quick thoughts on Obama's response to Iran

So my attention has shifted from the always maddening task of trying to understand the Republican party to the absolute craziness in Iran lately. While i was sheepish about my twitter account (http://twitter.com/dbayne) initially, i've been feverishly checking it for all things related to the Iranian election.

However, the Republican-Obama struggle of course has to continue even in this. From Senators like Mccain to the usual talking head rabble of Hannity et al, the criticism has been largely the same -- this President is not taking a "strong enough" stand. At last, we get to see the "naivete" of this "timid" president -- at least thats the message i'm getting.

Question: At what point did we equate diplomacy with timidity? Brilliant men and women have spent centuries analyzing international systems, diplomacy, stratagem. The result? There is no silver bullet, no "easy button" for international relations. I'm still muddling through Kissinger's "Diplomacy" so i dont have a full analysis to present yet -- but the one thing that seems to be consistently pushed is the idea that a complicated world requires complicated strategy.

I was not an Obama supporter during the election - but I welcomed an administration that took a nuanced, thoughtful approach to international politics. It would appear that Congressional republicans and conservative pundits would have us see the world in black and white; the W. Bush Motif of "With us or against us."

We no longer live in a bipolar world. It is not Democracy vs. Communism; U.S. vs. USSR; Warsaw Pact vs. NATO. Logic says we can't continue to implement policies that are based on this premise. There are a few states in the world where the line can be more cleanly or easily drawn - N. Korea, Sudan... but particularly in the Middle East, American diplomacy can not afford to be simply "us vs. them."

As it relates to the ongoing situation in iran ... I think President Obama's approach has been more than appropriate thus far. In our attempts at dealing with a bipolar world, we have played King-maker too often... and too often have paid for the results dearly (post-Shah Iran, Cold War-era Cuba, 1980s Afghanistan... the list can go on). While I am not accusing conservatives of advocating for the U.S. to send physical resources to the Iranian opposition --- what they are calling for would have similar damaging results. Neither our country, nor the Iranian opposition, can ill-afford for this simmering revolution to become a "USA vs the Ruling Party of Iran" contest. Right now, if the Ayatollah and Ahmadinejad, can effectively link official American support with the opposition --- all will be lost for the opposition. This is not to say that there may not come a point down the road where the American government needs to send a sterner or more direct message. But for right now, we need to make sure that this remains the Iranian People's struggle. It is their election that has been rigged. Their candidates who have been robbed. Their political future hijacked. Moussavi isn't asking for American intervention. The hundreds of protesters in Tehran and across the various universities aren't begging for America to play its role as the world's Sherriff. There are plenty of ways we as a nation can continue to show our support --- and i think that Obama's measured response so far has been a responsible one.