Speaking out for freedom

It is a wonderful thing to see history.

I vaguely remember watching the news when the Berlin Wall fell, though I was far too young to grasp the event's significance. I more clearly remember the Persian Gulf War. The toppling of that massive Saddam Hussein statue.

Now we can watch the angry uprising of people who want to be free, against a vile government that thinks they ought not. I've previously praised Americans who rallied against our government, who had to endure a blustery, windy day to do so. The folks in Iran right now deserve far more honor: They're getting shot at.

We don't yet know if these events will reach the historical significance as those listed above. But they are beautiful to see.

Peggy Noonan made an interesting observation in her most recent column. Americans instinctively love freedom. When there is a conflict anywhere in the world, we naturally stand with the oppressed, with the ones seeking freedom. She writes:

'If you don't understand who the American people are for, put down this newspaper or get up from your computer, walk into the street and grab the first non-insane-looking person you meet. Say, "Did you see the demonstrations in Iran? It's the ayatollahs versus the reformers. Who do you want to win?" You won't just get "the reformers," you'll get the perplexed-puppy look, a tilt of the head and a wondering stare: You have to ask?'

When some of his political opponents chide President Barack Obama for failing to favor the Iranian people vociferously enough, Obama has an explanation with at least some validity. "The last thing that I want to do is to have the United States be a foil for those forces inside Iran who would love nothing better than to make this an argument about the United States."

We seem uninclined to rout by force the Ayatollah's government, and if we are not going to do so then the Iranian people must seize their freedom on their own — at least, any help offered from the outside must be more covert than overt.

Ultimately, U.S. activity in this regard ought to be whatever activity is most helpful to Iranians, and there are competing ideas on what will be most helpful.

But I suspect Obama has caught himself in a dilemma largely of his own making.

From the beginning, he has observed the framework that diplomacy is the only way to deal with President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the Ayatollahs, that this evil government currently in place in Tehran is the only entity that can be dealt with because it's the one making the decisions.

Obama has since operated in a way that takes great care to avoid offending Ahmadinejad. In public appearances, speeches, greetings, Obama has rarely criticized or contradicted that government. The exception is his mention of Ahmadinejad's denial of the Holocaust — but that Holocaust denial isn't nearly as evil as Ahmadinejad's repeated promises to melt Israel as soon as he gets a chance.

The larger point is, Obama knows Iran is one of our most important enemies, and he knows he needs to prevent them from getting nuclear weapons. He has chosen to go about dealing with Iran via diplomacy, kind talk, listening. I think that has influenced his quieted reaction to the Iranian peoples' rallies for freedom.

I fear the harsh realities we see in Iran right now prove that — no matter how many kind overtures anyone makes — the government in Iran is only evil. It will only continue to do as it pleases, until someone throws it out. Attempting to negotiate the hatred away from the Ayatollahs will be no more effective than it was to negotiate the evil out of Hitler.

To the extent that he thinks speaking out forcefully will only hurt the cause of the freedom-seekers in Iran, Obama ought to hold his tongue. But to the extent that he is reserving himself to protect the prospect of more normalized relations with the Ayatollah government, he ought to give it up and call evil by name.