Now, it's not productive, given the history of the U.S.-Iranian relations, to be seen as meddling -- the U.S. President meddling in Iranian elections.
Most of the time, President Obama's moral equivalence is just another irritating manifestation of his far left mindset. That attitude becomes detrimental and dangerous when it collides with the reality of oppressive tyranny. Obama calls the situation in Iran, "troubling". It's not troubling. It's exciting and inspiring. More than that, it's a potentially unprecedented opportunity to significantly alter the world for the better. (Remember - "change"?) Obama's feeble response to the uprising risks squandering this opportunity. It didn't even have the desired effect on the leaders of Iran's thugocracy which accused the U.S. of meddling in its affairs anyway.
The events in Iran are troubling for Obama because they throw a roadblock into his vision of being the one to reestablish diplomatic relations with the regime after 30 years. For Obama talking is an end in itself. As long as we're "engaged" with our enemies the world is a better place even as it gets more dangerous.
What Obama and the rest of the liberal left don't understand is that the fundamental creed of America - life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness - is it’s most powerful resource. Just as we provide material assistance to regions struck by natural disasters, we should provide spiritual encouragement to those peoples seeking to emulate and adopt our ideology. We have a moral obligation to do so.
The regressive regimes clinging to their tenuous hold on power, fear the greater power of our message. (Just as they sometimes fear our material assistance - remember how the ruling junta in Myanmar rejected U.S. aid after the earthquake there last year, believing it would undermine their authority). Ronald Reagan understood this when he called the Soviet Union an evil empire and when he demanded that Gorbachev tear down the Berlin wall. Those statements gave hope to enslaved millions behind the iron curtain that they weren't alone in their struggle for freedom.
Instead on Iran, we get statements like this by one of Obama’s spokesmen made just after the “election” results were announced and before the protests began. An expression of relief that the despotic status quo remained in place.
Had there been a transition to a new government, a new president wouldn't have emerged until August. In some respects, this might allow Iran to engage the international community quicker.
Ah yes. That is the goal. Allowing the Iranian dictatorship – the one that oppresses women, gays, non-Muslims and minorities; executes adulterers and rape victims; the one that’s been developing nuclear weapons to threaten its neighbors and annihilate Israel ; the one that’s been engaged in diplomacy with Europe for years with no result except to buy time for the mullahs strategy of regional domination - the goal is to “engage the international community”.
Incidentally, it's unreasonable to assume, isn't it, that the Iranians' newfound freedom demanding boldness has anything to do with the burgeoning Democracy next door in Iraq.