Why so silent?

It's not so much that the world is ripe with dictatorship, brutality and oppression of dissent. It is not competition from other conflicts or even other media events, such as the death of celebrities.

The first major reason people in the West are not more vocal is Mousavi. He is widely and correctly perceived as a member of the Iranian establishment and similar to Ahmadinejad when it comes to the outlook on geopolitical affairs - affairs that are naturally more urgent to non-Iranians, particularly the issue of nuclear arms.

People in the West are not going to consider Mousavi particularly more interesting to negotiate with, unless significant and irrevocable reforms are introduced in Iran.

Politians cannot in all decency trust even a nominally reformist regime with nuclear strike capacity, particularly not with the risk of distribution of nukes under the radar to proxy groups like Hezbollah.

Even if you do not entirely buy the pro-Israeli arguments about Iran being an imminent threat, the prospect of major world powers clashing in a conflict involving nuclear powers and bound to drag a vast row of political and religious entities into it is enough to give most informed observers pause.

America supports Israel, full stop

Another important factor the Iranian leadership fronted by Ahmadinejad seems to be unable to graps is that the left wing does not rule the West at present. Obama may have leftist leanings when it comes to domestic policies such as health care, and he may be geopolitically less than a hawk, but he is certainly not a dove.

On the issue of Israel it is a popular spectator sport in USA to pin anti-Israeli bias on him, while in reality Obama has not only declared his public support for the Israeli state, but also achieved the backing of prominent Zionists.

Iranians, more than anyone, should be able to recognize the fact that no anti-Zionist will become president of the USA. This part is less than conspiracy theory. The Obama administration may differ on specific matters when compared to Republicans or to the Israeli administration, but in the end USA's support for Israel is a given.

Not only has the vast majority of Americans for the past 50 years consistently supported Israel while only small percentages express support for Palestine. It is also a well known fact that for all the bad things you may say about USA, she never backs down on loyal allies.

The global left wing was disarmed

This relates directly to the reason people in the West do not offer more open support for the reformist movement in Iran: The right wing and the left wing both want a regime change, but the right wing pushing for military conflict to a point, where leftists are at risk of offering tacit approval of it, if they step up their rhetoric.

As I wrote in my previous post Ahmadinejad has committed a major geopolitical blunder, because instead of employing the Iranian opposition as a bomb shield, he has empowered his worst enemies in the West.


But the face is only important to leftists crowds, the humanist supporters of democracy and human rights. The hardliners, who tend to be militaristic about their defense of the same principles, are not as easily swayed by images of Neda breathing her last breath on YouTube.

People on the Western right wing see dead Israeli and Americans and Europeans down the line, and in the end it is going to matter a lot more than the Iranian protesters who may be employed as merely testimonies to the evil intentions and brutal manners of the regime.

Will Mousavi love the West back?

Ahmadinejad is not being very charming right now. If he was on his best behaviour, perhaps people in the West could be more easily convinced to let Iran continue its nuclear programme.

As it is, the paranoia sowed into Iranians at home is spreading abroad through all available channels - foreseeing escalation of the Israeli-Iranian conflict, increased terrorism, possible distribution of military nuclear technologies by Tehran, invasion or destabilization of Iraq and whatever else on the arsenal of the Western right wing.

In fact, it is probably too late for Ahmadinejad to moderate his position. No amount of concessions to the opposition can wipe out the impression of a ruthless and bellicose regime covering for military aspirations with a string of lies and false confessions produced under torture.

And even if Mousavi should, all of a sudden, be pulled into position as Iran's official negotiater with the West, pundits will be soon to point out Mousavi's past responsibility for propping up the regime.

They would also point to the lingering presence of hardliners who would, in the role of opposition, scheme feverishly to regain control of the volatile nation. As long as they stand a chance of that the Iranian nuke would be considered a threat.

Westerners would say: "The West loves Iran, but does Mousavi love the West back?"

Hence the silence.