Thanks.

It's too bad that a significant portion of the Iranian population apparently wishes for a different form of government. With the Supreme Leader and his "appointed" President in charge of the laws and the militia, I'm guessing their demonstrations will wither in not too long a time. If those in charge were able to determine the outcome of their election so easily, what hope do they have for the future?

I do agree with President Obama in the U.S. staying out of the differences within Iran. It sees that there would be significant risks whether any involvement on our part was successful or not. As was pointed out, we've made that mistake once before. Best to let the Iranians sort it out themselves, I think.

I believe that our foreign policy should be based on what's good for the U.S...accomplishing our objectives...regardless of what form of government our sovereign counterparties choose. What's important is that we really have what our objectives are well-identified. Somehow I get the impression that for a time now we've concentrated our efforts on planting democracies instead of really knowing and acting on achieving a broader set of national objectives. It seems to me that China and India, even Russia, have used our narrow national focus to significantly further their national interests while we've chosen to be busy elsewhere. That really needs to change.

Ooops, I used that word, didn't I?