Iran is no Soviet Union, but Obama is playing this one the way it should be played. There are consequences to words and actions, and, as you highlight here, when modern presidents are more inflammatory in their rhetoric toward governments they don't like, the consequences of their tone creates repercussions that are often opposed to what they say they desire.

I will give Reagan credit for this: His escalation of the arms race was a huge gamble, but it succeeded in bankrupting the Soviets when piled atop the expense of their Afghan occupation. (Never mind that it nearly bankrupted us as well…a situation that Bush 41 would pay for when he had to raise taxes.) By the time Reagan spoke in Berlin in June '87, Gorbachev was already well on the way to opening up Soviet society, and the fractures in the Soviet economy were already apparent. It was a stirring speech, of course — but it's one that would have been laughed at had Reagan made it in the early years of his tenure, before the Soviets' misadventure in Afghanistan had driven the government toward ruin.

It's striking how different that situation was from Obama's. Reagan addressed a Soviet leader who had already done much we were happy with, and encouraged him to do more; just this morning, Khamenei made it clear that no such unclenching of the totalitarian fist is likely in Iran–and, despite Obama's relative silence, blamed American meddling for the protests anyway. Obama's path forward from this moment is a lot trickier than Reagan's was then.

And if he had intervened, the left would have criticized him for jumping into a situation that he had no busines of being involved with.

“But, surprise surprise, it’s not nearly good enough for conservative hawks, who lately seem overcome with echoes of “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!” as though it’s the bravest and most erudite phrase ever uttered.”

Maybe not the bravest thing ever said, but, isn't that what eventually happened, in no small part from the policies of Ronald Reagan?

Iran is no Soviet Union, but Obama is playing this one the way it should be played. There are consequences to words and actions, and, as you highlight here, when modern presidents are more inflammatory in their rhetoric toward governments they don't like, the consequences of their tone creates repercussions that are often opposed to what they say they desire.

Iran is no Soviet Union, but Obama is playing this one the way it should be played. There are consequences to words and actions, and, as you highlight here, when modern presidents are more inflammatory in their rhetoric toward governments they don't like, the consequences of their tone creates repercussions that are often opposed to what they say they desire.

I will give Reagan credit for this: His escalation of the arms race was a huge gamble, but it succeeded in bankrupting the Soviets when piled atop the expense of their Afghan occupation. (Never mind that it nearly bankrupted us as well…a situation that Bush 41 would pay for when he had to raise taxes.) By the time Reagan spoke in Berlin in June '87, Gorbachev was already well on the way to opening up Soviet society, and the fractures in the Soviet economy were already apparent. It was a stirring speech, of course — but it's one that would have been laughed at had Reagan made it in the early years of his tenure, before the Soviets' misadventure in Afghanistan had driven the government toward ruin.

It's striking how different that situation was from Obama's. Reagan addressed a Soviet leader who had already done much we were happy with, and encouraged him to do more; just this morning, Khamenei made it clear that no such unclenching of the totalitarian fist is likely in Iran–and, despite Obama's relative silence, blamed American meddling for the protests anyway. Obama's path forward from this moment is a lot trickier than Reagan's was then.