Jesse A. Schroeder

I know very little about the Iran situation, mostly because I'm not informed about international politics, and because the presidential election and ensuing protests happened while I was out of town last week. But all across the Twitter-sphere is the campaign to support freedom in Iran. On the one hand, I think there is a sort of beauty when I see so many avatars with a green overlay, and the support and concern for Iran is powerful.

But I'm not entirely sure I understand phrases like "Free Iran." What type of freedom are we calling for? I would guess that we conceive of an American-like, democratic freedom. But that is not the middle East and that is not Iran's political set up. We can't just throw around words like "freedom" without understanding the implications.

The video below touches upon the important aspects: First, the entire situation is dramatically compelling and heart wrenching. I believe that the images and footage of Neda will rightly be remembered forever, and perhaps may become a symbol for a turning of politics in Iran. However, the support from people across the internet - while it is well-intentioned and touching in its own way - is simple, requires little effort and certainly no sacrifice, let alone any type of informed decision or procession of the complexities of the situation. What good does it do for me to change my profile pic to green when I have nothing to do with the situation, and in fact I may be conceiving of "changes" "freedoms" and "rights" that would do more harm than good in Iran. As the news report conclude, Neda is an example of the sacrifice that Iranians may have to make - not Americans.


Many American condemn the Iraq war, arguing that we have no right to meddle in the affairs of the Middle East. So why are we eager to push our conceptions of freedom upon Iran during their election? Again, I find the the support beautiful in a way, but it also confuses me. Six years and counting in Iraq should give us some insight into the complexities of Middle East politics, or at least remind us that it is not as simple as overthrowing the unpopular leader du jour.

I agree with President Obama's stance in which he condemns the violence and the stifling of free speech and political rallies. He states that "the United States and the international community have been appalled and outraged by the threats, beatings and imprisonments of the last few days." The President is correct that it is always a tragedy when life is lost and that free speech is a freedom that should be protected around the world.

However, I also agree with his restraint and decision to not more openly support the protests in Tehran, despite criticism from other politicians. I think his words here are very wise: "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 replied. "That's what they do. That's what we're already seeing. We shouldn't be playing into that." In contrast, the words of Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) seem driven more by politics and childish games than wisdom. He said "[The President has] been timid and passive more than I would like. There is a monumental event going on in Iran, and, you know, the president of the United States is supposed to lead the free world, not follow it."

Americans have to learn how to carefully balance support, concern, and grief for tragedies around the world, with an equal temperance and understanding that the governments and politics of other countries are not the same as ours. There are other ways to experience freedom beyond the American version of democracy, and for us to simply push phrases like "Freedom in Iran" seems, to me, ignorant and almost insulting, since we would not be the ones to pay the price and do the work to achieve such a freedom.