My letter would have been a bit more economical, while preserving the gist of what Kagan needs to hear.

Dear Mr. Kagan,

STFU.

Sincerely yours,

Lest we forget – and we should NEVER forget – conservative spokesman Oliver North was convicted by a jury of his peers for selling weapons to Iranian terrorists, who used them to kill civilians in the Gulf.

And, as a conservative bonus, using the funds from this illegal transfer to oppose the democratic movement in Nicaragua.

Sir your reply is well thought out and articulated and for my money it’s absolutely correct. No need to add more as you have said it all.

Thanks

Yes BHO can (appear to) do that.

How then to explain his State Department reaching out to Twitter and asking them to delay their scheduled maintenance, in order to allow the continued use of this technology that has proven so important to enabling communication within and out of Iran?

Yes Barrack H. Obama can (appear to) do that too.

Incredulously, we are beginning to appreciate who we voted into the presidency: Barrack can give soaring rhetoric in Cairo denouncing violence that kills innocent villagers – even as he dispatches troops, warplanes and drones that unleash violence that kills innocent villagers in Pakistan and Afghanistan.

A context is needed here. Barely a year ago, thousands of reform seekers in Kenya who demonstrated against an incumbent, a USA ally, who stole their victory were slaughtered by the police and para-military units.

USA’s Condo Rice soon declared ( !) that there would be NO re-count (and most of the disputed ballots soon disappeared) and NO re-run of the elections (and in the middle of the night, his cronies furtively swore our man in for another term as the ‘president’.)

The strident, democracy-peddling neo-cons in USA who had been so critical of the challenger were not bothered. No ‘condemnation’ and no ‘concern’ expressed.

We might be doing 500 covert things to aid the reformist “side” in Iran right now. I don’t know and neither does Kagan nor any of you.

The Twitter thing was an absolute masterstroke, and it seems like we are doing a number of things behind the scenes from a tech support angle. This is actual meaningful action.

But unless the right wingers see Mousavi pompoms on the hands of the President, they’re mad.

I miss having a sensible, realist Republican party made up of post-adolescents. I am sure I can remember such a thing existing.

the only thing the neocons and their friends are interested in with regard to iran is the country’s oil.

Kagan is a Neocon. Neocon’s are extremist. Game Theory teaches us that extremist on both sides will cooperate to undermine the moderates on both sides.

See, Univ. of Michigan Economist Robert Axelrod’s seminal work: “The Evolution of Cooperation” which simply and clearly explains Game Theory concepts.

Neocons need fearful arch enemies. Iran has been the faithful arch enemy of Israel and the United States. Suddenly, if a moderate Iran emerges, the Neocons reason to be evaporates, and their whole approach is completely undermined.

Here’s the Neocon nightmare that has suddenly emerged in just the last few weeks: Obama achieves through talk and diplomacy everything they attempted to achieve through war.

A month ago this was impossible to imagine. Then Obama gives a speech in Cairo, offering an open hand provided it’s not met by a closed fist. Then Lebanon votes pro-West. Then Israeli start walking back from the single state solution. Now the Iranian people are demonstrating in mass numbers against the policies of isolation.

Imagine the nightmares guys like Kagan are having at night. If, however, they can cajole Obama into siding with the protesters, then the regime can claim that the protesters are aiding American imperialism, giving them cover to squelch the protesters. Thank you Nicholi Machiavelli.

I’m not sure who’s more evil, the Islamist extremist in the Iranian government, or Kagan and his band of Neocons. Oh that’s right – they are the same thing: two sides of the same extremist coin. Here Kagan is trying to help the extremist by posing as being for the moderates.

What, exactly, should Obama do?

Todd,

I think the significant history that Matt, despite an excellent rebuttal, did not refer to is Obama being the first POTUS to acknowledge – in Cairo no less- America’s stupid interference in Iran’s fledgling democracy of 1953.

There’s Obama’s rub in how much to do and not to do. Which is where Matt’s comment,

Obama believes in practical steps to put the tools of freedom in the hands of the people themselves, and then creating the space for people to use those tools.

really hits the nail. Tools, not guns or other violent means.

I was wondering if Americans wanted to individually donate money to people who may be losing income due to the protests, so they can keep eating, whether the Iranian government could stop the deposits.

After a 56 year detour on Iran’s path to democracy,thanks to us, may Obama find the right path to help this time.

Passive and aggressive! How novel. Anyway, the case you laid out is nonsensical. Amping up the bellicosity does what, exactly, for the students? Builds morale? Moreover, it’s entirely possible and probable that the person who stands to benefit from this hypothetical and rhetorical pony speech (since you don’t want war) is a guy who, like the other guy, was in the Iranian Revolution in the first place. In other words, Mousouvi might not want our “help”, even if all that we could offer was a sternly-worded letter!

I understand your frustration. I remember Tienemen Square, but I also remember the Shiite Uprising in Gulf War I, when Bush’s empty exhortations to rise up against Saddam got thousands of people killed.

Ask yourself this: Is it about you? And since it’s not, ask what it IS about.

Yes, it is certainly true that this might turn out like Tiananmen Square in 1989, but to assume that America has any power to effect POSITIVELY the outcome of the current movement in the streets is to underestimate vastly the level of anti-Americanism in the region. There is one lesson that we never seem to be able to learn about the Middle East (and 1953 was a classic example of this). All that foreign interference accomplishes is to reinforce the idea that the Middle East (once seat of the vast, powerful, hugely influential Ottoman Empire) must now play second fiddle to the West. If reform in Iran is to succeed, the Iranians must seize it for themselves. Any other path to reform provides the reactionaries with a wedge.

Yes, it is certainly true that this might turn out like Tiananmen Square in 1989, but it sure as heck feels a lot more like East Berlin in 1989. Except in that case, America was still the City on a Hill that could inspire the revolution. We had not spent the previous 8 years squandering our moral authority in the world (or, in this case, the previous 60 years squandering our moral authority in the region.)

You ask “They don’t want us to say anything? How do you know that, exactly?”. Please point me to any public statement from Mousavi or his spokespeople requesting support from the U.S. president. And pointing out that Mousavi hasn’t not called on the U.S. to speak out about the Iranian elections doesn’t count.

Your mistake is that you think that what we do or say has anything to do with what the current regime will do or say for the sake of keeping its power and trying to declare the opposition illegitimate. That’s demonstrably not the case. They are already fully engaged in censorship, information control, and propaganda in whatever way they can do it. These are people that will say anything that they think is to their advantage.

I’m also astonished that you think even making a statement would “prove the Iranian pro-government thugs correct.” To whom? Not to you or anyone else here, I hope. This started completely without us. Most of Iran knows just what is going on here. That’s how this whole thing got started.

Look, what you’re saying isn’t crazy. On Saturday or Sunday, it may have been correct to be careful about rhetoric. But the ship has arguably sailed now. I’m not arguing for war. I am saying that there is a point where it’s appropriate for the U.S. to not even appear to be continuing to offer legitimacy to the current Iranian regime. I fear that the longer this goes on, the more it will look like Obama is doing just that with his restraint. And at the least, that doesn’t do anything to encourage the peaceful resistance over there.

But apparently most people here would rather insult me than try to consider that the situation has changed and is changing even now. Serves me right for trying to say anything serious and fair in a blog’s comments section, now I know how it is. So fine, I’ll leave you haters to your echo chamber and you can go on attacking your caricatures.

Just one thing to think about, though. Tiananmen Square did not just “take care of itself,” did it? Be careful with what you assume to be true.

The Iranian regime calls the shots. It kills its own. It tracks down dissenters who have fled other countries and kills them there.

So we’re back to battered partner syndrome. Placing a group of people who will kill to remain in power on equal footing with people want to have a peaceful power change through the ballot box (without killing) is siding with the Regime. Just as leaving a person in a home with a partner beaten to pulp is siding with the abuser under the guise of ‘being fair’.

The Regime has already arrested students for the crime of not wanting the Regime. How many Iranian student groups can you name have the money and resources to infiltrate the Council of Guardians and the Basji as the Guardians and Basji have the money and resources to infiltrate the student groups?

How many Iranian trade unions have access to the ballot boxes and can actually count the ballots? None, only the Regime.

How many Iranian middle class couples own prisons in which their enemies can be detained? None, Evin Prison is a tool of the Regime housing both detention and torture.

How many journalists are empowered to act as their own censor and publish what they see/hear/think as they see fit without the Regime’s blessing? None.

I have never understood the saying 50:50, one horse:one rabbit. And upon reading your article, I still don’t.

Don’t understand how a citizen in a country with free elections can shit on Iraq after holding its first free election since the Baathist coup, thanks to American explosives, either. But mindless snark is your First Amendment right and I stand with you against anyone who would take it away, despite laughing at your mindlessness.