No, Obama did the right thing in mostly keeping his mouth shut about Iran.
While Tom probably doesn't care about this, the Iranian people have no interest whatever in being the next Iraq. It would have taken American invasion (which we do not, at present, have the boots available to put on the ground for) to stop the Revolutionary Guards from squashing the Green Revolution. As for the propaganda angle, Tom put it pretty succinctly; there's no way to win that one. In fact, propaganda didn't matter in the Iranian protests, since the anti-regime people are students, intellectuals and the Arab street, not Berber tribes like in Libya or militias like in Yemen; they're good for sparking a Velvet Revolution, but not a violent insurgency, and a Velvet Revolution only works if the armed forces hold their fire.
If our forces weren't already committed and our public's willingness to fight wars and our credibility with the Arab street essentially spent over the preceding eight years, we might have been able to send in intervention forces to protect the protestors, but there's no way we could have done that in 2009 as it happened.
Iran is not Arab.
Also, propaganda did matter in this, because its one thing to kill a few demonstrators as part of anti-riot actions, but the regime did not have enough public support to go on a total rampage a la Syria against the people...unless they had undeniable proof that they were American backed and thus could be spun as foreign usurpers rather than legit protesters. The Green Movement in Iran is still extant now BECAUSE they had no American public support. Yeah sure, Iran would have said as much regardless, but the Iranians aren't hermits and could easily doublecheck via satellite tv (which are nigh impossible to censor by the government), which are ubiquitous in Iranians households. If the Americans had backed the protestors (American backing in Iran is looked down VERY badly for historical reasons, nevermind the regime's anti-Americanism), most of he population would have turned against them. As it was, without said American support, a little over half of the population supports the movement.
Plausible deniability: the age-old Holy Grail of international politics...
So sought after, and yet, never found...
"Why no, Iranian Government, we didn't give your angry rioting revolutionaries weapons!"
"Really, then why are they currently blowing up our tanks with rockets and shooting our soldiers with guns that they shouldn't have?"
"Uh... China did it."
I am now known as Flyboy.
The world has plenty of gun runners: Protests can turn into a bonafide insurgency if they get access to good arms dealers and a line of credit... Especially when the protesters are being shot at and presumably want to shoot back very badly.
edited 9th Oct '11 3:00:36 PM by SavageHeathen
You exist because we allow it and you will end because we demand it.Getting them the weapons is trivial, in the grand scheme of things.
Doing it without getting caught, on the other hand... is not.
I am now known as Flyboy.If I had to set up such an op, I'd probably make a straw company, buy a bazillion late Soviet guns and explosives for pennies on the dollar, and funnel them into Iran, ostensibly through gun runners in, say, Azerbaijan, which shares a nice border with Iran. Y'know, give these kids as many AK 74 Ms, bullpup Dragunovs, PK machineguns and RPG 29s as they fancy.
It'd cost a pretty penny, but knowing that Turban Haji and Dinner Jacket are going to get shot at with RPG fire whenever they rear their ugly heads out of their bunkers would make it worth the cost.
edited 9th Oct '11 3:07:42 PM by SavageHeathen
You exist because we allow it and you will end because we demand it.A straw company that DEFINETLY wouldn't get found out? And that the gun runners WOULDN@T know who they were really working for at any level? And the huge costs involved? Or the supply situation, or if you accidentally end up replacing the Supreme leader with a power mad autocrat who doesn't know where all these guns are from and decides to invade everyone surrounding him?
Or that it might fail because the revolutionary gaurd are better equipped and so you've effectivly sent the entirety of Iran's kids who might have wanted change to an early grave?
No, I really don't think the Green movement would benefit from American involvement at all. The same people rallying against Ahmadinejad at the time, are also vehemently anti-US over perceived slights against their country (not the least of which being American forces encroaching or passing through Iranian territory without permission). Try to talk to some of those guys, the last thing they'd want is American assistance.
And yet that he produces these "pretty words" as you call them instead of belligerent rantings is already a distinct difference from his predecessor. Token or not, motions towards rapprochement are still progress of a sort.
A primary concern of Iran these days is a heavily-damaged economy, coupled with a large educated portion of the populace. Such concerns threaten Revolutionary hold on government power. Therefore, change to a different, less hostile status quo is ideal.
"He could not know it. For it was not all a joke."The Rouhani:Ahmadinejad::Obama:Bush parallel explains a lot, really.
Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.

Let me put it in simple terms you can understand: American support = Iranian regime propaganda victory. Because support was not given, it took the regime a longer time to shut down the initial protests and with that, the Dinner Jacket used up his favors with Khamanaei, who he is now at loggerheads with.
There are times when intervention is necessary and there are times when its Leeroy Jenkins idiocy. Sure, WE wouldn't get hurt by it, but the Iranians would have suffered far worse than they did.