Is Iran "Obama's Rwanda"? Should We Get "Involved"?

First, I want to qualify this entry with the following: I think it's terrible what's happening in Iran. If you haven't seen the video of young Neda literally dying on camera, blood gushing out of her mouth and nose, it is something that needs to be seen. That's what state terrorism looks like. And I like the internet as much as anyone else, but I think this "cyber revolution" is going to be brutally crushed by good old-fashioned government violence.

However, I have gradually become more and more concerned about the media coverage of Iran and the tone. It feels a little like they are pushing for some sort of intervention. I have heard the term "Obama's Rwanda" thrown around a time or two; implying that Clinton regrets not intervening there, Obama will regret not intervening here. They seem to be ramping up, there's a slight feeling here that some sort of military force could be employed. I don't like that, not in the least. As tragic as it is, we should be realistic about this and shouldn't get involved in other people's affairs -- I don't have the appetite for it and I don't think the American people do either. Why should we take that upon ourselves? Despite the protests, that country is fairly evenly split, any sort of intervention has the potential to do much more harm than good.

As for the Republicans here at home, they are just using this as a "political football" -- they don't give a goddamn about the Iranian protesters. They want to criticize Obama for anything they can, any time they can. And when all is said and done, I don’t know what good Obama’s words would do anyway. Finally, I find it odd that several neo-cons were hoping that Ahmadinejad would be re-elected and now seem to be advocating for some kind of intervention. But then those egg-head chicken hawks should be ridiculed, not quoted on television as if they had credibility.