Why has Obama been silent on Iran?

Here are some good choices. I like 1, 4 and 5 in this. [Link]

It is interesting to consider why Obama is so hapless in this crisis, potentially the best opportunity for peace and progress in the Middle East for a generation. There are several possible explanations:

1) America is or has been evil, so it should do little or nothing in the world. This is a plausible theory that takes into account Obama's friendship with Jeremiah Wright and Bill Ayers and his distressing tendency to apologize whenever he stands in front of a foreign audience. It may well be that Obama's preferred version of America's role in the world is one of sheer paralysis: inaction masquerading as virtue.

2) Obama is just a cautious guy who avoids risk at all costs. The most powerful support for this explanation comes from Obama's conduct during the pirate hostage crisis off Somalia. Remember how he disappeared from public view, with his staffers announcing that he was receiving constant briefings, which led to no apparent action. Then, when Navy SEALS took matters into their own hands with a series of head shots, Obama was quick to claim credit for having authorized them, in some hazy manner, to shoot if they were so inclined. One could reasonably argue that Iran is the pirate "crisis" writ large. A variant of this theory is:

3) Obama has no idea what to do about Iran, and he knows it. Our President has always resembled Chance the gardener in Being There. It is easy to imagine that he is acutely aware that a few short years ago he was a State Senator in Illinois and that he is utterly unqualified to deal with matters as weighty as what is now transpiring in Iran. On this theory, his silence manifests an appropriate modesty. The problem with this hypothesis is that Obama has never exhibited modesty in any other context and, frankly, seems immune to the sentiment.

4) Obama is bold when it comes to domestic policy but considers anything that happens in a foreign country an unwelcome distraction. I think there is a lot of truth to this one. Obama is sort of the anti-Nixon. Nixon viewed the Presidency somewhat like a Risk player--the whole point was to manage his country's foreign interests. Domestic policy--who cares? Install wage and price controls, establish affirmative action and the EPA, whatever. Obama is the opposite. We now know that he has an extraordinarily ambitious domestic agenda and wants to turn the U.S. into a European-type social democracy, or worse. On this theory, his incessant apologies for everything from treatment of the Indians to Guantanamo Bay are intended to buy time on the international front while he tends to business here at home. So the last thing he wants is a foreign crisis of any sort.

5) Obama can't be in favor of democracy because Bush was for it. Are we getting to the heart of the matter here? Back in the days when I was a Democrat, supporting freedom fighters would have been a no-brainer. Now, though, pretty much every Democrat except Joe Lieberman is a "realist." God only knows what a "realist" is, except that it involves believing fantastic claims, like that Barack Obama can talk the mullahs out of exporting terrorism and developing nuclear weapons. President Obama has tried on every occasion to distance himself publicly from President Bush's policies (even when he has, nevertheless, quietly adopted them). Here, too, it is easy to imagine that Obama doesn't want to sound like his predecessor, publicly endorsing democracy--even for Muslims! Obama's supporters all know that he is much more sophisticated than President Bush. So how can he do anything as obvious--as Texan--some would say, as American--as taking the side of young women who are being brutalized by thugs? If Bush was in favor of democracy, Obama must incline a sympathetic ear toward Ayatollah Khamenei.