups and official terrorists (Hamas), but Fatah and Abbas.
A CIC has every right in the world to pursue the wrong path. And we can all rest assured Obama has every intention of taking us on the wrong path.
Negotiation with leadership that refuses to budge of evolve is a waste of time. China has evolved economically, tho not on human rights. Soviets abandoned communism and their empirical quest. Iran hasn’t budged one bit on Israel, or their enrichment program. Why should they? Obama’s busy trying to set them up with nuke power and proxy enrichment.
Your “bingo” confirms that you, also, recognize that negotiating with Iran serves no purpose.
Pingback: Obama Has Tough Words for Iran…FINALLY! | Jody Writes...