That said his blog piece in yesterday’s Telegraph which accuses the Obama administration's response to the Iran election of being “cowardly, lily-livered and wrong” seems to be little more than a crass rant
Gardiner states that The White House's refusal (as at the time of writing at 18.36 on 15 June) to “question officially the result or even condemn the brutal suppression of opposition protestors, is undermining America's standing as a global power...., and is little more than a... cynical exercise in appeasement....As blood flows on the streets of Tehran, the United States government remains as silent as a Trappist Monk...”
In Gardiner’s view “It's about time the Obama administration... started focusing on halting the rise of a nuclear-armed Iran, as well as building up America's defences in the face of a highly dangerous rogue regime. That includes moving forward with a global missile defence system as well as actually increasing defence spending instead of cutting it."
His final sentence is “ It's a sad day when the greatest power in the world withholds criticism of a brutal, tyrannical and illegitimate regime for fear of upsetting its rulers.”
Well blow me! As if the USA has never withheld criticism from brutal regimes before!
From what I have seen of his writings since reading the above post Gardiner would probably indict Obama for the murder of Cock Robin. His words seem to have gone down well especially among those who would condemn Obama for breathing
Any hawkish words from the US at this juncture would be counterproductive at best - and at worst an utter disaster for the Iranian opposition. The USA has a less than glorious track record in Iranian affairs (just think of two names: Mossadeq and Pahlavi to underline) this point and Iranians have a long memory (or at least one that is frequently jogged). Strong American condemnation of Ahmadinejad and the Iranian regime, however justifiable, would inflame the situation while at the same time undermining the protestors
Or is this what the hawks want? After all it is better to have a bogeyman to aim at than someone who may just pay a little lip service to reform.