If President Obama turns his back on Iran's uprising, said Bret Stephens in The Wall Street Journal, America will have blood on its hands. As "Holocaust denier and nuclear aspirant" Mahmoud Ahmadinejad steals a second term as Iran's president, reformists are being arrested as a sham recount looms, and "the possibility of an Iranian Tiananmen hangs in the air." Right now, U.S. support could be the protesters' only hope.
Meddling in Iranian politics would be a mistake, said David Ignatius in The Washington Post, because it "would give the mullahs the foreign enemy they need to discredit the reformers." Obama's best bet is to continue reaching out to the Muslim world, and let the millions of people there who "hunger for change" realize their dreams themselves.
Obama could lose either way, said Sue Pleming in Reuters. "Strong criticism could backfire, but a muted response leaves an impression of weakness." The controversial reelection of Iranian President Ahmadinejad has already strengthened the resolve of U.S. conservatives opposed to Obama's conciliatory foreign policy in the region—but if Obama stands up for the reformists and the ruling mullahs hold fast, the U.S. can forget about making progress in talks to contain Iran's nuclear program.
THE WEEK'S AUDIOPHILE PODCASTS: LISTEN SMARTER
- Why you shouldn't eat dog. Not even once.
- Why you should really take a nap this afternoon, according to science
- Why Israel can no longer let the Palestinian Authority be responsible for security in the West Bank
- How U.S. special forces are preparing for the worst-case scenario in North Korea
- Grammar quiz: Do you know the passive voice?
- How social conservatives became a minority in need of protection
- Here's the schedule very successful people follow every day
- What would a U.S.-Russia war look like?
- Why charity can't solve society's deepest problems
- Hey, Paul Ryan's new poverty plan isn't completely terrible!
Subscribe to the Week