President Obama has so far responded to the events in Iran with what one commentator has called a "nuanced approach." Presumably, the concern within the corridors of the White House is that the perception of American "meddling" in the internal affairs of the Islamic Republic will be counterproductive to the cause of reform. If that is indeed the motive in the Obama administration's muted announcements, then the Colonel is willing to give the President the benefit of the doubt and patience to allow his strategy to play out.
The Colonel, however, would ask you, gentle reader, to entertain and critically examine another possible motive in the refusal of President Obama to unequivocally stand with those who have taken to the streets in opposition to the one of the most repressive regimes on the planet--a regime that publicly stones women caught in adultery; a regime that actively finances terrorist organizations; a regime that provided arms and training to insurgents who fought against our forces in Iraq; a regime whose stated policy is that the State of Israel should be destroyed; a regime that believes that the entire world should eventually be encompassed in a grand caliphate governed by the Shia version of Sharia Law. The Colonel would have you consider that perhaps President Obama and his cadre of naive socialist progressives really believe that, just as they sweet-talked their way into the White House, they can convince the mad mullahs in Teheran to acquiesce to the Obama world order. It seems to the Colonel that the Obama administration is taking great pains to maintain a position conducive to open dialogue with the Islamic dictatorship in order that they might have the best opportunity to reach an accord with ayatollahs. This odd mixture of foreign policy naivete and hubris on the part of the Obama administration makes the odd mixture of foreign policy naivete and hubris displayed by the neocons in the previous administration look downright pragmatic by comparison.
Let's be clear--the leadership in Iran is fanatically committed to its world view and its goal of a region-wide and, ultimately, world-wide Islamic caliphate. The Colonel feels rather comfortable in his assessment of this fanaticism, being a fanatical believer in his positions on faith and politics. The dictatorship in Iran will no more back down and grant the reforms demanded in the street than would the Nazi, Stalinist, Baathist, and Maoist regimes with whom their grip on the Iranian population can be most closely compared.
To believe that the Iranian Islamic dictatorship can be negotiated with is the height of idiocy. To refuse to stand publicly with the people yearning for freedom and self-determination, and instead worry about offending the criminal dictatorship repressing those people, is, dare we say it, an impeachable offense.