As your high school history teacher - and even college professor(s) if you majored in the subject like me - likely told you many times: In order to make sense of the present we must first look to the past. In that same vein, I thought I'd poke around at past Forum footage to see if any of our panelists had said anything relating to the current election fiasco in Iran. In fact, one had, Benazir Bhutto, take it away:
Although the late former Pakistani Prime Minister was not talking about Iran specifically, she very presciently touched on many of the hot-button issues that Obama administration officials are looking at squarely (U.S. interventionism, terrorism, nuclear capabilities, global security).
To what extent should Obama intervene, if at all? Is the United States willing to impose sanctions on Iran for election fraud? Would we look hypocritical if we did? Is the International Community willing to stand behind us? Does it really matter if one puppet president is replaced by another one? There are no simple answers to these questions, although Slate offers some advice and tries to get in Obama's head. Nevertheless, nobody can deny that what's currently going on in Iran seems like the hopeful beginnings of (dare I say it?) change, but as to what's really going on, and what will come of it, that's anybody's guess.
I will say, however, that it's nice to have a president who is on top of this, rather than one who jokingly sang "bomb bomb bomb Iran" at a campaign rally in South Carolina a couple of years ago.
By Abe Silk