What do you suggest Obama should have done in that situation?
- Bomb the infrastructure of Iran, which does more harm to the protesters than it does to the government?
- Bomb government buildings and start taking out government personal, which might prompt retributions against the protesters to prevent them from taking over in the subsequent power vacuum?
- Impose strict sanctions on imports into Iran, which again hurt the protesters more than they hurt the government?
- Invade with a sea, air, and ground presence having to remain to control Iran after the invasion, which might be a problem considering we're already involved in two other similar and costly wars/occupations?
- Make a bunch of empty promises to pledge active support for the protesters which we can't back up with actual actions right now both for diplomatic and logistical reasons?
Something else? Let's hear it.
At least state that he was in full support. Going to war would be a problem, yes--but covert aid might have worked. Given that a large part of the protesting was being driven by the Internet, I would have done everything I could to help the protesters get around government firewalls, blocks on social media, etc. That would give the protesters the continued ability to coordinate...not to mention that from a US perspective it would take a relatively low amount of resources and manpower to accomplish.
But at the VERY least, an unreserved statement of support could've helped galvanize the protesters somewhat, as it did in the Eastern Bloc when those regimes started to crumble (think of the protests led by Lech Walesa and Vaclav Havel). Would you have a guarantee of success? Goodness no. But it would've been a far cry better than the tepid response that we DID have.
Which goes back to what I was talking about when I said making "empty promises." Unless you're willing to go the whole nine yards to support a revolution or attempted coup d'état, which if we're being honest would be the goal of pledging "full support" to the protesters, making promises you can't keep because of a tenuous and shifting political situation can be dangerous.
In 1991 the Kurds and Shi'ites in Northwest and Southeast Iraq respectively were given the "full support" of the George HW Bush Administration through pledges by the CIA via radio in Saudi Arabia and press statements, so they started a fully-fledged uprising against Saddam, only to have us negotiate a cease fire after they started fighting that kept Saddam's government in power and allowed the Iraqi military to continue to fly armed helicopters within their borders. Not surprisingly, Saddam used his remaining power and those helicopters to brutally suppress the rebellions
we encouraged killing tens of thousands and making refugees out of millions as they had to flee to Turkey and Iran. But hey, at least a month after the uprisings were completely crushed we and the UN instituted a No Fly Zone over the North and South. Too little, too late for all the people we made empty promises to who ended up dead, wounded, or exiled.
Obama did about all you can do unless you're willing to pledge military support. He criticized the
crackdown on the protesters, and he stated
support for their cause without making promises we can't keep:
______________________________
Obama's remarks were similar to those given regarding clashes in the wake of Iran's disputed presidential election. Obama said Monday that those "unjustly detained" should be released and called on Iran to respect the rights of its people.
As he did over the summer, Obama made clear that the United States' support for the protesters is in spirit and that he considers the unrest to be an internal issue that will work itself out for the better.
"What's taking place within Iran is not about the United States or any other country. It's about the Iranian people and their aspirations for justice and a better life for themselves," Obama said. "We will continue to bear witness to the extraordinary events that are taking place there. And I'm confident that history will be on the side of those who seek justice."
______________________________
As far as the other things go, how do you know the CIA is not attacking Iran's internet infrastructure with the goal of assisting the protesters in communicating with one another and the world at large? What, do you think they just announce that stuff in a press conference for everyone to find out? I'm sure they have assisted them a great deal. There's nothing the CIA loves more than futzing around in Iran, and there's the added benefit of developing HumInt resources in-country amongst the protesters to report on Iran's nuclear program and support of terrorist groups.
It's a much more complicated situation than your simplistic "pledge
full support to the protesters" comment gives it credit for. We have to walk a thin line between supporting the protesters (which we do, just not enough to go to war for at the moment) and realizing that at the end of the day the Ahmadinejad regime is who we're most likely going to have to continue dealing with for the near future, so we can't afford to completely alienate them either or else we'll get shut out completely on nuclear non-proliferation talks or inspections.