Easy to Criticize

What would the Republicans do?

Much of the GOP is having a fine time deriding President Obama's cautious response to the massive street demonstrations in Iran. Why, they ask, isn't he siding with the protesters against the repressive Ahmadinejad regime?

Maybe they're right. But the president doesn't have the luxury of engaging in empty rhetoric. He has to thread the diplomatic needle in a difficult situation.

If the dissenters had a serious shot at toppling the government, the situation might be different. But it's likely that Obama will have to continue dealing with the Holocaust-denying leader, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who is pushing Iran's nuclear program. And besides, the true power in Tehran lies not with Ahmadinejad but with the mullahs.

These calculations are complicated, however, and don't lend themselves to an eight-second sound bite. There's no easy opening for the equivalent of "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall."

Democrats, of course, took plenty of free shots during the Bush years, demanding, for example, that Gitmo be closed. Turns out that's harder than it looks.

Iran has been a thorn in our side since its government sanctioned the outrageous and lawless capture of American diplomats in 1979. Every president since Jimmy Carter has had difficulties with its theocratic government. George W. Bush's axis-of-evil approach undoubtedly made Iran's critics feel good, but it did nothing to stop the march of its nuclear development. America is not about to send in the troops. We tried that next door in Iraq, and still have 130,000 troops there. John McCain may jokingly sing about Bomb Bomb Iran, but that option isn't on the table.

It's one thing for the United States to throw its weight behind pro-democracy forces when another country uses military force -- Iraq in Kuwait, the Soviet Union in Eastern Europe, the Baltics and Afghanistan. It is trickier when the matter at hand is one country's election, arguably fraudulent though it is.

Is Obama's passivity helping Ahmadinejad? Or is this a political and cultural phenomenon that must be resolved by the Iranians themselves?

What, exactly, would the Republicans do beyond cheering on the protesters?

"Iran is in chaos -- and so is the usually well-oiled Republican message on foreign policy as the party struggles to find its voice on this pivotal world event," Politico reports.

"Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), a member of the Armed Services Committee, told POLITICO that the situation in Iran 'clearly deserves a more forceful response' from President Barack Obama. Yet Sen. Mel Martinez (R-Fla.), when asked if Obama should be more forceful on Iran, answered: 'Absolutely not.'