By now, if you spend any time watching State-run media outlets or surfing the web, you are aware of the unrest in Iran following their recent election. We are certainly used to being dismayed by the outcome of elections here, and even the odd, stolen election (Sen. Franken?).
If events are as they seem, the people of Iran are suffering at the hands of the mullahs, as they have for decades. And the brutality of the regime is not to be condoned.
But before we get too excited by the lack of response by the U.S., keep in mind that we really shouldn't be getting involved in that situation. We have no national interest there, we have no resources to apply to make the situation any better, and we create no confidence that we will stay the course. I don't think these reasons are the motivation for the current administration's inaction; in fact, I think it has great sympathy for militant Mohammedan regimes. However, not acting is the right outcome in this situation.
In the Taki's Magazine blog today is a post by Jack Hunter titled, "Stay Out of Iran", that includes a video of his reasons why he thinks the U.S. should refrain from acting in Iran. The video mentions the exchange between Ron Paul and Rudy Giuliani during an early Republican presidential debate on the subject of Iran, where Paul was laughed at for his views. I have embedded that video above. It is a good reminder of the ridicule one faces when going against the entrenched interventionist foreign policy favored by both parties. The parties only differ as to where to intervene, not whether to intervene.
I think the author is too naive when he cites Ronald Reagan as a proponent of diplomacy with the Soviets, "just like" Obama is with the Iranian regime. Unlike Obama, Reagan first backed the Soviets into a corner where they were forced to negotiate, through the deployment of intermediate range nuclear missiles in Europe, the research and development of anti-missile defenses, and through strategic support of anti-communist forces and governments throughout the world. He negotiated from strength, not weakness.
Therefore, I don't endorse everything in this video, but I post it as a means to encourage thought and discussion.
As luck would have it, the army is probably stretched too thin for the government to fall prey to anyone's inclination to actually send troops there anyway. And unlike money, they can't yet print more soldiers.