Walk softly in Iran

I'm beginning to sound like a charter member of the Barack Obama Fan Club. But I don't think that the guy walks on water. Still, I must defend him in light of recent criticism regarding our stance toward Iran.

For what seems like forever, the United States has decided that it must be the Leader of the Free World. That sounds like a good thing--and in some ways it is--but it has fostered a mind-set which dictates that the U.S. should be actively engaged in every nation in the world. Don't care for Gaddafi or Castro? Try to assassinate them! Don't like Saddam Hussein? Invade! Things don't seem right in Granada? Send in the troops! In many ways, the perception that we are "the world's policeman" is right on target.

Now, some of that military presence is justified--South Korea, for example. But people forget (or never knew) that prior to 9/11 we had thousands of troops in Saudi Arabia for many years, attempting to shore up a shaky regime. And it is that presumption that the U.S. must be involved that gives us the reputation for both "meddling," and worse, coming off as "imperialistic." We simply must be able to see ourselves the way that others often see us.

So, back to Iran. I agree with the President that we should be concerned but not particularly engaged in this mess. I agree with him that too often, the U.S. can become a "foil" for others to charge that the U.S. is really behind all the problems in the world. There are times to be actively involved, and there are times to keep our distance; this is one of those times when the latter makes more sense. And such a stance is a far, far cry from "isolationism."

We need to walk softly sometimes. And not even carry a big stick.