He could have been President

And Mousavi would be toast if President McCain had said that.

The 2003 protests in Iran were given a huge setback when Bush publicly backed them. I think Clinton made the same mistake in 1999. Suddenly what had been grassroots student protest movements were portrayed as foreign plots to take control of Iran. That change in perception made it a lot easier for the Mullahs to crack down.

People have to recognize that doing nothing is sometimes the best decision. George H.W. Bush made one of the best decisions in American foreign policy history in 1989/1990 when he chose to not get involved in the revolutions in Eastern Europe.

Ehem... Washington and London and Paris (and us Germans anyway) got overrolled and completely surprised by the speed at which Eastern-Germany collapsed. Especially London and Paris were sceptic about a united Germany, fearing the new political heavyweight on the European political scene, and being haunted by bad memories. Bush senior even asked Gorbatchow if in the GDR the russian could do somethign about it.

In case of Germany, Bush did not so much "decide" to do nothing - it went so fast that he was not given the chance to do something (from a German perspective: thank God for that), and Gorbatchev refused his proposal, like according to some theories he also refused any calls by the Eastgerman regime to help them. And later, washington and london and Paris tried to arrange himself as good as possible with the new world. One also has to say that Wahsington gave up these ressentiments sooner than London and Paris did, probably because it does not sit in Europe.

But that is one of the forgotten ironies of history - that Washington asked the Soviets if they could not help to delay and to stop German reunification. - Well, some things indeed better should be left forgotten, maybe.

I've learned not to argue with an Irishman, but I must differ with one anyway.

Senator John McCain made the correct responce compared to President Obama. As many of our past presidents that also spoke up for freedom.

"Let your yea be yea and your nay be nay"

Max, max don't be so quick to judge what the Iranians or any country would do just because America speaks up for what is right.

I'm not being quick to judge, I'm basing my assessment off of what has happened in the past. The events of 1999 and 2003 made it clear that overt American support for Iranian protesters would only hurt the protesters' cause.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8101841.stm

About the 2003 protests: "Because those protests were openly encouraged by the administration of the former US President George W Bush, reformist Iranian politicians had to shun them for fear of being dubbed traitors."

It has been interesting to see so many of the protesters placards are written
in English. Is English a common form of written language there or is it more
something that is done for international eyes?

I see your point. It's difficult to imagine that they were for domestic consumption.

It wasn't a point so much as a question.
It's not unimaginable that they where for 'domestic consumption'.

:) Yeah because you Brits protest in French all the time right?

Excellent point. Yep, these people are looking for moral support from Western governments, primarily the USA and the UK. A good start would be to call out Ayatollah Ali Khameini for what he is, and proclaim open support for the Iranian people who are looking to have their rights legitimized. Our President is leader of the free world, so there is no excuse for not proclaiming solidarity with these people. I was disappointed in his affirmation of "non-meddling". I also have to look at a silent SecState and Congress as well. Republican members of these bodies who have been silent as well. There truly is alot of blame to throw around.

Golden opportunities like these should be exploited and finessed.

This is Mr. Obama reverting back to his senate days and voting present.

Its not leadership but it isn't cowardice either, its just useless.

Yes, born from the illusion of assuming that if he changes language with Iran, they would become less determined and start playing ball during negotiations over their nuclear program.

Add Iraq and the constantly growing Iranian influence there, as predicted since long and now becoming obvious.

The hole policies on that region are a pile of smashed crockery. Saddam's foreign minister Asis said after he was arrested that the day will come when the West wishes Saddam would still be there. Well, I wish that since long indeed. Removing him maybe was as brillian tan idea as would be to remove Mubarak in Egypt.

It's all Britains fault apparently :hmmm:

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standa...hed/article.do

The American government expressing public support for the protestors would hurt them, and throw a really unneceessary spanner in the works. The US is unpopular in Iran, and associating the protesters with America would give Ahmedinijad a great plank with which to beat them.

Interesting piece on the usage of English in Teheran - http://www.slate.com/id/2220307/

What part of "American intervention would help Ahmadinejad" don't you understand?

Sometimes you have to do the policy that works, not the policy that sounds nice or scores you political points back home. Sometimes doing nothing is the best option. As Albright says, choosing to do nothing is a major choice in itself. Sometimes it's the best choice, as in this case.

Obama here is following the example of George H.W. Bush, who very wisely chose to not cheerlead the 1989 Eastern European revolutions.