Apparently black is white and up is down when it comes to some people’s analysis of events in Iran. Here, for instance, is our old friend Stephen Hayes:
There’s a simple answer to this: no it is not likely that the Iranian people, to the extent they give a damn about the American president, will see his circumspection as “meddling”.Obama says he doesn’t want to be seen as “meddling” given the long history of US-Iranian relations. Leave aside the question of whether simply stating the obvious is “meddling.” If the majority of Iranians believe that Ahmadinejad’s re-election is not legitimate, isn’t it more likely that Obama’s silence in the face of a stolen election will be viewed as another chapter in that long history rather than the end of it?
And here’s John McCain, telling breakfast TV this morning that:
This too is pretty simple stuff: you may not think of it as interference but what you think doesn’t matter.We’re not interfering when we take the side of the opposition.
Britain’s best politics newsletters
You get two free articles each week when you sign up to The Spectator’s emails.
Already a subscriber? Log in
Comments
Join the debate for just £1 a month
Be part of the conversation with other Spectator readers by getting your first three months for £3.
UNLOCK ACCESS Just £1 a monthAlready a subscriber? Log in