What Obama should have said

Unfortunately, Reagan's words did little back then to affect the situation. The United States had little power to influence the result then as now. I don't have any problem with Obama's lack of verbal thrust into this event. I do believe it is better that the force look like it comes from within Iran (which it is) and not from outside.

As much as Solidarity lost the particular battle that President Regan was speaking about, they were able to ultimately win the war. I might add that the Catholic Church had a much more powerful effect on the fall of Poland than any US policy at the time.

The Iranian culture is also a very different animal than Polish culture was. I hope and pray they are able to win this battle. However, I am of the opinion that, since there is little to nothing we can do, it is best to keep our comments muted because loud saber rattling only reinforces the wag-the-dog effect for the Iranian government. I hope I am wrong, but I expect much the same result as Solidarity got in 1981. The power dynamics in Iran really lend themselves to a violent crackdown after the "recount", that was simply to buy time, comes back with changes in the results that do not change the election. Once that is released, I expect any protests will be dealt with swiftly and harshly. The tactics being used are right out of Hugo Chavez's playbook. Rally the poor against the elite and middle class.

statements, although there is a case to be made about the tone. In short: stronger. Unlike Mirengoff, I find no reason to question whether he cares, but Obama has always been low-key, and not much for outrage. The thing is, what happened in Iran was an outrage, so yeah--I'd like his rhetoric to be a bit stronger.

ADDED: And keep in mind, as Jim points out, it's important not to appear to be meddling in this situation, as not to undermine the organic protests on the streets, although the Iranian leadership is already trying to accuse us of meddling anyway.