Non comments can be construed as support for one side or the other. (For example, British and French silence at certain points during the Civil War was deemed to be tacit support for the Confederacy)

So because a non-comment can be misconstrued we should make comments that can be distorted. Good, clear thinking there.

By the way, British and French silence wasn't the problem in the Civil War, it was the open support of major industrialists and members of parliament in favor of King Cotton.

The threatened intervention of the Brits and French did nothing to help the Confederates but managed to irritate LIncoln.

. . . the alternative view that the United States doesn't care about Iranian aspirations.

I'll let Peggy Noonan respond:

To insist the American president, in the first days of the rebellion, insert the American government into the drama was shortsighted and mischievous. The ayatollahs were only too eager to demonize the demonstrators as mindless lackeys of the Great Satan Cowboy Uncle Sam, or whatever they call us this week. John McCain and others went quite crazy insisting President Obama declare whose side America was on, as if the world doesn't know whose side America is on. "In the cause of freedom, America cannot be neutral," said Rep. Mike Pence. Who says it's neutral?

This was Aggressive Political Solipsism at work: Always exploit events to show you love freedom more than the other guy, always make someone else's delicate drama your excuse for a thumping curtain speech.

But nobody's taken a poll, Alex, so nobody knows or has any "evidence" what the "majority of Iranians" thinks, least of all you.

Excellent idea, let's take a vote.

The reality is that the United States cannot be unengaged from this. For one thing, there is the Voice of America, the State Department action on twitter, and the Western media in general. There is the nearly unanimous House resolution today, condemning the unfair elections. Obama can't be silent; the media asks questions. Non comments can be construed as support for one side or the other. (For example, British and French silence at certain points during the Civil War was deemed to be tacit support for the Confederacy)

There are three possibilities here (in descending order of likelihood): Khamenei's choice of President prevails, Mousavi somehow prevails, or the regime is overthrown. The overthrow of the mullahs would be one of the most significant game changers in the Middle East in over a generation. Supporting such an outcome without prejudicing the more likely events, is difficult, but not impossible. (see first comment) Supporting abstract principles within Iran's own historical traditions is preferable to the alternative view that the United States doesn't care about Iranian aspirations.

But if, by what would admittedly be a long shot, Mousavi wins (or noting the Russian Revolution example noted in the main post, a third as yet unheard from party wins in a bloodless coup eight months from now), our silence will be taken as a quite accurate assessment of our commitment to freedom. And all we need to do - all they even want - is for the leader of the birthplace of modern democracy to take notice of their struggle.

Phil, do you have any evidence whatsoever that this is the opinion of the majority of the protesters in Iran? Because everything I've seen indicates that the Iranian protesters would prefer no involvement at all from the United States.

Try not to look at this through neo-con blinders.

But in actual point of fact, Obama has stated that there's no difference between Ahmadinejad and Mousavi.

If you're Mousavi does this make you sad or relieved? Answer: relieved. You think Moussavi wants Mr. Obama throwing his arms around him? Or do you think maybe Moussavi wants a nice wide distance between himself and the Great Satan?

Well, we have literally nothing to lose with the current regime.

It's not about the current regime. It's about cutting this revolution off at the knees. How in god's name would it help the protesters for us to publicly identify with them?

And all we need to do - all they even want - is for the leader of the birthplace of modern democracy to take notice of their struggle.

Show me any evidence that Moussavi or anyone else in the leadership of the protesters wants our help. I don't even see it in tweets. The last thing any of them want is us sticking our noses in.

Conservatives need to stop acting like children. This is a grown-up business. And your desire to take shots at Obama really ought to take a back seat to supporting the protesters in the streets.

The fact that the stated election results are a complete fraud is without doubt.

Yes, but that knowledge doesn't even tell us that Ahmedinijad didn't have the support of the majority, let alone that Mousavi did. If your position is that the will of the people should be followed, I agree with you. If your position is that Mousavi winning accomplishes that, then we disagree.

you have no real reason to believe that Mousavi got more than 50% of the vote either.

Nor have I made any claims about the election results. I will now: there is no way that tens of millions of hand-written ballots were counted and tabulated within mere hours of the polls closing. The fact that the stated election results are a complete fraud is without doubt.

But if, by what would admittedly be a long shot, Mousavi wins (or noting the Russian Revolution example noted in the main post, a third as yet unheard from party wins in a bloodless coup eight months from now), our silence will be taken as a quite accurate assessment of our commitment to freedom.

While I can agree with your sentiment, you have no real reason to believe that Mousavi got more than 50% of the vote either.

To the Iranian protestors, there's enough of a difference to die for. Obama's told them that they are fools for believing that. They've noticed.

So what good would it do to just say "Hey, quit beating those kids"? Well, we have literally nothing to lose with the current regime. As you've already noted, we have no leverage with them. We're unlikely to gain any by this shameful display. In fact, they have publically stated that we're behind the protests anyway. You might want to take a note of that - the US really does get the blame for just about everything that goes wrong, regardless of whether we had anything to do with it or not. So if Ahmadinejad wins, we're not in any worse position than we were before.

But if, by what would admittedly be a long shot, Mousavi wins (or noting the Russian Revolution example noted in the main post, a third as yet unheard from party wins in a bloodless coup eight months from now), our silence will be taken as a quite accurate assessment of our commitment to freedom. And all we need to do - all they even want - is for the leader of the birthplace of modern democracy to take notice of their struggle.

I give up, though. If you cannot see it, it's beyond my rhetorical capabilities to make you see it. I still say that has more to do with your vision than it does with the view.

it is painfully obvious that the leader of the goddam free world has a moral obligation to say "That shit right there? That really sucks."

Why? What good would it do, apart from making us feel good?

There's a wisdom in restraint here.

The United States can't make any credible threats against the regime. Any statements by Obama to the contrary would be empty and the regime knows that.

Alex, I actually agree with you here. I don't think Obama needs to take a stance on the outcome of the election. I wouldn't want him to make any threats. However, once the protests started (without our help, mind you) and the basiji started cracking heads, firing into unarmed crowds, and pulling students out of their beds and beating and even murdering them, it is painfully obvious that the leader of the goddam free world has a moral obligation to say "That shit right there? That really sucks." It costs us nothing to object to the brutality. Nothing. His failure to do so is moral cowardice, and the apologetics are also.