In fairness, I'm not sure what people expect him to do in terms of "being tougher".

I would say that was a failure of imagination. There are a host of measures that could be taken to assist the people and frustrate the regime, up to and including military assistance.

But the problem is that this administration never wanted to help the people. And that's the God's honest truth. They've seen this entire uprising as an impediment and a hindrance to the establishment of a relationship with the mullahs. Their idea is to "engage" the mullahs, even if that "engagement" will lead nowhere, and solve nothing.

This entire administration is junior varsity and can't handle prime time.

The P Conference was a failure. Obama basically said--when pressed by Major Garrett--that he we will continue to sit and watch. What he could do is what statesman from Webster to Reagan have done--support freedom. He continues to punt the football on that score and is the most timid president since Carter graced our presence.

To John M: If this is truly a Rhetorical Presidency, then rhetoric goes a long way to bolstering courage and thumos (in the heart and mind of the freedom fighters). Obama has failed not only to support the Iranian freedom fighter resolve, but express the idea of America. Shameful.

Our government elite does not want liberty there and they are doing what they can to end it here. Between the planted questions and infomercials it is just laughable. I did hear a talk radio host say today that America liberated poland through rhetoric. I think that poland liberated poland and our rhetoric helped, it would be nice to follow that model in this case, and promote liberty and save ourselves from having another war all in one swoop. The money bribing washington though would probably be against both those things so we will get evaision, mainly because this puppet appears to be more vain than the previous one.

Obama's real instincts were revealed in the first few days. In a word: State Department. In a word: Lousy.

If this is truly a Rhetorical Presidency, then rhetoric goes a long way to bolstering courage and thumos (in the heart and mind of the freedom fighters).

There are no "freedom fighters". There are only different Islamic factions. And it is far from obvious that the ones the neocons are cheering on are any better than the ones in power.

John M: I cannot believe you are serious. Iran is a complicated country. If you doubt there are those who desire freedom in Iran, it might help if you peruse their manifesto released early this week.

BTW, what is a faction?

We're all fighting a losing battle. This government is running roughshod over the people and no one is doing anything about it.

The reason it is that way is because there is no one strong enough to fight Obama. The Republicans in office are about as weak-kneed as a kindergarten class and our conservatives keep fighting among themselves to see which faction is going to get their programs and people in the limelight. They don't want to fight the liberals so they just sit back and let the inept Republicans and RINO's do all the talking.

Obama has the power, the entire government and lots of Islamic help if he needs it. Kiss America goodbye. Even the so-called "Blue Dog Democrats" won't help to stop him.

I cannot believe you are serious

I cannot believe you are paying attention to the news out of Iran. Where are these pro-Western reformers?

John M, your head is up your ass. Take it out before you make a complete fool of yourself.

John M is right. There's no point playing favorites where Arabs are concerned. A moderate Arab is one that's out of ammo at the moment. And reloading.

It's always tempting to believe that things as are you'd wish them to be, rather than as they are. Neocons seem to be unusually prone to this failing.

If anyone wants to know what will happen with Iran here is Brookings analysis paper, all 150 pages

Hot off the press

here are some highlights:

Regarding the question of international support for an US invasion of the Islamic Republic, the Brookings people lament:

it is not impossible that Tehran might take some action that would justify an American invasion. And it is certainly the case that if Washington sought such a provocation, it could take actions that might make it more likely that Tehran would do so (although being too obvious about this could nullify the provocation). However, since it would be up to Iran to make the provocation move (…), the United States would never know for sure when it would get the requisite Iranian provocation. In fact, it might never come at all

any military operation against Iran will likely be very unpopular around the world and require the proper international context (…) The best way to minimize international opprobrium and maximize support (however, grudging or covert) is to strike only when there is a widespread conviction that the Iranians were given but then rejected a superb offer- one so good that only a regime determined to acquire nuclear weapons and acquire them for the wrong reasons would turn it down. Under those circumstances, the United States (or Israel) could portray its operations as taken in sorrow, not anger, and at least some in the international community would conclude that the Iranians “brought it on themselves” by refusing a very good deal.’

Other countries also will want payoffs from the United States in return for their assistance on Iran. Such deals may be distasteful, but many will be unavoidable if the Persuasion approach is to have a reasonable chance of succeeding.’ And further on: ‘To be successful, a Persuasion approach would invariably require unpleasant compromises with third-party countries to secure their cooperation against Iran.’

The core concept lying at the heart of this option would be for the United States to identify one or more Iranian opposition groups and support them as it did other insurgencies in Afghanistan, Nicaragua, Kurdistan, Angola, and dozens of other locales since the Second World War. The United States would provide arms, money, training, and organizational assistance to help the groups develop and extend their reach. U.S. media and propaganda outlets could highlight group grievances and showcase rival leaders.

Yikes.