Why I want Obama to win

I truly believe that Obama will be better for not only the U.S but also Iran and the world


Why I want Obama to win
by Setareh Sabety

I backed the war in Iraq even though I have always been a democrat. My reason for cheering the Americans when they invaded Iraq was simple: I was hoping that the American success there would ignite unrest in Iran and bring about the fall of the theocratic regime. While I disagreed with Bush’s policies in every other area I was pro-war. I was a liberal hawk, as a friend pointed out, giving me the very American comfort of a label.

Now, like most people, including Hillary Clinton, I have come to realize that the war was a mistake. It was a mistake because Americans don’t know how to be an occupying force in a time when information and ideology travel freely and ruthlessly. In fact occupation of a country and its colonization is very foreign to the American psyche. They don’t have a vocabulary for it. Liberators they have been before. But colonizers never really. The British, who should be well-versed in occupying exotic lands far from home, seemed incapable of steering the Americans the right way. It matters little now why the Coalition failed -- the truth is that they failed miserably in Iraq and the Iranian regime ended-up winning a war it never fought.

The recent triumphal visit of Ahmadinejad to Baghdad audaciously paraded the fact that Iran won the war that America waged in Iraq. So having failed miserably in Iraq and not achieving the goal of bringing about change in Iran, America has only one chance to save face in the region and that is to pull out and implement a new strategy. The best way for her to achieve a face-saving withdrawal is to elect Obama. Only Obama represents a clean break with the past and only he has the freshness and foresight that is needed to bring about a badly needed paradigm shift.

At this point the sooner they reopen the American Embassy in Tehran the better for all of us. If Obama is elected and he talks to the Iranians (like he says he will), then at least the regime will lose its favorite and best scapegoat. Then we just have to wait and let the poor state of the economy, MTV and You-Tube do the rest. It may take a while but the theocratic regime will fall under the pressure of its own repeated failures to deliver a better life to the Iranian people.

I truly believe that Obama will be better for not only the U.S but also Iran and the world. He is the only candidate who can, over-night, change the view that people have of the U.S. He is so much the anti-cowboy candidate, so much the anti-Bush, so much the global leader, like a younger version of Mandela, that it would be hard to accuse the U.S of old style cold-war bullying once he is in power.

I have always wanted a woman to become the president. But Hillary Clinton is such a part of the “establishment” that she does not seem to be the “woman” in this race. Here I mean “woman” as the underdog candidate whose election will correct the wrongs of history. In fact as Toni Morrison called Bill Clinton the first black president I will venture to call Obama the female candidate in this race! The truth is that no matter how much of a feminist I am I still can’t stomach Hillary. Here is why:

For one she represents the old way women came to wield power: through their husband’s positions of power. There is nothing new or revolutionary about her-- we have had this phenomenon since at least Catherine de Medici! Second, and I really think this is why many women voters in America have chosen Obama as their candidate, she is a woman who has reached this position of power because she put up with her husband’s infidelities. It is the old "besooz o besaaz" (burn and take it) school of thinking as we Iranians say that has crippled women for centuries. Nothing refreshing about knowing some woman became the president of the U.S because she did not raise hell when her husband was caught getting a blow job from a young intern!

If Hillary had left Bill, become a single mom, and still became a successful candidate in the primaries, then I would definitely vote for her. Because then she would represent a new kind of woman: one who does not put up with unfairness and who reaches a position of power on her own rather than her husband’s merit. As it is right now she and Bill seem to have signed a Faustian pact that makes everyone else running for president seem like the Virgin Mary. Hillary seems more like the old style politician than the “woman” candidate.

Obama on the other hand seems like a new kind of politician. The biggest contrast comes when you compare the two couples Obama and Michelle seem like they actually love each other--everyone can tell that Bill and Hillary have stopped having sex a long time ago! Their marriage is a sham and everyone can tell so it is hard to buy her rap about being a caring idealist.

Another reason that a smile comes to my face every time I hear that Obama has picked up more delegates is that he has never changed his name. Those of you who have easy to pronounce Anglo-Saxon names will not really appreciate this. But those of us exiles and immigrants who have sent around resumes wondering if the weirdness of our name was what caused the rejection understand.

I know so many Iranians who have become hard working highly educated citizens who have changed or anglicized their names just to get a job. I know a Hussein who is a Robert now a Mohammad who is Mat and a Khosrow who is Hus. For Obama to keep his name and still get this much of the white male vote is revolutionary. I chose my children’s name according to what I liked and not how user friendly they would be in America and Obama is my answer to all those relatives and friends who criticized me for it!

The right to keep your name is not a small matter and one that touches ones very sense of self. He is the champion of those of us Americans who never changed our names, who grew up all over the world, who have grandfathers whose name could be Hussein (mine actually is!), who want a new image for America as fair and tolerant and as far removed as possible from the general who sat on the falling bomb waving his cowboy hat in Stanley Kubrick’s Dr. Strangelove.


Recently by Setareh SabetyCommentsDate
Car Crash
May 28, 2012
Oliver Stone's Son Converts to Islam
Feb 15, 2012
Ziba Nawak: Naked Solidarity
Dec 09, 2011
more from Setareh Sabety

Out of touch and out of tune

by Hekmati (not verified) on

Another self promoting yet vacuous opinion piece from a member of a generation who can't put their past behind them and face the realities of the 21 century politics. The number of times the writer uses the first person (I did this or I did that) says a lot about her need for being recognized by the public. As a newcomer to this site I don't know her but she seems to have a past history here- and she needs to remind her audience let they forget. Should search her later. But the fact is that Obama is a presidential candidate not because he has kept his name or he comes from a non-white ethnicity. He is an educated, articulate American who has no connection with the America's questionable past. Something that Sabety evidently is not. Like some of the commentators have expressed themselves, Obama is not a champion of the underdog (like Jesse Jackson or Al Sherapton) as Sabety wants to portray him. He is a black American who is whiter than white — in the same league as Condi Rice and Colin Powell. So if Sabety is seeking a champion of name-keeping to follow as a role model here are a few suggestions: Zalmay Khalilzad, General Abizaid, Muhammad Ali, and the even Ralph Nader. Sorry Sabety but you are out of touch and out of tune.


My point exactly

by Balouchi-American (not verified) on

What will it take for folks to realize that in time of WAR you cannot afford to be politically correct which equals to incompetence, we are not dealing with US alone anymore ,the whole world is depending on US to keep the New World Order. We would have all been speaking German if it wasn't for US and if we left everything to Spain (3/11/04 train bombings and withdrawal of US support) then everyone would have had a turban on their heads by now (9/11/01 World Trade Center and war on terrorism). Confront evil by Power not by Pander. When in Rome do as the Romans do, hence, when dealing with trash then get the broom out not the tongue.


McCain for President.

by Balouchi (not verified) on

Well Said. With all the trash that has come out about Obama lately in regards to Reverend Wright(Black Racist) and Tony Rezko (Syrian Sellout) there will not be any "change". We are in a WAR and we cannot waste time with lip service, McCain is a hard man to get along with but he is an honorable man and his lineage and military service is well documented and he should not be dismissed so casually in favor of "Change".


Barack Obama's Pastor: God DAMN America!"

by Babk56 (not verified) on

Barack Obama's Pastor Jeremiah Wright: "God Bless America? No, God DAMN America!"



Why You want Obama to win ?

by masoudA on

Same reason many fools wanted Khomeini to win. 

The easiest path to political success is to promiss changes and wealth to the poor.   


So naive to think Obama is "naive" and "inexperienced". Period.

by Anonymouse on

Have you ever run for anything?  do you know how hard it is to gather votes and make people to actually vote for you? 

As an example, WTF did W knew?  He couldn't even prounounce Musharraf let alone what is going on in Pakistan.


So naive to think that ...

by Simpleton finder (not verified) on

Mullahs, Ahamdinejad, IRI lovers adore Obama because they believe he is politically naive and inexperienced and can be easily fooled!

They need time to build their bombs and that is why they seem to be crazy for him, they think they can easily pull the wool over his eyes and buy the time they need whith him in command but they are sorely mistaken ...

Private Pilot


by Private Pilot on


I am always amused tremendously by those who have such shallow understanding of geopolitcal matters, and talk about international affairs and matters of war and piece as in their DARD-e-Del with their KHALLEH JAAN!!


Kee it going.  Keep me amused!!


Private Pilot


Just go to Presstv of

by Obama (not verified) on

Just go to Presstv of Islamic Republic. You can even go to Ahmadinejad's site. They all praise Obama exactly like you do! What kind of connection he has with them, I don't know.

Don't keep your fingers crossed. He may Win Hillary. However, there is NOOOOOO chance that he can win THE WHITE'S HOUSE.

Consequently, you are pushing the bumbing button on Iran and unfortunately you don't even know that....


Lets not beat around the

by Farhad Kashani (not verified) on

Lets not beat around the bush, lets at least have the courage and confidence to admit it. The reason that Americans (Whites for example, who have been voting for him in record numbers, which by the way, totally discredits the arguments that whites are racists, made by some Iranians on this very website) vote for Obama is very different than why some of us Iranians vote for him. The majority of Iranians who support Obama, from what I read, seen and the ones I talked to, are the isolationists (Who physically live in the U.S, but mentally in Iran, and use the service and opportunities offered by this country, but at the end of time come and bash it on sites like this), leftists who bought the whole argument that Obama is a socialist, anti white, and IRI lover (He’s none of the above!), and the U.S bashers who since they consider themselves “minority” like blacks, feel as if “one of them” is gonna be elected! So lets not beat around the bush. Sen. Obama is a well educated, articulate and knowledgeable and honorable U.S Senator who loves this country and everything it stands for (unlike some of the Iranians who love him!), but the reality is he is not, in my opinion, ready to become the commander in chief. I admire his liberal views, but the world, including the U.S are faced with threats that need a strong head of state to deal with, I think both McCain and Clinton are ready for that.


Against the war,but....

by Majid on

I was, am and will be against the war, no questions asked, but.....

When US. started a war against that goor be goor shodeh "SADDAM INSANE", I was the happiest person in the world, for him to taste how it was when he attacked our defenceless citizens, bombing a child's birthday in Tehran "Gisha".

Said that, I also beleive in this,

Ey koshteh ke raa koshti.............. 


I agree with Obama in this election

by Abarmard on

I think he is by far the best candidate


What about Cuban Americans?

by Anonymous123 (not verified) on

What you are saying makes a lot of sense but you should also realize that we are all Americans of Iranian origin and heritage just like 99 percent of the Hispanic folks in Florida and specially in Miami are Americans of Cuban origin and whatever they do, they always have their country of origin in the back of their minds. The political and social conditions of people in Cuba and how they can somehow affect it are enormously important to them.


As An American, Vote For What Is Good For America & Its People

by ts (not verified) on

Why should voting one candidate over another for the US Presidency be based on what is good for Iran. As Iranian-American's we should be concerned about each candidates overall foreign policy stance (as it benefits the US), possible appointment and make up of the Supreme Court, health care, and the like. After all we are naturalized American citizens given the priviledge to vote and be heard. Be a responsible citizen and vote for that which is in favor of the country that has provided you this freedom.

If you want to affect Iranian politics, you should vote in the Iranian election !!!


Not for Creed, nor for Color

by Barry Goldwater Jr (not verified) on

Unlike the author of this article, I opposed the war on Iraq. Why? Because I truly believed then, as I believe now, that we Americans must have targeted Iran first. Iran is and must always remain the number one target of total subjugation for the US. This why I believe we should vote for the rightful champion of the Republican Conservatism, Senator John McCain. Over fifty years ago when my father was campaigning to become the Senator from Arizona he addressed a group of black graduates from the Carver High School and said:

“The world will not greet you with open arms, but with a clenched fist.”

This is the message that Obama and his supporters must try to understand. Obama’s raison d’être is the color of his skin. He has no other reason to be voted for. No thinking America would or should vote on the basis of one’s color or creed. We made this mistake twice by electing the incumbent President to the Oval Office on basis of his creed. Do we have to repeat the same mistake by selecting his successor on the basis of his color?


i agree, BUT...

by ali (not verified) on

nice op-ed piece...I agree with many of your points...however, I have never been a fan of the DEMOCRATS...we only have to look back to who was in the white house when the mullahs began revolting in 1978>>>> non other than the biggest moron of them all- CARTER!!
democrats have had a tendency of not caring what the heck goes on in the rest of the world, while they concentrate on "taxing the heck out of the rich and educated to 'feed the poor!!'"
Carter thought that Khomeini was a great holy man who was going to liberate iran from the great dictator-the poor shah! It turned out that khomeini and the rest of his butchers were the biggest plague to infect our dear homeland since the arabs and the mongols!
but perhaps you are right, that by opening relations with the akhoonds, they may crumble from within....although, I don't think obama needs to win for iranian youth to begin to like america....they already get on the net and know how the rest of the world is living...
either way, lets hope iran will be free soon!!


Anybody but a war monger republican will do

by Observer (not verified) on

Anybody but McCain,
He is very scary.
A man with many psychological complexes.
A friend of war mongers and haters.
Anybody but McCain will do


You're way off

by Anonymous-today (not verified) on

I stopped reading this article after the first paragraph. If Ms. Sabety's reasoning for backing the invasion of Iraq was so poor, so misinformed, so wrong-headed, can she say anything worth listening to regarding Obama vs. Clinton? No. But then I went on, just to see if she gets any better, any more intelligent about the topic but alas the gamble didn't pay off. Setareh, stick to cultrual topics, write more poetry, read politics to better hands, and read a little more.

Ben Madadi

Why democrats mostly support Obama...

by Ben Madadi on

It is not because of their conviction but their desperation to have their president. Indeed Ms CLinton has less chances against a MALE Republican, but Obama has more of a chance, a real chance. But their support for Obama is NOT out of conviction. Liberal America is desperate to put anybody in charge and Obama happened to be someone who spoke well and was/is clean, quite clean. But liberal America does not really care what he is going to do. They just want change, and what a better change than a young Africa-American (mixed black and white) Obama Hussein (It looks like a combination of Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein, no offense, hahaha)! I like the guy, he's smart and he's a decent good man, that's what I think. But he's not the right person for such a tough job because first of all his plans are few and simple and nothing extraordinary. His plans are not change, they are the normal leftist rhetoric. The main change about him is the person. And that's not really something great.


Obama and AIPAC

by Naive finder (not verified) on


I'll vote for Obama

by observer (not verified) on

I'll vote for Obama,
because I want a change.
I am tired of Clintons and Mccain is just like Bush only older and more cunning.
Obama is a good for America, but I have no illusions about great changes.
I am sure democrats will choose Obama but I am worried about the deep rooted racism of white stablishment in this country and democrats are a part of it too. A good example is the racist comments of Ferraro.
But I'll never, never vote for a republican. Republican are reactionary and anti-human.


Yes We Can.

by Assal (not verified) on

I completely agree with your comments about Obama, even though I was against the war from its onset.

Barack Obama is our best chance at a more tolerant and positive American society and a more peaceful world as a whole. While I agree with the idea that Presidents do not have as much power as the establishment would like us to believe when it comes to implementing policy, it is undeniable that he CAN BRING CHANGE. No matter how many people are working behind the scenes to construct our foreign policy for example, they cannot erase the image of Barack and his peaceful words. The night Hillary Clinton won Texas, Barack talked about the importance of the fact that the entire world is watching this race and that they know a positive leader when they see it. If Obama is president, we can no longer label America the great satan. What we can do is bring people together and try to reach compromise in this crazy world that is beginning to spiral out of control. If Obama's positive light doesn't save us...nothing else will!


What does it take to

by Kamangir on

What does it take to actually prove that these presidents, leaders etc.. do not make any difference, specially when it come to the foreign policy of the US. They first choose their foreign policy and then the character to fit it (Bush, for instance)

The decision for a regime change in Iran was made by all parties involved (Europan and American) we will see its results soon, no matter who goes to the white house.




Obama is very intelligent

by Anonymousk (not verified) on

Obama is very intelligent and he might restore the name of democracy itself because in the past few years democracy has been given a horrendous reputation by GW, the cowboy from Maine...lol

Your writing styel is still as crisp and original as ever.


Good Point Bored Iranian Dude

by Balouchi (not verified) on

I agree with "Bored Iranian Dude" and his observation about Obama. A name is just a name and his is not that hard to pronounce. Before Saddam Hussein everyone pronounced the name Jose, no wonder he dropped that one or at least did not mention it until Clinton camp brought it up.
Besides, imagine for one minute that US starts negotiating with Iranian Government. The nuclear issues are TIME sensitive and sooner or later Iran would be able to build the bomb or as I suspect it already has otherwise Khamenei would have gone down the same path Saddam did. if that is the case then you are dealing with countries like China and Russia and they are untouchable because they already have the bomb and that is what Iranian government is striving for, don't be fooled by Obama, he is going to be way to busy giving US away to the blacks to make up for four hundred years of slavery and as we all know Democrats do not know squat about foreign policy, for example President Carter who's incompetence resulted in the Iranian revolution relied on
and now he is an adviser to Obama.


Dear Setareh

by Bored Iranian dude (not verified) on

"I backed the war in Iraq even though I have always been a democrat. My reason for cheering the Americans when they invaded Iraq was simple: I was hoping that the American success there would ignite unrest in Iran and bring about the fall of the theocratic regime. While I disagreed with Bush’s policies in every other area I was pro-war. I was a liberal hawk, as a friend pointed out, giving me the very American comfort of a label."

That first part of your article led me to four separate conclusions about you:

1. you have no idea how social politics and modern warfare work s

2. Because there are people like you who dont know what the hell they are talking about or even thinking, probably over half a million iraqis died because of that war supported by not very.. bright people like yourself

3. Leads me to the final conclusion that the day people like you (I will refrain from using insults) stop expressing their opinions, the world/humanity would take a whole peacefull evolution forward and a whole lot less people would die violently

4. Since your primary judgement of Iraq was amazingly wrong in so many ways. Not to mention that you supported murder on Iraqis so that a regime in Iran would fall when the collapse of that regime is YOUR responsibility, not americans or Iraqis, Im going to stop wasting my time reading the rest of your article that most likely belongs in the dumpster of political analysis, and recommend that other readers do the same.

Your words and opinions about Obama are not worth the bytes they've used on this server. They are as much worth as taking Middle-eastern politics lessons from Bill Kristol.


It will not happen

by Alborzi (not verified) on

He is very intelligent, and by all accounts he should win, but just as GW against all logic won, McCain is a shoe in. Brack has way too many easy negatives. First he is black, then he wants to talk to already established "Enemies", thats a no no, they did not stop the segregation until 68, I witnessed racial bigotry in 70s in Boston. We will have a 3rd redneck term. As they say my eye does not drink water.


Very well said

by asghar62 on

Dear Setareh,

I enjoyed reading your article. I think you said it very well and I can't add that much to it but say I agree with all of that.




From the September 24, 2004

by Anonymous4now on

From the September 24, 2004 edition of the Chicago Tribune:


September 25, 2004


U.S. Senate candidate Barack Obama suggested Friday that the United States one day might have to launch surgical missile strikes into Iran and Pakistan to keep extremists from getting control of nuclear bombs.


Obama, a Democratic state senator from the Hyde Park neighborhood, made the remarks during a meeting Friday with the Tribune editorial board. Obama’s Republican opponent, Alan Keyes, was invited to attend the same session but declined.


Iran announced on Tuesday that it has begun converting tons of uranium into gas, a crucial step in making fuel for a nuclear reactor or a nuclear bomb. The International Atomic Energy Agency has called for Iran to suspend all such activities.


Obama said the United States must first address Iran’s attempt to gain nuclear capabilities by going before the United Nations Security Council and lobbying the international community to apply more pressure on Iran to cease nuclear activities. That pressure should come in the form of economic sanctions, he said.


But if those measures fall short, the United States should not rule out military strikes to destroy nuclear production sites in Iran, Obama said.


“The big question is going to be, if Iran is resistant to these pressures, including economic sanctions, which I hope will be imposed if they do not cooperate, at what point are we going to, if any, are we going to take military action?” Obama asked.


Given the continuing war in Iraq, the United States is not in a position to invade Iran, but missile strikes might be a viable option, he said. Obama conceded that such strikes might further strain relations between the U.S. and the Arab world.


“In light of the fact that we’re now in Iraq, with all the problems in terms of perceptions about America that have been created, us launching some missile strikes into Iran is not the optimal position for us to be in,” he said.


On the other hand, having a radical Muslim theocracy in possession of nuclear weapons is worse. So I guess my instinct would be to err on not having those weapons in the possession of the ruling clerics of Iran. … And I hope it doesn’t get to that point. But realistically, as I watch how this thing has evolved, I’d be surprised if Iran blinked at this point.”


As for Pakistan, Obama said that if President Pervez Musharraf were to lose power in a coup, the United States similarly might have to consider military action in that country to destroy nuclear weapons it already possesses. Musharraf’s troops are battling hundreds of well-armed foreign militants and Pakistani tribesmen in increasingly violent confrontations.


Obama said that violent Islamic extremists are a vastly different brand of foe than was the Soviet Union during the Cold War, and they must be treated differently.


“With the Soviet Union, you did get the sense that they were operating on a model that we could comprehend in terms of, they don’t want to be blown up, we don’t want to be blown up, so you do game theory and calculate ways to contain,” Obama said. “I think there are certain elements within the Islamic world right now that don’t make those same calculations.


“… I think there are elements within Pakistan right now–if Musharraf is overthrown and they took over, I think we would have to consider going in and taking those bombs out, because I don’t think we can make the same assumptions about how they calculate risks.”