US awaits outcome in Iran (News Feature)

By Mike McCarthy Jun 19, 2009, 2:48 GMT

Washington - The Obama administration has been outspoken that Iran should allow freedom of expression during ongoing election protests, but critics charge Washington has not done enough to back the tens of thousands of demonstrators who have taken to the streets.

President Barack Obama and his aides have been trying to walk a fine line by backing the rights of protestors while being careful not to alienate the powerful Shiite clerics who run the Islamic state, or even the hardline president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who appears to have been re-elected.

Since June 12 voting, tens of thousands of backers of defeated reformist candidate Mir-Hossein Moussavi have protested the election results in demonstrations that have at times become bloody. The Obama administration has voiced support for their right to gather and has called on the Iranian government to resolve the election issue 'transparently.'

Obama has said that he wants to open direct dialogue with Iran on a host of issues, including Tehran's nuclear programme, along with its alleged support of Hezbollah and Hamas militants and terrorism in the region. Obama said his restrained comments about the election are meant to avoid the perception of US intervention in Iranian affairs.

'It's not productive, given the history of US-Iranian relations, to be seen as meddling - the US president meddling in Iranian elections,' he said, while noting 'deep concerns about the election' and objecting to any violent crackdown against the protestors.

Still, the Iranian government has accused the United States of interfering in the process and summoned the Swiss ambassador, who represents the United States in Tehran because the two countries lack formal diplomatic relations.

'We are not interfering with the debate that Iranians are having about their election and its aftermath,' State Department spokesman PJ Crowley said. 'You know, this is a debate about Iranians and about Iran's future.'

Still, the Obama's stance has drawn some sharp criticism from hardliners in Washington, who believe stronger words are needed to support the protestors and maintain pressure on Tehran.

Senator John McCain, Obama's Republican opponent in last year's general election, has been among the sharper critics.

'He should speak out that this is a corrupt, flawed, sham of an election,' McCain said on NBC. 'The Iranian people have been deprived of their rights. We support them in their struggle against a repressive, oppressive regime.'

Obama in May said that he will initiate his plan to talk directly to Tehran once the Iranian election is over but has yet to detail his approach. Analysts say Obama has measured his words because angering the clerics could diminish the prospects that Iran would be willing to talk.

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said that Washington will pursue dialogue with Iran regardless of who ends up in power in Tehran.

'We are obviously waiting to see the outcome of the internal Iranian processes, but our intent is to pursue whatever opportunities might exist in the future with Iran,' Clinton said after meeting with Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman.

Obama has sought to downplay the differences between Ahmadinejad and Moussavi, though the latter is seen as more open to ties with the West. Both men are part of the country's establishment and back Tehran's nuclear programme, which enjoys widespread support among the Iranian public.

'It's important to understand that although there is amazing ferment taking place in Iran, that the difference between Ahmadinejad and Moussavi in terms of their actual policies may not be as great as has been advertised,' Obama told CNBC in an interview.

'Either way, we were going to be dealing with an Iranian regime that has historically been hostile to the United States, that has caused some problems in the neighborhood and is pursuing nuclear weapons,' he said.