A Point of View: Standing with Iranians against tyranny

As history is being made on the streets of Teheran, the Western world is relatively quiet. Yes, President Barack Obama has at last referred to the injustice of the regime's actions and criticized its violence, but he and other leaders have calibrated their responses.

Two Israel writers, Ben Caspit and Ben-Dror Yemini, have taken note and chastised the West for this reticence, contrasting how quickly condemnation of Israel rises to the surface in moments of crisis. They suggest that in certain circles it is far easier to criticize a Jew for killing a Muslim, even when provoked, than when a Muslim regime murders innocent protesters.

They simply dismiss the argument made by many American officials and commentators that the restrained approach is the correct one to prevent the regime from using American "meddling" to undermine the legitimacy of the demonstrators. They reason that this is just an excuse for inaction since the Iranian leaders are already blaming America and Israel.

They are wrong to give short shrift to such arguments. It has been noted time and again that there remains an element of bitterness and suspicion toward American intervention dating back to the infamous Mossadegh affair in 1953. The ability of the regime to use that suspicion to turn the public against the demonstrators is not a matter to ignore. It is a legitimate concern.

On the other hand, that doesn't make such reasoning correct. It fails to take into account one of the fascinating realities of Iran that has been commented upon long before this uprising but has been reinforced by it: How pro-American the Iranian public is. It has been noted that in Sunni Arab countries where the United States supports the despotic rulers, the public resents the US. In Iran, where the US has opposed the regime, the public, which is also dissatisfied with the regime, is largely pro-American.

Now that the dissatisfaction has crystallized with the stolen presidential election, that sentiment of America representing something different and positive compared to the Mullahs is stronger than ever and needs to be encouraged. There is a strong argument to be made that this is exactly the moment for America to be standing explicitly and strongly for its values. The issue, ultimately, is not whether the Ayatollahs will blame America. They are already. The issue is whether such efforts will resonate with the Iranian people.

Logic says no.  This is not 1979. The regime has lost whatever credibility it had with the blatant election fraud. The dam has burst and the fear factor, while still present among the public, has substantially diminished. The regime has come to stand for lies and corruption, not to mention economic mismanagement and international isolation. The notion that they can simply pull out the magic "blame the Americans hat" and make it work seems far-fetched.

On the contrary, what would really scare the regime and further undermine its hold on the country is the sense that the historical tide has turned, that the people of Iran have found their voice and that the free world is standing with them, full-throated, enthusiastic and ready to help in every way possible. The demonstrators would in the end gain strength rather than being weakened by such support.

The argument that I hear being made for American restraint that is most disturbing is the one that says that the Obama Administration doesn't want to undermine chances for dialogue with the regime. Ironically, that policy of engagement with Iranian leaders, the centerpiece of the administration's new approach, was supposed to begin shortly after the elections. The very thought of continuing in that mode as if nothing has happened is mind-boggling and would, in my judgment, be a big mistake. Even more so, American decision-making on how far to go in condemning the regime should not be influenced one iota in the vain hope of a productive dialogue with this delegitimized government. Even if the regime survives this crisis, everything has changed and the US will have to re-examine its earlier assumptions.

When values and pragmatism are in conflict, sometimes values have to be tempered. I don't believe that is the case here.  On the contrary, the value of freedom is also the practical way to undermine the extremism which has been the greatest threat to the world, not to mention the Jewish state. History dictates standing up for those values now.