Obama challenges the Iranian regime's repression

Today President Obama quite forcefully though subtly challenged the Iranian regime, in his comments on events there. Instead of opining on whether he thought the elections were fraudulent, he focused on the issue of whether the regime's response to the protests was legitimate, suggesting that violence against peaceful protesters (his deft reframing of the issue of violence) was against a universal value, the right to dissent. He also said, "...there appears to be a sense on the part of people who were so hopeful and so engaged and so committed to democracy who now feel betrayed..." In other words, the Mousavi presidential campaign lifted the people's hope that their voices would count, and now they feel betrayed. Obama's test of a satisfactory course of events could therefore be defined this way, as if it were a statement to the regime: If what you do from now on sharpens that sense of betrayal, you will lose your people's trust and thus your legitimacy.

How could another Ahmadinejad anointment be anything but another betrayal? Every one of us with access to blogs or the media -- and especially to Iranian bloggers -- should keep repeating Obama's equation and perhaps lend it more specific political content, because the part of the regime not glued to Ahmadinejad needs to see that they have only one way to regain the people's trust, and that's to order a re-vote.

Right now the movement in the streets is based mainly on political rage -- it doesn't have a concrete goal. If the goal were a Guardian Council order for a re-vote, it would paint the regime into a corner -- courtesy of Obama's equation.