• News
• Sports
• Opinion
• A&E
• Multimedia
• Features
• Obituaries
• Blogs

  Home Page » Opinion » Editorial » Obama And Iran

Obama and Iran

Critics are wrong about his 'inaction'

President Barack Obama is being derided for not speaking out more forcefully about the situation in Iran. With the streets of Tehran full of protesters angry about last week's obviously fraudulent election, his critics say the president's response should be a full-throated denunciation of the oppressive regime and strong support for what they see as a potential revolution.

The critics are wrong. For now, at least, Obama should limit his comments on Iran to general statements of respect for democracy and calls for restraint and non-violence. Bluster and chest-thumping will only make things worse.

The president did weigh in on Iran on Saturday, urging the "Iranian government to stop all violent and unjust actions against its own people" and pointing out that, "Suppressing ideas never succeeds in making them go away."

Those comments were his sharpest yet about Iran, but hardly what his critics want. They are pushing an extension of the neo-conservative thinking behind the invasion of Iraq. They see an opportunity for "regime change" that could lead to a democratic Middle East.

And that would be a fine vision were it not predicated on a complete overestimation of the ability of the United States to influence circumstances that are clearly beyond its control. Besides watching events unfold, about the only path open for Obama is to lecture the Iranians.

That could easily backfire. As anyone who has ever shot pool or raised children understands, sometimes energy applied in one direction can send things spinning off in an entirely different way.

In any case, there is probably little else the president can do. There is no military option. The United States is not about to invade Iran, and any lesser action would probably would just bolster support for the current regime. There are already are trade and financial sanctions in place.

Of course, Obama could make things worse. And the easiest way to do that would be to follow his neo-con critics' advice.

The Iranian and U.S. governments are at odds over Iran's nuclear ambitions, its support for terrorist and anti-Israeli groups, and its oppressive treatment of its own people. But journalists and others who have traveled to Iran consistently report that the Iranian people are perhaps the most pro-American population in the region. They know the American people support their desire for democracy.

At the same time, there is also is a long and inglorious history of conflict between the United States and Iran, in which this country is far from blameless. Against that background, the idea that Iran's problems can be traced to American interference resonates with more than a few Iranians.

How many buy that is unclear. But Iran's rulers are already are proclaiming that the United States is behind the recent demonstrations and the attendant violence. Were he to further inject himself and the United States into the Iranian election, President Obama would only add weight to those accusations and complicate the situation even more.

Americans too easily mistake patience for passivity and action for accomplishment. But Obama is right to play this low-key. Greater U.S. involvement would likely would do more harm than good.

The president was right Saturday, when he said, "The Iranian people will ultimately judge the actions of their own government." As everyone in Tehran knows, they have done so before.