Umm I don't know if YOU'VE been paying attention, but the police and Guardsmen have actually been remarkably restrained giving the repressive nature of the regime and the scale of the protests. Sure, there have been some incidents, but for the most part the protesters have been allowed to do their thing with minimal violence from the police.
I have been paying close attention. There are over a hundred confirmed dead (possibly more), thousands injured, and hundreds arrested. Regardless, the government is already accusing the U.S. of influencing the issue. If they were going to use us as a scapegoat to massacre the people they would have done so by now. Our president speaking out in support of the protesters isn't going to be the catalyst to spark mass murder by the government.
What I would like to point out is that the police and military are seeing scores of their leadership arrested because they are sympathetic to the protesters. Why is it that some police or military will open fire and kill protesters but others won't? Those that are using violence against the protesters are doing so on order from the government. It is my belief at this point that if the government ordered a move against the protesters it would be met with many instances of commanders and their troops refusing. Same with the police. The government isn't letting these massive protests happen because they want to, they don't have a choice.
If the Iranian regime believes that we are trying to overthrow it, it makes it difficult to negotiate with them. Why would you negotiate with someone who was trying to craft your downfall?
They Iranian regime has said we were trying to craft their downfall since they took power in 1979 Kandahar.
You mean a few random people who happen to use Twitter.
No that's not what I mean at all and I'm surprised that you would be so dismissive. Nobody knows for sure how many people in Iran are actually using twitter to get messages to the outside world, but estimates appear to be in the thousands. A few random people? If you want to disagree with me that's fine, but you don't need to be deliberately misleading about the situation.
Whether it's actually involvement is irrelevant. The establishment is looking for a pretext to clobber the protesters. This would provide them with one.
Well if it's irrelevant why did you say it?
As I stated earlier, the regime in Iran is already accusing us of being agitators and supporting this thing. They are already shooting, beating, and arresting people. Obama speaking out in support of this won't change what the regime does. They've already made the accusation loud and clear, what they haven't done is massacred the protesters yet.
No he shouldn't. Barack Obama is not omnipotent.
Yes he should, because he's not omnipotent nor is he the one thing that would trigger a massive Iranian crackdown. You are underestimating the situation in Iran and overestimating the impact of open U.S. support for the movement would have.
He can't make the protests succeed just by saying he is on their side.
I don't think anyone here ever said he could.
All he can do is piss people off.
Absolutely wrong. He can signal to the world that the U.S. government is a supportive friend to the Iranian people seeking Democracy in their country. He can avoid a future of looking like a President who didn't have an opinion on one of the most potentially game changing events in the modern middle east.
At best, the protesters succeed and nothing Obama says matters either way.
Wrong again. At best the protesters succeed and they view our nation and our government as having stood behind them in support without having tried to manipulate the outcome. A stark change from our historic stand on foreign policy in Iran. It would show the rest of the middle east that our intentions are sincere and we aren't simply singing "bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran" and seeking yet another military solution against a middle eastern nation.
At worst, the regime cracks down on the protests due to American involvement and negotiations on other issues go into the deep freeze once again.
Wrong, wrong, wrong. Either you are being deliberately argumentative with me or you don't really understand the situation in Iran right now. The regime will attempt to crack down on the protests whether or not Obama says a word. Obama speaking out in support of the democracy movement isn't "American involvement." Iran has already accused us of agitating and inflaming the protests, stated we are behind them, and condemned us for that. So your claim that "American involvement" might trigger a crackdown is a moot point, the accusation of "American involvement" has already been made.
And there were no meaningful negotiations with Iran before this event. None. The international community was in a constant state of concern because Iran was being deliberately obstinate and refusing to negotiate on anything. Show me what exactly we stand to lose at the negotiation table with Iran, please.