Realism

It is almost too easy to find blatant hypocrisy in contrasting the President's policy towards Iran with that towards Latin America.

Towards Iran the President, initially, staked a position that "it's not productive, given the history of U.S.-Iranian relations, to be seen as meddling". Toward Latin America (e.g.: Columbia and Honduras ), in which, far more than Iran, the United States has historically meddled -- -- the President has not felt similarly constrained.

In the Administration's defense there are two justifying arguments: The argument that US condemnation of the stolen election in Iran would result in a more brutal suppression of protesters and the argument that sooner or later we will have to negotiate with the mullahs so best minimize antagonizing them.

Neither argument is particularly strong. By its own measure, the Administration's calibrated approach failed miserable -- protesters are being quite brutally suppressed. It was liked doomed, in part, by its (all things considered, ironic) unilateralism: Our European allies (including Britain with its own peculiar history in Iran), were not as tepid in their response as we were. Further, it is hard to see how the effort to pursue "tough negotiations" with "no illusions" is hindered, rather than furthered, by speaking our minds plainly.

In the end, the reason why Obama found it easier to condemn the Honduran courts and congress than he did the Iranian Mullahs, is that he understood that the former are not like the latter. While the Honduras "coup" may stir up ghosts of Pinochets past in the hearts of deep leftists, Obama knows that we are not likely to see blood on the streets of Tegucigalpa the way it is running in Tehran. In other words, he is pursuing the Carter-esque policy of holding to pristine standard and, inevitably, condemning, those who fundementally share our values whilst coddling tyrants.

It is most certainly true that Carter's weakness, invited aggression. (e.g.: The revolution in Iran and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan). In the case of Afghanistan, aggression led to over-reach, which was fortunate for us.

I think it is reasonable to wonder, given Obama's relative weakness -- his love letters to Khamenei and "hot dog" dimplomacy -- if the Iranian regime would have acted as blatantly as they did to steal the election were W still in office and there was a more realistic expectation of averse consequences.