For all the far-right hand-wringing about whether President Obama is doing "enough" to intervene in Iran, I still don't know what, exactly, conservatives think will happen if the administration takes a harder line.

They think (most likely correctly) that if the administration sticks its nose in and appears to be supporting the reformers, the reform movement will be perceived as associated with the US and will be more likely to be repressed, and repressed more thoroughly, than otherwise, which will produce two benefits (from the POV of those pushing the action):

1) the Administration will suffer a humiliating failure, and
2) Iran will be secured in the role of boogeyman

Remember, many of the same right-wing types pushing for this action have previously embraced direct action against Iran ("bomb, bomb, bomb...") and/or openly stated that they are hoping for Obama to fail. Their interests in this crisis are not exactly mysterious.

It seems every time Republicans open their mouths on this issue, Obama's "Apology Tour" makes a little more sense.

You know, I think the impetus from the right is their own insecurities. They desperately need some form of conformation of their position. It's not easy being on the lonely right-wing lunatic fringes.

And here's hoping the president's categorical rejection of their infantile demands is the beginning of a consistent administration - and Democratic Party - policy to automatically do the precise opposite of what the repugs and freakazoids demand.

Or at bare minimum make Harry Reid think twice before reflexively caving to every whiny-ass-titty-baby temper tantrum from Mitchy-poo.

Our Republican friends have a straightforward view of things: You're either blowin' stuff up, or you're nothing but a big pussy. There's no middle ground for them. Obama's not blowin' shit up. So what does that leave?

because to do what his conservative detractors would be to run the risk of "making things a lot worse," as Gary Sick, a former National Security Council expert on Iran in the Ford, Carter and Reagan administrations, put it.

With that in mind, the president appeared alongside South Korea's Lee Myung-bak this morning at the White House and reminded his audience that "it's not productive" for the U.S. president "to be seen as meddling in Iranian elections." Obama added, however, that he has "deep concerns about the election," and express distress over the "violence directed at peaceful protesters."

Those are some really banal quotes. Are you on parole for plagiarism or what?

/pedantic asshat

cmdicely: dead-on.

When the liberal reformer Khatami was reelected in 2001 did they proclaim their solidarity with the 78% of the Iranians who voted for him? No they called them the Axis of Evil and looked for a way to nuke them.

cmdicely nails it. It's important to emphasize that some (most?) of the guys calling for Obama to take a stand have also been panting heavily for an Ahmadinejad victory.

Americans are somewhat unique in trusting their government. My wife is Iranian. Her mistrust is instinctive, it has nothing to do with accepting or disagreeing with an argument for some policy. In other words, Iranians tend to believe what they see or experience. Shutting down the media is thus very important, especially video. But this is not enough. This culture talks, they remain very connected to each other. Their kids are not rebels, and parents don't disown their children. So stomping on students will not go over very well.

The problem is that the culture has accepted mistreatment of non-Muslim groups and intellectuals. The American just released said that she was thrown into a jail cell with Bahai's and students, and they gave her strength. Imagine a country where the prisoners are students and harmless Bahai's! That is the danger. Those least likely to use violence to obtain their goals are thrown into jail.

I was talking about this with my conservative dad yesterday while Limbaugh was ranting about it on the radio, and my dad was of the opinion that Obama needed to get the UN involved. When I asked what they should do, he suggested they have a re-do in which the UN observes the election and keeps it on the up and up. I tried explaining how entirely unlikely that was, and pointed out that Iran was a sovereign nation and how he'd have entirely flipped out if the UN had done such a thing in the 2000 election; but to no avail. He still insisted that Obama needed to do something, but couldn't begin to suggest what it should be.

I should add that his original response about us getting the UN in there presumed that the election hadn't happened yet and when I explained that it was too late for us to observe the election, that's when he suggested a re-do. So he didn't even know the basic facts, yet insisted that he knew what Obama was doing wrong. Typical conservative.

I am sure this has been said before, but have the neo-conservatives forgotten the last time the U.S got "involved" in Iranian electoral politics. I am certain the Iranians have not.

Perhaps the neo-cons simply cannot allow an event to take place in the world without taking credit for it. Therefore they want America to make forceful statements such that, if Iran moves in a better direction, they can say "America did it."

The world revolves around neo-cons.

I just thank God that McCain will never be president. I can see Sarah Palin saying something dumb like this, and she probably will even if she can't find Iran on a map, but McCain should know better.
Republicans like to look and sound "tough", with no regard for the consequences. I really think that many of them are insecure in their manhood.

You know, I think the impetus from the right is their own insecurities. They desperately need some form of conformation of their position.

I think this is a big part of it. I’ve already seen a lot of commentators stressing a basic point about the situation in Iran: It’s not about us. The right’s response, of course, is “Yes it is! Everything is about us!�

And it’s clear that what’s important to these people is their sense of their own righteousness, not anything that goes on in the real world. It always blows my mind how the most strident abortion protestors are just as strident about promoting policies (abstinence-only, cutting off access to contraception) that will have the effect in the real world of increasing the number of abortions. Same thing here. These people want to see chaos and repression in Iran so they can congratulate themselves for condemning it.

A joint release from Frank Gaffney and Paul Wolfowitz:

The complete gullibility and naivete of Obama and his foolish followers and publications such as The Washington Monthly is continuously amazing.

Everyone in their right mind knows that war is the answer. Iran is an intractable problem that will only be solved by great American resolve to force them to accept the American way of life. With their nuclear weapons program nearing the production of weapons, the United States MUST attack them soon. It is necessary to show American resolve by the use of military force. It would be cowardly of us to not do so and force the Israeli Defense Forces to attack for us.

As little credit as most of you are giving the Republicans, I think you're giving them TOO much credit. This is plain old stupid partisan sniping. If the question is asked "What is a + b" and the Republicans answer "c," then the answer is "c." If Obama or any prominent Democrat says the answer is "c" THEN the answer as far as any neoconservative/anti-liberal 'patriot' is concerned is "ANYTHING BUT 'c.'"

I'd be willing to bet a shiny apple that, if this had played out the other way, with Obama taking a hard stand against the obviously stolen election and demanding a recount or a UN peacekeeping force to do a hand recount or something more dramatic/violent (as the neoconservative chowderheads seem to want to see happen), those same GOP pundits would take the opposite approach: "Mister President, NOW is the time for caution, not bullying! We can't force democracy down the throats of Iran, and we'd be fools to try! And your actions only fuel the fire of anti-American sentiment that began with Carter, got much better under Reagan & H.W. Bush, got muchmuch worse under Clinton, and muchmuch better, almost idyllic, under George W. Bush! You're doing everything wrong! The answer is anything but C!"

If Obama's doing it, it's wrong, as far as Republican "leaders" are concerned. The only thing they're responsible for is making sure they know whatever it is "it" is.

What they want is as much taxpayer money as possible going to defense contractors. The various Boogeymen keep the tax dollars flowing.

There are any number of businesses in this country that would disappear tomorrow of they were cut off from taxpayer funds and I don't mean GM, Chysler or the banks. I'm talking about Haliburton, Blackwater and the defense industry who derive virtually all of thier profits from taxpayer's money. Where are all the 'free market' Republicans? Why aren't they complaining about all these businesses that exist soley because tax dollars support them?

Exactly thorin-1.
It's all about the war machine, donchaknow.

That's not *entirely* true, Slappy. Neocons are thrilled with Obama's approach to torture accountability and state secrets.

That's not *entirely* true, Slappy. Neocons are thrilled with Obama's approach to torture accountability and state secrets.

The state secrets privilege, perhaps, but neocons are vociferously opposed to Obama's actions both on torture accountability (minimal though they are) and particular "state secrets" (especially those that relate back to torture). Sure, the left is disappointed that Obama hasn't gone far enough in holding people accountable, but the right is upset that Obama continues to do the one thing that lays the groundwork for public accountability by dripping out more and more of the information that the previous administration had buried through classification and other means.

So why did the Today Show have John McCain headlining with his "he must do" garbage without a single defender of the President's prudent policy. It just never ends. Sigh.

John McCain really loves the Iranian people now, enough to want Obama to get into the confusing situation there. How many months ago was he singing 'bomb bomb Iran'

Of course, more action from Obama might ruin the chances of any sort of negotiation with the next Iranian government.

To the neocons, that would be good news. They don't do negotiation.

By now, the policy dynamic is no doubt familiar. The more the president pushes, the more it helps Ahmadinejad.

True.. arguably, Bush's policies pushed Iranians to elect Ahmadinejad. And now, by purely acting as an example, Obama has emboldened Iranians to demonstrate for their rights.

Nobody in the United States really knows what's happening in Tehran right now in anywhere near the depth required to contemplate influencing events with reasonable odds of success. Our ability to act is constrained by ignorance of basic facts.

This reality should make any sensible person reluctant to interfere, but conservatives keep proving time and again that they are not sensible people.

QId6J6