Frustrated with the Franken-Coleman Senate recount? Imagine the rage if there were no recount recourse at all, let alone one working within the wheels of justice, no matter how long they take to grind. That's the feeling millions have in Iran, where many in an electorate energized by the race between President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his main challenger, Mir Hossein Mousavi, feel the vote was short-circuited by the theocracy that holds the real levers of power in the country.

Some had predicted Mousavi would win by a large enough margin to avoid a runoff between the top two candidates. Instead, within hours of a vote that relied mainly on paper ballots, Ahmadinejad was declared the winner with about 63 percent of the vote, including the absurd notion that he had won the hometowns of his top three rivals.

The post-vote violence rocking the country is the worst in a decade, and it could signal the start of the most profound social and political movement in Iran since the 1979 revolution that deposed the shah in favor of the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. The election has unleashed long-simmering sentiments among Iran's more educated middle class over the international isolation and economic depravation brought on not only by Iran's confrontations with the West, but with many Middle Eastern countries as well.

The passion of the protests seems to have caught the ruling theocrats, including Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, off guard. After initially describing the tainted results as "a divine blessing" -- even before going through the theatrics of an official three-day challenge period -- he has now asked the Guardian Council, charged with certifying the vote, to "precisely examine" vote-rigging allegations and report within 10 days.

The Iranian upheaval comes at a time when President Obama has advocated aggressive diplomatic efforts with Iran in solving the crisis over its nuclear ambitions. It was difficult enough to make this transition from his presidential predecessor, whose approach allowed Ahmadinejad to burnish his credentials by defying the United States and the entire international community.

Now it will be more difficult. Indeed, there are now two long-term considerations that have to be central to America's approach to Iran: First, of course, is the nuclear issue. What may appear an existential threat to America is a clear and present danger to Israel, and convincing Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu not to attack Iran's nuclear sites probably just became a tougher challenge.

Then there's the leadership issue and the resulting social explosion. The United States found itself on the wrong side of history in Iran once already, when its backing of the shah led to the Iranian embassy hostage crisis and made it more difficult to project American values in the Mideast.

It's imperative that the Obama administration work with the European Union and leaders of the international community who are demanding answers in the wake of the election. Despite official rhetoric, America is not perceived as the "Great Satan" by all Iranians. More so than in many Mideast countries, the United States is seen in a positive light. The United States cannot afford to lose those hearts and minds by getting too far ahead of the international community. Making that mistake would allow Ahmadinejad to distract his detractors by shifting the debate from a domestic confrontation to a rallying cry against the West.

With the United States fighting two wars, and having to respond to nuclear saber-rattling from North Korea, Obama is right to make the power of diplomacy the focus of his foreign policy. But in the wake of the disputed election, the delicate diplomatic effort in Iran must address not only Iran's leadership but also those disenfranchised Iranians who are protesting the corrupt regime on the streets and rooftops of Tehran.