Conservative criticism to the contrary, Obama's soft stance on the Iran voting crisis is dead-on. There are those who foolishly insist the President, speaking as the voice of freedom et al., insist that the revolting citizens are correct, the election was rigged, and so on. This is wrong.
The Iran hardliners and Ahmadinejad's camp would love to make this debate into Iran versus the Evil West rather than Iran versus many of its citizens. They have already warned the US not to meddle in a thinly veiled, weak attempt to do just that. A bold comment by the US would only give them the ammunition to make a valid case, swaying some citizens toward Ahmadinejad and inviting distraction at a time when a shocking minor(?) revolution is taking place.
This past Sunday, Monica Crowley, displaying a typically Republican lack of long-term vision, insisted that Obama take such a ill-fated stance. Lawrence O'Donnell immediately took her to
task for the position, and pointed out that the result of such a statement would be ... well what? Would the elected individual step down? Would the Supreme Leader suddenly cal for a recount?
Seriously, folks. The result—the
only possible result—would be Iran shaking its fist at the US and crying foul. Their people lose or get distracted, they take a tougher stance (probably killing more protesters than they might otherwise), and our next series of diplomatic talks with them are automatically unproductive. Brilliant strategy, so we can—what?—feel we said the right thing? Anyone with a modicum of intelligence understands that the current Administration would love to see a power shift over there.
This is the difference between an intelligent, measured Administration and a swaggering, foolish one—giving thought to one's actions and their possible repercussions, lest you, I don't know, start a messy war or something.
Oh.
