The old line that open and transparent support for the reform movement in Iran is counterproductive and plays into the hands of Ahmadinejad looks increasingly silly.
We don’t know the exact probability that Iranian dissidents can bring down such a tyrannical government, but we do know that they represent just about the world’s only chance to avoid a violent and catastrophic collision over the theocracy’s planned Islamic bomb — and their cause is just, and their objectives are far superior to the status quo.
While it might have been true by 2006 that Bush, due to his unpopularity in the region, was not an effective vocal advocate, this is Obama’s own expressed forte — the ability to appeal to those of different races, cultures, and religions abroad and encourage them to embrace a shared sense of human rights and freedom.
So what explains Obama’s meek and timid response to the events in Iran? A number of factors, chief among them the adoption of a new “realism” that cloaks itself in nonjudgmental multiculturalism and tends, whether by intent or not, to extend a degree of unwarranted authenticity to any particular thug on the basis of his past anti-Bush, anti-American credentials and the hope that a uniquely qualified Obama can deal with these otherwise unpalatable autocrats.
This is a pity, because right now the bravest enemies of the forces of theocratic autocracy are in the streets of Iranian cities.