On July 9th, I asked why we weren't publicly supporting the Iranian people in their efforts to get rid of their oppressive, theocratic government. Reader Lauren Coates of Alabama had an answer:

"If the downfall is seen as US-backed, the Islamic world will merely see it as one more reason to hate us. If, on the other hand, it is a spontaneous overthrow by people at the limit of their patience, with revulsion for Islamic Sharia, the Islamic world will face an earthquake with which it is not prepared to cope. How can they go from holding U.S. hostages to rejection of Sharia in 22 years?!"

Not a bad argument. Here are 3 key arguments for the "get involved" school of thought:

1. The Shield The People Argument: Open, frequent, vocal American support substantially ups the ante for the Iranian regime if they're thinking of meeting the reformers with Tiananmen-style violence. The military, in particular, will get that message loud and clear and so becomes far more likely to disobey such orders.
   
   
2. The Flag-bearer For Liberty Argument: Those who mourn Iran's passing will hate us regardless. Those who rejoice in it, or who look toward a brighter day elsewhere, will find hope. We can't care about the first group, and we must care about the second group. Arabs seem to hate us in direct proportion to support for their governments, who are invariably oppressive (Jordan and Bahrain the only substantive exceptions). Backing a democracy movement that wins shows another facet of US power (culturally important in the Arab world), and shows a willingness to topple authoritarian regimes that will hearten real reformers in the Islamic world. Much as the Eastern Europeans were encouraged when Reagan began speaking out about their treatment.
   
   
3. The Eyes On The Prize Argument: Which leads to the follow-on argument... that it's more important to be seen by the Iranian people as their friends and allies than to suck up to the rest of the Arab world. That's where we'll win or lose the post-theocracy Iran, and that's the ultimate prize in the Mideast for any number of reasons. We're going to add Iraq to our list the hard way anyway. And even if the rest see the Second Iranian Revolution as American-led, it will occur to their rulers that what we did to Iran could easily be done to them too. Result: deference, power, respect. And one big step closer to victory.

Lauren thought about it, and replied:

Good points they are, too. Just one more illustration of the fact that perfect solutions do not exist to real world problems. Maybe clandestine assistance is our best compromise.

If we're not doing that, some people ought to be fired. There are many things we need to know about the Iranian regime and its plans. For all the reasons mentioned above, however, I still believe overt public assistance will give us the most mileage in toppling this evil theocracy.

POSTSCRIPT: John Weidner of Random Jottings isn't waiting for the government. He's looking to use the Blogosphere in a Blog Burst-like effort, noting the existence of Iranian bloggers and hoping that this "translation bridge" can help us get the message out to Iranians. I think it's a very worthwhile effort.

Big thanks to fellow Canadian Hossein Derakshan, of course... as Winds of Change noted back on June 22, he's responsible for helping many of these Farsi-language blogs get started in the first place.