judgment

John McCain has been criticizing Obama for not "showing enough support for fair elections in Iran." Obama has been cautious on Iran - since the election last week, he is not said much and what he said has been marked with extreme caution. This is the wisest position.

Regardless of whether the election was fair or rigged, there is little the United States can do to change the outcome. Regardless of whether it was fair or rigged, the people protesting in the street is something we want to encourage - an Iran that is more responsive to the people. For decades, Iran has been run by an unaccountable cleric and the board he appoints. Meanwhile, the Iranians themselves tend to be among the most educated (some 80% literacy) and pro-western people in the Middle East.

The question is how to the U.S. can encourage the greater democratization of Iran. As soon as the U.S. government begins speaking out in support of the protesters, the Iranian power structure will use those words to say that protesters are tools of the American-Zionest-anti-Muslim global conspiracy to bring down Iran. This would be the worst scenario - something that I assume Obama has recognized.

Historically, many politicians have cared more about posturing for freedom than strategizing for freedom. One of the most counter-productive U.S. policies vs. Iraq prior to the 2003 Iraq War was a package of some $90 million to support those trying to overthrow Saddam Hussein. While it made sense for the U.S. to materially support the overthrow of Hussein, Congress and President Clinton chose to make it very public. This allowed Hussein even greater opportunities not just to continue killing dissidents, but to now justify it by claiming dissidents were paid spies by the American-Zionest-Western conspiracy. Notice a pattern?

A better policy would have been to secretly support the anti-Hussein forces ... if only the CIA were not historically so prone to get caught, thus running the risk once again, of de-legitimizing support.

But probably the worst policy is for American politicians to speak up, which will damage the movement on the streets in Iran.

McCain was also wrong in his preferred Iran policy - refusing to talk with them at high levels. Arguably, Obama's policy of reaching out to Iran has encouraged more people to protest their government. When any people sense an external threat, they tend to pull together and ignore their local differences to defeat the external threat. By ratcheting down the perceived threat of the U.S. toward Iran, we give their reformers more freedom to act.

This is not always true. Sometimes pro-open society forces need to speak up in order to give heart to reformers. There are times when criticizing a harsh regime is the best course, if one can successfully de-legitimize it in the eyes of more people. None of this is easy, that is why we need a President with good judgment.

Consider this McCain quote:

the fact is we should be on the side of a free and fair election, and not be in favor of an oppressive brutal government.

Perhaps McCain is too caught up in the excitement of seeing Iran transition to a more open society, but the "reform" candidate was not exactly going to change Iran significantly (the protests in the streets are far more important than any policies the reform candidate would have encouraged). Nearly all the power in Iran remains vested in unaccountable clerics.

The fact is, we should be on the side of an intelligent policy that help Iran become more open, not a policy of pro-freedom posturing that actually slows down the forces of openness in Iran.