UPDATE: Some absolutely fantastic pictures of the riots and demonstrations in Iran, courtesy of the Boston Globe's Big Picture blog:
UPDATE II: Via John Cole, Daniel Larison reminds us of why we should be a little more standoff-ish when it comes to elections in other nations in general:
We pick sides like this all the time, and when we do it is almost always arbitrary, ill-informed and mistaken. For various reasons, one side in a contest is deemed to be more “pro-Western,” which occasionally even has the virtue of being true, and this side’s victory is then lauded as a great step forward, and anything preventing that victory is deemed inherently suspicious and illegitimate.
Emphasis mine. This is unfortunately quite true. We view elections in nations critical to our interests through the prism of our own self-interest, so that a "legitimate" result in Iran, or Lebanon, or Venezuela, is the result that is most suitable to us, and any other result is greeted-as Larison says-with automatic suspicion. He also explains in great detail why a win by Moussavi would not necessarily be as transformative as some people seem to think it would be, even if our own self-interest is the measuring stick by which we judge the legitimacy of Iran's elections. And as I point out above, even if it were transformative, any appearance on our part to meddle in Iran's internal affairs, however moderately compared to our past efforts, would be damaging to our relationships with the country, whoever happens to be in charge. The best option for our government at this point is to quietly observe.