President Obama has been reserved in his comments about the situation unfolding in Iran, and politicians and commentators across the political spectrum are urging him to say more.

The president’s low-volume strategy is undergirded by two assumptions: first, that public support from the US president will feed the Iranian regime’s efforts to pin the protests on American interference; second, that being too critical of the Ahmadinejad government and the religious leadership will make it impossible to talk about nukes down the line.

Yesterday, with CBS’s Harry Smith, President Obama made his clearest statements to date:

What you’re seeing in Iran are hundreds of thousands of people who believe their voices were not heard and who are peacefully protesting [and] seeking justice. And the world is watching. And we stand behind those who are seeking justice in a peaceful way…. [W]e stand with those who would look to peaceful resolution of conflict, and we believe that the voices of people have to be heard, that that’s a universal value that the American people stand for and this administration stands for….

[T]his is not an issue of the United States or the West versus Iran. This is an issue of the Iranian people. The fact that they are on the streets under pretty severe duress, at great risk to themselves, is a sign that there’s something in that society that wants to open up.

And, you know, we respect Iran’s sovereignty. And we respect the fact that ultimately the Iranian people have to make these decisions. But I hope that the world understands that this is not something that has to do with the outside world. This has to do with what’s happening in Iran. And, I think ultimately the Iranian people will obtain justice.

Today, he got a bit more assertive, as the AP reports:

“We call on the Iranian government to stop all violent and unjust actions against its own people,” Obama said in a written statement. “The universal rights to assembly and free speech must be respected, and the United States stands with all who seek to exercise those rights.”

The president’s probably right to want to avoid getting into a tit-for-tat with the Iranian mullahs. But for a man known to have a keen sense of drama and the ability to articulate ideas in compelling ways, President Obama’s statements have been remarkably anodyne.

“The universal right to assembly and free speech” … “we respect Iran’s sovereignty” … “there’s something in that society that wants to open up” … “we stand behind those who seek justice in a peaceful way.” These sound like the words of an academic, not a leader.

If President Obama thinks restrained rhetoric will advance US interests down the line, so be it. But it’s unlikely that his silence will stop Iranian leaders from blaming the US for internal troubles – that tactic is on page one of Middle Eastern Despotism for Dummies.

And on the nuke issue, what nuke issue? Should Ahmadinejad and the mullahs retain power (which still seems like the safe bet), will they be any more likely to renounce nuclear weapons now that they feel their power is threatened internally?

President Obama’s words so far bear a troubling whiff of the “don’t rock the boat” approach that defined US Middle Eastern policy for decades – and did nothing to win us any friends. By contrast, it is clear that US policy over the last eight years – both speaking about and demonstrating our commitment to oppressed peoples in the Middle East – provided a bit of flint for the sparks coming out of Iran.

President Obama is extraordinarily popular around the world and his speech in Cairo was viewed positively throughout the region. Another speech, in which the president asserts his desire not to be involved in the internal politics of other countries, while also expressing the importance of freedom (not peaceful assembly) as a universal right, could provide succor to endangered Iranians.

Nearly 50 years ago, President Kennedy said the US would “support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.”

Four years ago, President Bush said, “We will persistently clarify the choice before every ruler and every nation: The moral choice between oppression, which is always wrong, and freedom, which is eternally right.”

This week would be an excellent time for President Obama to add his own eloquent touch to those sentiments.