Whew. I have a lot to respond to (and not much time), so forgive me if I sound more terse than usual.

I do not have any friends from Iran. I do however have a friendly acquaintance with an exchange student from Venezuela, who I have talked politics with a couple of times. She informs me that everybody she knows hates Chavez, and that he has very little popular support.

These claims, be they about Venezuela, China, or Iran, remind me of Arthur Miller’s lament in 2004, “‘How can the polls be neck and neck when I don’t know one Bush supporter?’

They are cases of anecdotal evidence, and when extrapolated to a nation as a whole rarely hold true. In the VZ case, both the recent (popularly decided) Venezuelan constitutional revisions and public opinion poll results lead to the conclusion that there are plenty of Venezuelans who love Chavez.

While I may be overstepping my authority, I think a similar dynamic can be seen in Iran. George Friedman stated much of my thoughts on the 15th:

” Americans and Europeans have been misreading Iran for 30 years. Even after the shah fell, the myth has survived that a mass movement of people exists demanding liberalization — a movement that if encouraged by the West eventually would form a majority and rule the country. We call this outlook “iPod liberalism,” the idea that anyone who listens to rock ‘n’ roll on an iPod, writes blogs and knows what it means to Twitter must be an enthusiastic supporter of Western liberalism. Even more significantly, this outlook fails to recognize that iPod owners represent a small minority in Iran — a country that is poor, pious and content on the whole with the revolution forged 30 years ago.

There are undoubtedly people who want to liberalize the Iranian regime. They are to be found among the professional classes in Tehran, as well as among students. Many speak English, making them accessible to the touring journalists, diplomats and intelligence people who pass through. They are the ones who can speak to Westerners, and they are the ones willing to speak to Westerners. And these people give Westerners a wildly distorted view of Iran. They can create the impression that a fantastic liberalization is at hand — but not when you realize that iPod-owning Anglophones are not exactly the majority in Iran.”

He exaggerates the point a bit, but he is right. The majority of Iranians – the rural base that supports Ahmadinejad – are fine with the regime. That most statisticians who have crunched the numbers think Ahmadinejad won the election despite Khomeni’s fudging of the totals is a testament to this. That these great protests and riots are only happening in a few of Iran’s larger cities is a testament to this. There is no reason to believe that the silent majority is ready to jump into the streets and overthrow the government.

[As an aside, before I move onto other points: BR is correct with his Am. Revolution proportions. However, matters are quite a bit more complex than this- I am reminded of Joseph Ellis’ wonderful book, American Creation and his chapter on the winter GW and co. spent in Valley Forge. Ellis remarks how strange it was for American troops to be starving in what was then the most agriculturally productive area in the colonies, and further outlines how Washington was able to turn the tactical and logistical nightmares of working in the region to his benefit. Ellis notes that the key to Washington’s success was wooing over and providing security for the farmers and merchants who lived in the region, the undecided folk who called themselves neither Loyalist nor Patriot. Without gaming their support, GW’s campaign would have dissolved. The undecided’s can decide a lot.]

Thus we are left back where we started. What can the West do to help the anti-regime movement grow?
I remained unconvinced that an American statement of unequivocal support for the protestors would do any good.

To be sure, most Iranians are not anti-American. But then again, most people in the Middle East are not. I am reminded of Michael Totten’s piece for Commentary magazine, where he questions a HuffPo writer’s assertion that Syria is not “a hotbed of anti-Americanism” because of the Syrian people’s personal warmth towards herself and other American tourists. No, one can feel fine towards Americans and still view America as a bullying, self-interested, imperializing power.

That the Iranian government has already started to blame America for “meddling” reinforces this point. The best the Iranians have is “The Swiss say the Americans say”, but they are running with it anyway. That is the thing I think a few of you around here seem to miss. Third world leaders do not blame problems on America because they cannot think of a better excuse- they blame problems on America because it works. The narrative of the evil America is a potent and credible one. How much more potent and credible would it be if Obama had undeniably been interjecting America into an Iranian crisis?

Jk, there is always a target audience. Reagan always knew who is target audience was and how his words would be interpreted by them- it is why he is called the Great Communicator. This is not useless PR spin. Grandiose speeches are fine and all, but if they hurt the cause of liberty more than they help it, then they are not worth it.

I have already outlined the some of the bad affects of such statements. You have proposed some good ones. Here are the problems I have with accepting your case:

1. Nothing Obama could say would be credible. You talk about tin pot dictators- do we include Egypt and Saudi in this group as well? We have clashed on this issue before, and I hate to drag you into it again, but it matters. America cannot be seen as anything but a meddling bully when she pulls a fit over the Grand Council’s harsh tactics but does not condemn those of Mubarak, or when she supports the election of Musuavi but will not do the same for Hamas. To those in the Middle East –those tin pot dictators and those on the Arab/Persian street – American statements of moral absolutes ring hollow; “speaking up for freedom” is seen as speaking up for American interests. And you know, I can’t blame them! We are awful selective in our support for freedom. Why should they think that we are standing up for freedom, instead of trying to destabilize a regional annoyance? What statement could Obama give to dispel this illusion?