Should Obama Support the Green Revolution? What do You Think?

A BUZZFLASH DISCUSSION

Although Iranian voters have been silenced by a brutal crackdown, Iran has spoken. The country's leaders say the status quo shall stand. So what, then, should the free world say in response?

As official numbers and whispered anecdotes slip surreptitiously from a locked-down Iran, it's becoming quite clear that the presidential election last Friday was stolen. Juan Cole, the president of the Global Americana Institute, has a long list of factors that point to proof of fraud in the Iranian election. Even those tasked with counting the votes at the Interior Ministry have been telling journalists that they were locked out of the process and that no count ever took place.

Crafting an answer to what is generally assumed to be an Iranian coup is not an easy task, especially for the United States. Ahmadinejad was quick to enter into the frame game, saying that the contesting of the election results originates with the West's desire to see him lose power in Iran. Meanwhile, uniting under the color of opposition candidate Mir Hossein Mousavi, the "Green Revolution" is taking hold across Iran and the Internet.

BuzzFlash editor Mark Karlin noted that the history of U.S.-Iranian interaction alone makes a hard-line reaction from President Obama to Friday's election nearly impossible:

If Barack Obama were to forcefully declare the election a likely fraud, the wily Ahmadinejad would use it as a cudgel to whip up lingering resentment over the years of the Shah's cruel rule and the 1953 CIA coup of a democratically elected government.

So President Obama is between the Shah and a hard place.

To make the situation more tenuous, conservatives are more than happy to criticize Obama for his taciturn response. Politico noted the fact that hawkish Republicans are already using this "opportunity" to attack the president on foreign policy ahead of 2012 elections:

"The election is a fraud," former Massachusetts governor and potential 2012 Obama rival Mitt Romney said on ABC's "This Week."

Romney, decrying a "brutal repression," called on Obama to make plain "that this has been a terribly managed decision by the autocratic regime in Iran. Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) similarly blasted Tehran and urged tougher talk from the administration.

"Through intimidation, violence, manipulation and outright fraud, the Iranian regime has once again made a mockery of democracy and confirmed its repressive and dictatorial character," Lieberman said.

The hawkish Democrat-turned-independent added: "I would hope that President Obama and members of both parties in Congress will speak out, loudly and clearly, about what is happening in Iran right now and unambiguously express their solidarity with the brave Iranians who went to the polls in the hope of change and who are now looking to the outside world for strength and support."

Conservative bloggers are also criticizing Obama's tepid response to what they view as Ahmadinejad's fraud, but it's unclear whether or not they are attacking just to attack.

It seems Obama is damned if he does and damned if he doesn't. What's a world leader to do?

The United States' chronic intervention into other countries' democratic elections (particularly Iran) is only one part of our past that makes it difficult to justify a tough response. We also don't have the best record of electoral fairness in our own recent past. Considering the spotty history of our own "free and fair" elections, does the U.S. have the right to point out flaws in other countries' processes?

It's nearly impossible to take a cue from others on the world stage. Radio Free Europe notes here that "international reaction has been notably restrained." The article also notes that while Western nations expressed concern about the crackdown on protesters, Iranian neighbors -- including Iraq, Pakistan, and Afghanistan -- all congratulated Ahmadinejad on his win.

Gunfire broke out at an opposition rally today in Tehran; members of a pro-government militia force reportedly killed at least one and seriously injured several others. Would condemnation from the West force a detente, or allow even more brutal beatings and crackdown on opposition protesters? Does such violence underscore the need for outside intervention or a cooling-off period?

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton hedged in her comments about the Iranian election from an event on the northern U.S. border, while Canadian officials took a more hard-line stance against Ahmadinejad's claim of victory. But without many hard facts, it's tough for the administration to sound more authoritative than Vice President Joe Biden was this Sunday when he expressed "real doubts" about the Iranian election, but said the administration would have to reserve judgment until more information is available.

Unfortunately, if more information about the election arrives from official sources in Iran, it will probably be tainted. Though Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has called for an investigation of voting irregularities by the country's Guardians Council, it is unlikely to result in a re-vote or overturning of election results. In fact, it's a widely held assumption that the investigation will be a whitewash that reasserts the the power of the Ayatollah, Ahmadinejad, the Revolutionary Guard, and Iran's mullahs. Should Obama wait 10 days for the results of an investigation that will likely not turn up anything?

Is the very act of ignoring such a clearly flawed electoral process a bastardization of our stated democratic ideals? Or is Obama exercising his pragmatism by trading the imposition of largely symbolic ideals for the possibility of engaging with Ahmadinejad on security issues in the near future?

Tell us what you think. If you were in Obama's shoes, what would you do? Join the conversation by commenting below.

A BUZZFLASH DISCUSSION

Image courtesy Shahram Sharif's photostream on Flickr.