Silence Has Consequences for Iran - WSJ.com

You may remember Jose Maria Aznar. He was the Spanish PM who stood by the U.S. in Iraq, and whom the Spanish electorate tossed out several days after Al Qaeda murdered over 300 people in a coordinated terrorist attack, under the theory that maybe if they didn't make the primitives angry, they would would leave them alone. Well done citizens of Al Andalus!

Aznar demonstrates in the WSJ where he stands on that equation. Standing up for freedom against a pre-modern totalitarian regime in Iran and risking their anger, or remaining silent and hoping they'll go away? What a noble European.

Silence Has Consequences for Iran - WSJ.com

This is no time for hesitation on the part of the West. If, as part of an attempt to reach an agreement on the Iranian nuclear program, the leaders of democratic nations turn their backs on the dissidents they will be making a terrible mistake.

President Obama has said he refuses to "meddle" in Iran's internal affairs, but this is a poor excuse for passivity. If the international community is not able to stop, or at least set limits on, the repressive violence of the Islamic regime, the protesters will end up as so many have in the past -- in exile, in prison, or in the cemetery. And with them, all hope for change will be gone.

To be clear: Nobody in the circles of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei or Ahmadinejad is going to reward us for silence or inaction. On the contrary, failing to support the regime's critics will leave us with an emboldened Ahmadinejad, an atomic Iran, and dissidents that are disenchanted and critical of us. We cannot talk about freedom and democracy if we abandon our own principles.