encouragment without being a busybody. Tough to do.

GHW Bush (41) encouraged he iraqi's but then failed to provide military support.

Reality is there is little the US can materially do, even if there was an argument that they SHOULD.

But I agree it needs to avoid accepting the inevitability message the Iranian regime would like to send. But thats up to the Iranian people. US words didnt stop the crackdwn in Burma.

How do you encourage while recognizing "the reality" that you cant back those words up with anything unless the Iranian people are successful…..

Ah yeah, there is simply nothing better for Obama to do at the moment than to reinforce long-standing Iranian suspicions that the US can't resist meddling in their internal affairs. That's sure to tip the balance in Mousavi's favour.

This site's "Need to Know" sidebar links to a fascinating article proposing that Ahmadinejad may very well have won the election, following an analysis of the relevant polls. Would it be impertinent to request an objective determination of malfeasance before joining in the righteous outrage?

Methinks the American narrative of this election is going to be, "Since some of the losers are rioting, the election could not possibly have been legitimate", a logical contortion reminiscent of the Latin American component of the Reagan Doctrine.

Here are a few links to stories which show anomalies in the election results. High turnout is also normally an indicator of change rather than confirming the incumbent. But we will never know for sure, as international observers were excluded from the process as well as the scrutineers of the presidential candidates.

And closer to home, Dubya won his first term questionably, with no rioting, so your point is well taken.

Seems pretty clear that it wasnt done according to even their own rules……although to argue against my own point, their rules are that the Supreme Leader chooses the results.

As hitchens says, you really shouldnt be calling it an election since you have to be "approved" before you can run.

So it comes down to that more slippery concept of "legitimacy". The longer the protests go on, the less legitimate Ahmadinejad is. The faster the council gets a lid on it then they will muddle through for a litle while longer, but having to rely more than they already do on fear and force.

It may yet turn ugly, it may turn out to be more dramatic than expected. But the Mullahs fall back position is to let Mouzai (sp?) in to the existing system. The longer they hold out without effect on the riots the more likely they'll be a change of system, but that is the faintest hope at this stage.

"And yes, if he jams his nose too far into Iran’s business he risks weakening the popular uprising by sapping its legitimacy."

Don't agree with this. Other than the liberal chattering class in the West, who else would think the uprising was illegitimate if the dissidents were to receive moral, monetary and materiel help from abroad. If the dissidents ever do manage to overthrow the mad mullahs, no one will give a monkey's if they received some help from foreigners.

And I was not impressed with Obama's statement but no surprise there, really. At the very least, Obama should be the dissidents biggest cheerleader but the first thing out of his mouth was talk of Iran sovereignty. Pathetic.