Obama Administration Looks The Other Way When Iran Excludes Women From Political Office

Lucius Annaeus Seneca said: “All cruelty springs from weakness.”

Weakness is defined in many ways: an unwillingness to perform necessary duties in times of crisis; fear for one’s self preventing one from doing what is right; and betrayal of one’s own convictions when faced with a challenge. These are all signs of weakness. Our political world is full of weakness; politicians who are so afraid of losing their jobs that they will do and say anything to keep it; even when it violates their own moral compass. This behavior occurs on both sides of the aisle, for sure, but the Obama administration truly takes the cake, and eats it too.

The Obama administration continuously refuses to condemn Iran. When the Iranian Presidential election was clearly rigged; and thousands flooded the streets in protest, the Obama administration did nothing. They showed no signs of solidarity; and gave no indication as to what side on which they fell. When Mahmoud Ahmadinejad makes outrageous statements regarding Israel, or the Jews; Obama is nowhere to be heard.

Obama has continuously relied on “sanctions” that do absolutely nothing. A UN sanction is like a polite request in the eyes of tyrants. They pretend to do what we want, while secretly—and sometimes not so secretly—pursuing their agenda. Now this weakness; this lack of spine, is being shown again.

State Department representative Jan Psaki recently dodged question after question regarding Iran’s “no women” policy in their upcoming elections. Here is an excerpt of the Psaki interview:

QUESTION: Jen, can I change the subject? It would seem that in Iran the Guardians Council, which is vetting the candidates for the upcoming elections next month, have decided and have ruled that women cannot contest, they cannot stand as candidates. I wondered what the United States reaction is to that, considering that 50 person of the population in Iran is women – are women.

MS. PSAKI: Well, we don’t take positions on any candidates, as you know, and we hope that the upcoming elections will be free, fair, and transparent and will represent the will of the Iranian people. So we wouldn’t weight into decisions made by the government. Of course, broadly, we hope that women around the world participate in politics and elected office, but beyond that I don’t think I have anything specific for you.

QUESTION: Taking the word “fair” – if you’re being fair, it would seem to exclude 50 percent of the population from an election, would already mean that it is not a fair election.

MS. PSAKI: Well, we don’t weigh in on to the candidates and the candidates that are chosen through the process in Iran. Of course, of course, broadly speaking we do want women to participate in elections around the world and rise up in elected office.

QUESTION: Just not in Iran?

The interview goes on, with Psaki repeating the same talking points over and over again. Breaking down what was said, I have a few things to say:

1. Psaki alleges that the United States wants “free” and “fair” elections in Iran; then goes on to say that we should not have any involvement in their elections, even when Iran has chosen to eliminate 50% of the population form the candidate pool. That doesn’t sound so free and fair.

2. Psaki then says that she hopes that women around the world will get involved in politics; whether it be in elected office or simply by voting. If that is indeed what she wants, she is not addressing the issue at hand. She says she wants women involved, but when women are excluded, she raises no ire.

3. In response to both questions, she answers in almost an identical way, indicating a pure-planned response. This response, however, flies in the face of the “women’s rights” agenda of which the Left claims to be the champion. The Left only champions “women’s rights” when it benefits them.

Everything Psaki says is a lie. If she truly wanted to champion women’s rights, these are not the responses she would have given. If she cared anything about the women in Iran–who want to run for office, but are excluded–she would pursue a solution. Instead, she just evades the questions.

The Obama administration is intentionally impotent when it comes to foreign affairs. They don’t support Israel, they let Iran run wild, and they pour millions in aid money to the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt.

There are two possible reasons for the incompetency, as I see it. One, the administration is afraid of radical Islam, and therefore is unwilling to do anything serious to oppose them. Two, the administration is in line with the ideals of the radicals in the Middle East, and don’t want to do anything to interfere with what is going on.

Either way, be it incompetence or compliance, this administration is making us weaker every day. They are making a mockery of what they supposedly stand for. Obama’s constant blathering about strong foreign policy, women’s rights, and terrorism is just smoke and mirrors. He cares nothing for women’s rights; what he cares for is his own power.

The cruelty and indifference of this administration springs from weakness, and greed.