Earlier today, the President emerged from his Hawaii vacation to discuss the failed terror attack last week. He also raised the protests that occurred in recent days in Iran, saying:
It’s unclear how the world watching with “deep admiration” and his administration continuing to “bear witness” will result in the opposition actually bringing down the regime, which is what, as Steve Hayes writes, should be the real goal of U.S. Iran policy in 2010. After remaining silent during much of the protests that erupted in June after Iran’s fraudulent election, the President finally seems to have woken up to the fact that the United States can no longer appear indifferent, but he still seems reticent about completely condemning the Iranian regime.  This unusual formulation may be because despite the administration’s recent bluster about moving towards sanctions, some in his administration still harbor hopes that a deal with the regime is possible. Last week, Sen. John Kerry’s office floated the idea that he might visit Tehran in a last-ditch effort to resolve the nuclear standoff. Instead of shutting down this idea, an unnamed White House official told Jay Solomon of the Wall Street Journal that a Kerry trip to Tehran was ” the kind of travel a chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee would — and should – undertake.” How are the Iranians supposed to interpret these mixed messages? Should they be worried that “crippling sanctions” are on the way or should they be planning for the propaganda coup that would result from a Kerry visit during a time when the regime appears to be weaker than ever?  Now that the President seems so concerned about the events unfolding on Iran’s streets, perhaps someone should ask the White House whether the President believes that Sen. Kerry should even contemplate a visit to Tehran to meet with the very officials that are ordering the beatings and killings he has just condemned. The answer might tell us how far he is really willing to go to “bear witness.”
