The world has watched as Iran has rather rapidly devolved over the last month. As a civilization that is known to prize its democracy and for a people that fiercely value the exercise of their franchise, it appears to the entire world that the Iranians have now been robbed of its promise. While the media, the governments of various countries, the heads of various states, the blogosphere, and numerous social networking sites have been inundated with views and reviews about the status quo, the United States has been beyond cautious and measured; wait and watch has been their mantra. 

Important and visible officials of the Obama Administration, including the President himself and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, have spoken rarely about the unravelling crisis and avoided harsh rhetoric entirely on those few occasions. While many have accused them of negligence and hypocrisy in keeping silent, the Americans have, in truth, held their cards close to the vest for a very specific reason. Any action or comment on their part would aid the Iranian government in stamping out the protestors and the opposition. The Iranian government has continuously accused the protestors of being under the sway of â��Western influencesâ�� and being the puppets of foreign governments. It has taken particular umbrage with the American and British governments. 

The aim, at present, is to determine what the United Statesâ�� potential responses might be to any direction the present crisis in Iran will take. The situation in Iran is in itself a complex, unwieldy and ever changing one, and to quantify it will prove to be at best conjecture. Nevertheless, there are suppositions that can be made. 

Situation one, is improbable, and almost entirely impossible, where the Iranian government overturns the June vote in favour of Ahmadinejad and instead calls for a fresh and fair vote. Off all potential outcomes, this one would find most favour with the US. It is likely that the American government will endorse this as the result of a popular uprising and praise the Iranian citizens for fighting for their legally assured democratic right. However, as mentioned, this outcome is extremely unlikely. 

Situation two is the most possible and also the most probable, where Ahmadinejad remains the President of Iran, and the uprising is stamped out quickly and efficiently, without much more significant violence. In this case, the US could potentially denounce the move as a blow to democracy, but will probably avoid over-the-top harsh rhetoric. It would more likely be an expression of disappointment. When the anger and controversy over the situation blows over, both in Iran as well as in the international community, the US will continue to find ways to sit down with Iran. 

Situation three is highly possible, but seemingly less probable, where Ahmadinejad remains President but the opposition protests do not die down, instead becoming more vocal and more violent. If this does indeed become a reality, the United States will be left with little option but to comment publicly at a high level on the uprising. The US will have to come out with strong words as it is unlikely that the international community will tolerate any more silence on the part of both Obama and the US State Department. The issue for the Americans will be to straddle both sides of what needs to be said, on the one hand, that the election result was a breach of trust of the Iranian people and on the other hand, also present a possibility of rapprochement with the Iranian Administration if they provide concessions to the protestors. This could potentially be done in a few stages, beginning in the former, ending in the latter. However, this would be a truly slippery slope and the path to be taken, much less the results of that path, can not be neatly determined. 

Finally, situation four is possible but really quite improbable, where an all out violent confrontation breaks out, akin to a civil war. This is again a situation that Americans will have to deal with delicately. They can not seem to condone large scale violence, especially for two reasons, they do not know what the result will end up being [and they will still want to deal with the government, whichever that is] and more importantly, any support they show, to either side, in this regard will serve only to escalate the violence. 

The bottom line for the US is simple; while they would indeed like a more moderate President in place, their larger interests lie in keeping an open dialogue with the Iranian government, regardless of who might actually form that government. In this present climate of overwhelming crises, the US can not afford to take any steps backward in the Iran-US relationship. More importantly, the present American administration cannot allow the Iranians to acquire a nuclear weapon under its watch. The US administration sees the winning over of Iran as a significant portion of its Middle East peace strategy. As it has been thus far, the Obama Administration will remain watchful, patient and cautious in crafting its foreign policy in relation to Iran.