We're All Neocons Now

As I noted in a tweet last night: "It's clear by now that neoconservatism has been vindicated by events in Iran."

Well, here comes James Taranto,"We're All Neocons Now":

Each day President Obama's blasé business-as-usual attitude toward Iran seems more out of touch with reality. Today's New York Times reports that the president "is coming under increased pressure from Republicans and other conservatives who say he should take a more visible stance in support of the protesters." But if you read on, it turns out "Republicans and other conservatives" are far from the only ones bothered by Obama's what-me-worry policy:

Even while supporting the president's approach, senior members of the administration, including Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, would like to strike a stronger tone in support of the protesters, administration officials said.

It sounds as though Biden and Mrs. Clinton are "supporting the president's approach" in only the most pro forma way. It is extraordinary that the two most senior administration officials apart from the president himself are airing their objection to his policies in this way.

True, the Times claims "other White House officials"--no names--"have counseled a more cautious approach." The argument these nameless and faceless officials make is that "harsh criticism of the government or endorsement of the protests could have the paradoxical effect of discrediting the protesters and making them seem as if they were led by Americans."

But who said the criticism had to be "harsh"? The trouble with Obama's comments is not that they are insufficiently belligerent in tone but that they are craven in substance. If the president spoke with clarity and firmness, his doing so calmly would be a plus.

Obama's insouciance does not seem to have appeased the Tehran regime:

So far, Mr. Obama has largely followed that script, criticizing violence against the protesters, but saying that he does not want to be seen as meddling in Iranian domestic politics.

Even so, the Iranian government on Wednesday accused American officials of "interventionist" statements.

Meanwhile, Obama has some of his liberal-left supporters sounding like frustrated neoconservatives:

Many Iran experts lauded Mr. Obama's measured stance just after the election. But some of that support evaporated on Tuesday when he said there was not much difference between Mr. Ahmadinejad and Mr. Moussavi.

"For Barack Obama, this was a serious misstep," said Steven Clemons, director of the American strategy program at the New America Foundation. "It's right for the administration to be cautious, but it's extremely bad for him to narrow the peephole into an area in which we're looking at what's happening just through the lens of the nuclear program."

Mr. Obama's comments deflated Mr. Moussavi, who is rapidly becoming a political icon in Iran, even supporters of Mr. Obama's Iran policy say.

"Up until now, the president had very thoughtfully calibrated his remarks on Iran, but this was an uncharacteristic and egregious error," said Karim Sadjadpour, an Iran expert with the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. "People are risking their lives and being slaughtered in the streets because they want fundamental change in the way Iran is governed. Our message to them shouldn't be that it doesn't make much difference to the United States."

The Times's own Roger Cohen has written a column almost every day this week in an apparent effort to atone for his months of shilling for the regime. He has a ways to go but is definitely making progress:

The Islamic Republic has lost legitimacy. It is fissured. It will not be the same again. It has always played on the ambiguity of its nature, a theocracy where people vote. For a whole new generation, there's no longer room for ambiguity.

President Obama has said not a single word in acknowledgment of this new reality--paralyzed, perhaps, by the fear that in speaking the truth, he would antagonize the regime with which he dreams of negotiating. He would do well to consider the advice of blogress Ann Althouse: "When you think of what you might lose if you do something, remember to take account of what you might lose if you don't do it."

What could Obama say? How about something along these lines:

We are all inspired by Iran's peaceful demonstrations, the likes of which have not been seen there in three decades. Our sympathies are with those Iranians who seek a more respectful, cooperative relationship with the world.

The author of these words: John Kerry *. It's not as good as it sounds, though. Kerry, in a New York Times op-ed, says these things as a prelude to saying that no one should say such things. Which just goes to show that even John Kerry realizes no one cares what John Kerry says.

But Barack Obama is president of the United States. People do care what he says, and it is past time that he did his duty and spoke the truth.

* The haughty Massachusetts Democrat who by the way served in Vietnam. We omit "French-looking" out of respect for the French. As The Wall Street Journal noted in an editorial yesterday, France's Nicolas Sarkozy has taken a firm stand where his American counterpart has fallen limp.

See also, Stephen Hayes, "John Kerry, Neocon."

Plus, see my post from yesterday, "It's Hard Out Here For Barack..."

More debate at Memeorandum.