Those are good points and I will admit to playing some armchair Monday morning quarterback and also, to continue the sports analogy, this might just be game 1 in a 7 game series. I also fully understand why Obama took a cautious approach. Looking at the situation there were negatives either way and in the short run probably wouldn't change the actions of the regimes. We're not sure how this will play out though and looking at the wider implications of this situation speaking out more forcefully might've been more valuable if it was understood the Iranian regime would do what it did anyway.
Agreed that we're not sure how this will play out - and it may turn out this is the wrong approach. But this idea that since Iran was going to blame us anyway, we might as well have done what they are accusing us of is silly. The rest of the world can see the reality. If we actually did what Iran is claiming, they'd be fully justified in blaming us for meddling in the ideas of the Middle East. As it is now, the Iranian regime just looks like a bunch of liars. That has an immense amount of value for us.
That should be in the eyes of the Middle East. That is, Middle Eastern gov'ts would be able to point to the US as meddlers when trying to hold power within their own countries.
To put it another way, the only chance the Iranian protesters have is that the gov't fractures - and there are indications are that various military and clerical leaders are not supporting the gov't. However, these opposition leaders are not friends of the US - they are friends of the Iranian people. The minute the US gets involved, there is a rally-around-the-flag effect. There's a much greater likelihood that those opposition leaders fall in line with the gov't against US meddling. And that's the end for the protesters. The US staying out of this is the only hope those people have to fracture their gov't and create a revolution.
