George W. Bush has announced his support for democrats and reformists from Beirut to Damascus and from Baghdad to Tehran.
This simple and ordinary remark has apparently created trouble for reformists in Iran, as their conservative opponents have interpreted Bush’s remarks as proof that reformists are beholden to the United States. As a result, in their own defense, reformists have begun to condemn Bush, accusing him of deliberately planning to undermine reforms in Iran through such remarks.
There has not been a single president in the history of the United States who has not voiced support for democratic forces all over the globe, even if he has acted to the contrary. Bush’s remarks, in effect, are no different than remarks of Islamic Republic officials in support of freedom fighters and Islamists all over the world.
It is clear what would happen if other countries in the world use the remarks of Islamic Republic’s officials to suppress resistant or freedom-fighting groups. Just as Iran’s vocal support of resistance fighters across the world cannot be used a pretext by other governments to suppress domestic opposition, Bush’s general support of democrats and reformists cannot be used by the Islamic Republic as an excuse to ban reformists from participating in elections.
Furthermore, the subject of Bush’s reference is not entirely clear. By "democrats and reformists" in Iran, does he mean the Participation Front, the Mojahedin of the Revolution, E’temad Melli Party, the Association of Combatant Clerics, and dozens of other groups that operate under the reform banner in Iran?
It is very unlikely, based on Bush’s past policies, that he really meant he groups that operate under the reform banner in Iran. If that were the case, he would not have named Iran along with Iraq and North Korea as part of the Axis of Evil, especially when Khatami was Iran's president.
With this in mind, should Bush be condemned for his general remark in support of reformists in the Middle East? From a logical point of view, one cannot condemn the head of a government from speaking what is in the best interest of his nation and to tell him to shut up! Obviously, the head of any government would shy away from voicing support for despised figures across the world such as dictators, terrorists and warmongers, and would instead prefer to be known as a supporter of loved and respected figures such as seekers of freedom and justice.
Certainly a man like Bush will never say that he supports dictators, warmongers and terrorists in the Middle East - no sane person would. With that in mind, the fact that reformists in Iran are unhappy with Bush's remarks in support of democracy in region means that Bush must either shut his mouth, or if he decides to open it, support terrorists and dictators.
The real issue is not Bush's remarks. The real issue is that why should groups that identify themselves as reformists or democrats in Syria, Lebanon, or Iraq, face intimidation because of certain remarks made by Bush.
Another related point is that reformists in Iran are enduring very difficult times if they have to face intimidation for the remarks of a foreign country's president. Obviously if reformists had a bit of power they could have announced loudly, what is it to us that Bush has made such remarks? Leaders of other nations say thousands of things every single day, why are we responsible for what they say?
