Obama's new Iran crisis

WASHINGTON —

As tens of thousands of Iranians protest in defiance of the government in Tehran, Iran, officials in Washington are debating whether President Obama's response to the country's disputed election has been too muted.

Obama is coming under pressure from some Republicans, conservatives and Democrats who say he should take a more visible stance in support of the protesters. While supporting the president's approach, senior members of the administration, including Vice President Joseph Biden and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, would like to set a stronger tone in support of the protesters, administration officials said.

Other White House officials counseled a more cautious approach, saying harsh criticism of the government or endorsement of the protests could end up discrediting the protesters and making them seem as if they were led by Americans. Obama has largely followed that script, criticizing violence against the protesters but saying he does not want to be seen as meddling in Iranian domestic politics.

Even so, the Iranian government Wednesday accused U.S. officials of "interventionist" statements.

Several administration officials acknowledged Obama may run the risk of coming across on the wrong side of history at a potentially transformative moment in Iran.

The debate played out as demonstrators flooded Tehran on Wednesday in the fifth day of protests to demand the annulment of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's re-election, and more nationwide protests appeared to be in store.

Defying a government ban on demonstrations, Ahmadinejad's main election rival, Mir Hossein Mousavi, called for massive rallies today to mourn the dead in previous days' protests, which a leading Iranian human-rights group said numbered 32.

The government continued its crackdown on the opposition, reportedly arresting journalists and politicians. It expelled foreign reporters on temporary visas, ordered Tehran-based reporters to stay in their offices and threatened legal action against Iranians who have been filling the void by e-mailing videos, news reports and pictures abroad. It was impossible to confirm the number of deaths and arrests because of government reporting restrictions.

The crisis began after Iran's clerical leadership declared that Mousavi was defeated by Ahmadinejad in Friday's election, 63 percent to 34 percent. That vote has been called a fraud by Mousavi and his supporters.

The Obama administration's concern over how to respond to the protests reflects the competing goals Obama is trying to balance: keeping faith with democracy advocates in Iran while not staking out a position that is so tough that it kills any chance of engagement with the Iranian government on U.S. national-security interests, including the Iranian nuclear program and its support for militant Islamist organizations such as Hamas and Hezbollah.

Some criticism of the Obama administration's posture may be politically opportunistic, coming from rivals eager to portray the administration as generally weak when it comes to international confrontation.

But Obama also drew criticism from politically neutral observers when he said Tuesday that from a U.S. national-security perspective, there was not much difference between Ahmadinejad and Mousavi.

"Either way," Obama said, the United States is "going to be dealing with an Iranian regime that has historically been hostile to the United States, that has caused some problems in the neighborhood and is pursuing nuclear weapons."

The remark struck critics as dismissive toward Mousavi, who has become a symbol of freedom and democracy in Iran. Rep. Eric Cantor, R-Va., the House minority whip, said, "Now is the time for us to show our support with the Iranian people. I would like to see a strong statement from him that has moral clarity."

Several administration officials dismissed the criticism. "He's the president of the United States," one senior official said. "We don't get to say that it's about 100,000 people on the streets and nothing else."

Another senior administration official said he worried that if the United States was perceived as trying to influence the election, it would be difficult for the White House to negotiate later with the Iranian government about its nuclear program.

"If they think what we're about is regime change rather than changing the behavior of the regime, they're likely to hunker down," said the official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity.

The United States, officials point out, is in a more delicate position than other countries because of its enormous symbolism in Iran, where "Death to the United States" is chanted at Friday prayer.

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

"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 ... 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."

McClatchy Newspapers contributed to this report.