"The situation in Iran isn't anywhere near as black-n-white as you portray it to be. That kind of Good vs. Evil simplistic foreign policy thinking has gotten the US into quite a few problems - most recently with the catastrophic war in Iraq.

Not all the opposition protesters in the streets have been peaceful. They have attacked police stations, tried to lynch policemen, smashed shop windows, burned cars, etc. Any move to show support for the opposition, even if well intentioned and directed only at peaceful protesters, would be seen by many Iranians as meddling and as endorsement of violent mob actions to overthrow their government. We've done it before."

Perhaps it is likely, it would be portrayed this way, but is particularly important what a state controlled the media may or may not say?
Isn't it more important to know about what Iranians may actually consider as what is really going on?
Why give such credit to a discredited state controlled media?
It's not as though informed Iranians are doing this.

"Of course it would be great if Iran, or any other country for that matter, became more open and free. But by foolishing "choosing sides", we would damn any Iranian group receiving that support with the stigma of a US/Western endorsement, and that would create a fierce backlash against them in Iran."

Why is taking the position that Iranian law should be followed "taking sides"?
And how is being blind to criminal activity NOT taking sides?
Are not the Iranian people are brothers and sisters?
Is not an injustice done to the Iranian people in any our concern?

"The leader of the so-called "reformers", Mousavi, is himself very much a creature of the establishment - he even had the blessing of the Supreme Leader and the Guardian Council going into the election."

Of course, Mousavi could not have been in the election without him being a creature of the establishment- they are all selected- and there others who are not are not permitted to be part of the election.
This why most people don't consider Iran to be a democracy.
But one could argue it is a democracy because the people are at least given a vote in those which are selected. But if they aren't even allowed this, then it doesn't even come close to being a democracy.

"For example, an Iran under his leadership would be just as committed to nuclear proliferation as under Ahmadinajad. Any move to support the opposition would be seen as implicit - if not explicit - support for Mousavi. That would definitely be seen as meddling in the internal affairs of Iran."

The opposition wants their vote to count. I think that they should be allowed to have their vote counted.
You are siding with a regime that chooses to use force to prevent people from getting their vote counted- because you don't think it really matters who is elected- you or me may even prefer Ahmadinajad- this it isn't important

I don't think it matters who the Iranians pick, but I think it's important that AT LEAST they are able to have a vote and have that vote counted.

If I were an Iranian and I had voted for Ahmadinajad, I would want the vote counted. And I would support the protest. What would there be to lose? And it's part of our laws and tradition.
And if the state is right, all the more reason, as Ahmadinajad supporter I would want it gone over- in slow methodical painful detail how my side won and the other side lost. Part of a reason, one concedes an election when one loses, particularly if you lose badly, is not so as to dwell on the issue.

"An interesting point to ponder - both of our allies in Afghanistan and Iraq quickly congratulated Ahmadinejad on his reelection and they want to work constructively with the Iranian government. They have shown no appetite at all for this kind of interference in the internal affairs on Iran. Why? Being neighbors of Iran, perhaps they simply understand the situation a little more clearly. They don't want Iran messing with their countries (esp. Iraq) and they don't intend to mess with Iran. Let the Iranians work out their own issues."

Using the power of the State to stop protesters is not letting Iranian work out their own issues, it's the State of Iran working out it's issues.
But no doubt the Iranian will work out their own issues- sooner or later.
New articles regarding Afghanistan and Iraq:

"June 14, 2009

Afghan President Hamid Karzai telephoned his Iranian counterpart Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Sunday to congratulate him on his victory in disputed presidential elections, a statement from his office said.
...
The European Union expressed "concerned about alleged irregularities during the election process and post-election violence".

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton expressed hope that the result would reflect the will of voters.

Other leading nations including Moscow, Israel, and Arabic countries reacted with caution, but Afghanistan is keen to maintain good relations with its immediate neighbour."
http://www.uruknet.info/?p=55112

"Sunday, June 14, 2009
BAGHDAD — Iraq's president on Sunday congratulated his Iranian counterpart Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on his re-election, becoming the second head of state to offer support for the hard-liner.

Iran has declared Ahmadinejad the victor but the results are being challenged by opposition candidate Mir Hossein Mousavi.

Iraqi President Jalal Talabani's office said he sent a congratulatory telegram to Ahmadinejad."
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,526266,00.html