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.

Restoring America's Moral Standing

On of the key promises of Obama's candidacy was that he would "restore America's standing in the world"

The divergence between what that means to the hard left and what that means to main street America is illustrated by the Administration's in-action towards the Iranian election.

Most Americans, I think, have difficulty seeing how remaining silent, or neutral, in the face of a stolen election is a recipe for restoring, rather than undermining, our global standing.

Should Ahmadinejad steal this election with our implicit acquiescence, we can add Iran to the list of Muslim nations whose populations resent us for talking about freedom and democracy while supporting their own oppressive governments.

On the other hand, should the election turn out to have been legitimate, Obama's inaction will prove to have been wise.

On a related note, one can't but be amused by the observation that while only a few years ago, to the hard left Kissenger equaled Satan, right now, our President, who was their candidate, is pursuing "realist" policy that would make Kissenger proud.

Iranian Government

One interesting pattern in reporting on Iran is that the liberal media generally asserts that Ahmadinejad and Khamenei are a duo and that the former is sub-ordinated to the latter, whereas more conservative media reports a power struggle between the two.

The most likely motivation behind this is that it is quite difficult to argue for engagement with a Government substantively controlled by Ahmadinejad. It is easier to argue for engagement with a Government in which he is a mere figurehead.

I suppose time will tell which side is reporting the straight facts and which is subsuming "journalism" to a political agenda.