The bedlam touched off by Iran's disputed presidential election could transform the Middle East. But it has relegated President Barack Obama to the status of onlooker.
Many U.S. officials say the rash of anti-government protests could implant reforms within the Iranian regime that in turn could thaw regional tensions. Or it could lead to a crackdown by increasingly insecure rulers who grow more dangerous as they react more harshly.
Either way, U.S. officials say their course is clear: to say little and do even less.
"It's not productive, given the history of the U.S.-Iranian relationship, to be seen as meddling," Obama said Tuesday.
Obama administration officials recognize an Iranian sensitivity to U.S. interference that dates to 1953, when the CIA helped topple nationalist Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh. Today, hard-liners and reformist Iranians alike remain deeply suspicious of American motives.
U.S. officials say that if they now are seen allying with Iranian reformers, it will harm those groups in the public's eye, tarring them as American-backed.
And if Americans denounce Iran's president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, it could fortify the anti-American leader and make things more difficult for Obama's promised diplomatic overture to Iran.
As a result, the Obama administration has been trying to calibrate its language in the four days since the election, showing that it is standing up for democratic principles, yet keeping a careful distance.
Angering some U.S. conservatives, Obama has avoided charging election fraud or siding with the more-moderate Iranian candidate, Mir Hussein Moussavi. Obama said he has "deep concerns" about the election and "stands strongly with the universal principle that people's voices should be heard and not suppressed." He hastened to add, however, that "how that plays out over the next several days and several weeks is something ultimately for the Iranian people to decide."
By hedging his comments, Obama's approach does not match the principles of foreign policy he has laid out since taking office five months ago, critics say.
In his address to Muslims in Cairo, Egypt, last month, a speech watched closely around the world, Obama said it is important for world leaders to say in public what they say privately; yet he is pointedly guarding his public statements about the Iranian election.
He also promised to speak out candidly with foreign nations, something that he has decided he can't afford to do at the moment.
Obama's approach underscores differences with that of his predecessor, President George W. Bush, who believed his administration should do all it could, whether aggressively supporting democratic opposition leaders or using military force, to spread U.S.-style democracy.
By contrast, Obama's aides believe that in its capacity to bring democracy to unwilling countries the United States should be a humble nation.
"The takeaway from Iraq is that it is very, very difficult and extraordinarily expensive to try to impose an American-style approach on another country," said a senior administration official, speaking on condition of anonymity. "If change is going to come, it'll come from within. We have to recognize our inherent limits."
Yet the administration may soon find itself in a predicament over its cautious approach. U.S. critics have been gradually stepping up complaints that the administration has not been tough enough on the Iranian regime.
Arizona Republican Sen. John McCain, Obama's rival in last year's presidential campaign, said in an NBC interview Tuesday that Obama should speak out against "a corrupt, fraud, sham of an election." More likely to force Obama's hand would be an Iranian crackdown on protesters. In that event, the administration would have to make tough choices about taking a stronger position.