Fred Barnes needs to go read an Iranian history book, or talk to an Iranian, and then come back and talk about Iran.

This is a great exchange between Fred Barnes (who clearly has NEVER asked an Iranian if they remember 1953 and furthermore understands little about US-Iran dynamics or about successful revolutions and social and politcal movements in the current Middle East/ Iranian context) and a woman with the last name Powers who I think is Samantha but who they list as Kristen. (I found this on Andrew Sullivan's blog.)

(Also note that Henry Kissinger supports Obama's approach to Iran.)

POWERS: I haven't heard that and I have seen many people come out, including Henry Kissinger, saying that he handled this very well, and that, in fact, it would be bad for the United States to get involved in this.
FRED BARNES, EXECUTIVE EDITOR, THE WEEKLY STANDARD: It is not a question of getting involved. We're not going to send troops there or anything like that.
The question was whether we would support the democratic voices and condemn the regime — a tyrannical regime — as Kirsten said, no question about that.
Obama has gotten better, I'll have to say, over the weekend. He got better. His statements are a little stronger, but really not strong enough yet.
And it was clear from the beginning what he was trying to do. I think it was probably clear to Mousavi and the demonstrators and the democratic forces in Iran, too. He tried to protect whatever relationship he has with Ahmadinejad and the Ayatollah Khamenei because he thinks somehow he is going to get some grand bargain that they will back away from nuclear weapons.
They're not going to do that. They're the people who are not going to do it.
Mousavi might be. Mousavi is different on nuclear weapons too. He has said we will have nuclear power, but whether we have nuclear weapons or not, that's negotiable. That's the opposite of what the other regime has said.
He, also, is representing — I'm not sure how pro-American he is, but all of a sudden he represents the forces in Iran that are pro-American.
And then when you see, you know Obama has used — the most pathetic thing is to say, gee, well, we were involved in 1953 — 1953! This is an extremely young society. You think those demonstrators are thinking, well, we hope the U.S. stays out because they were involved in 1953? That's total nonsense.
POWERS: I think there is a history there.
BARNES: 1953?
POWERS: They do remember the United States meddling.
BARNES: No, they don't. [REALLY FRED???]
POWERS: I think the reason Obama didn't get involved I don't think is because of what you just said. I think it is because he truly believed that meddling in it would make them be able to come out and justify the repression...
BAIER: Very quickly, Kirsten, do we hear a different tone from the president at his news conference tomorrow in the Rose Garden?
POWERS: Well, I think we already started to hear a different tone. And I think he feels that he has to at least acknowledge that we do not condone this kind of behavior. But I think at the end of the day he still does not want to be seen as somebody who is propping up this revolt.
BARNES: But there is no way he can prop up demonstrators. All they want is expressions of support.
These democratic revolutions — wait a minute — these democratic revolutions, whether it is in Poland or the Philippines or South Korea or Indonesia or South Africa, they have always wanted international support. And it has always been important. [Did you ever think about the fact that the current (anti American foreign policy) context in the MENA region might counteract this??]
POWERS: But is there any doubt where Obama stands in this? Does anybody doubt that?
BARNES: Yes, there is great doubt. Of course there is doubt.
POWERS: Do you think the people of Iran don't know he stands behind them? Do you think he's on the side of Ahmadinejad?