I feel like it’s worth noting that all throughout the 2008 campaign, the line that conservatives had against Obama is that he was just “pretty words.” A good speaker who can “inspire with words” (according to Sarah Palin) but can’t back them up with deeds or experience.
Now, during the Iranian protests, it appears that the most common complaint about Obama is that he hasn’t “spoken forcefully enough” to the point where many conservatives are echoing this claim of Melanie Phillips:
What a disgrace that this man is leader of the free world; and at such a point in history. If he had put America stoutly behind the protesters and championed them against the regime, by now they might have toppled it.
Yes, you’ve got that right. During the campaign, Obama’s rhetorical skills were meaningless and couldn’t accomplish anything. But when it comes to Iran, Obama is such a compelling speaker that if he just said the right things, the protesters would magically become bullet and club proof and topple Khameni once and for all!
In 1989, the neocons wanted Bush Sr. to speak out (or act) forcefully in support of the uprisings in Eastern Europe. Bush did not want to give the Communist hardliners any reason to blame US intervention for the uprisings and use that as an excuse to call in the tanks.
Iran is a similar situation. If the mullahs can paint the protests as American meddling, they have an excuse to use deadly force (even more than now). Obama is correct in choosing his words carefully.