Taking issue with an argument of Michael Walzer's on Friday, I left open the question of whether Obama's caution over what he says about events in Iran has been well-judged. I think it has been: he has confined himself to statements of general democratic principle - in support of governing by consent rather than coercion and with an eye to the demands of justice - without any more concrete affirmation purporting to adjudicate on the disputed election result. I agree, therefore, with those currently arguing that Obama has got the balance about right, and not with criticisms of him along these lines.
At least two reasons justify Obama's stance up to this point. First, he should not offer a level of rhetorical support to the democratic movement in Iran that cannot be matched by more direct material backing. It would raise false expectations. In the coming days and weeks that movement depends on its own internal resources and there should be no illusion about this. Second, whatever the outcome in the short term, the administration in Washington has to deal with those who hold power in Iran, and if the reformists are checked or defeated this may well be the regime more or less as now.
I'm less impressed with the argument being made by many that Obama and other democratic political leaders must say nothing which can be construed within Iran as an interference in the country's affairs. For this is how even quite mild statements of democratic principle are already being construed by those with an interest in doing that. It's not usually a good idea in politics to let others with hostile intent determine what you're willing to say.