2009 vs 2011

Now that Mubarak has stepped down, and a new protest movement grips Tehran, it might be worth making one observation about the commentary that predominated the last time Iranians took to the street. If you'll recall, in June 2009, the regime faced massive demonstrations after a disputed presidential election. During the turmoil, there was much debate about the Obama Administration's restrained response. Defenders of this policy (from both the right and left) relied on the notion that any hint of American support for the protesters would do the movement considerable harm. Here is conservative columnist Peggy Noonan writing in the Wall Street Journal on June 19, 2009:

To insist the American president, in the first days of the rebellion, insert the American government into the drama was shortsighted and mischievous. The ayatollahs were only too eager to demonize the demonstrators as mindless lackeys of the Great Satan Cowboy Uncle Sam, or whatever they call us this week. 

Similarly, Democratic Senator John Kerry had this to say in the pages of The New York Times:

If we actually want to empower the Iranian people, we have to understand how our words can be manipulated and used against us to strengthen the clerical establishment, distract Iranians from a failing economy and rally a fiercely independent populace against outside interference. Iran’s hard-liners are already working hard to pin the election dispute, and the protests, as the result of American meddling. On Wednesday, the Iranian Foreign Ministry chastised American officials for “interventionist” statements. Government complaints of slanted coverage by the foreign press are rising in pitch.

Mubarak was an ally, and the mullahs are not (which is only one of many distinctions that can be made). However, I couldn't help noticing that I never once heard the Noonan/Kerry argument during the recent Egyptian protests. There was plenty of debate about whether the Obama Administration should support Mubarak or the demonstrators. There was much concern that the revolution could be against America's long-term interests. But, not once did I hear someone say that American support for the protesters would discredit the movement. If the Egyptian protests were in America's interests, as I hope time will tell, why wouldn't our support discredit the movement as "mindless lackeys" (Noonan), or backfire and "rally a fiercely independent populace against outside interference" (Kerry)?

I raise these questions unsure of the answer. It could be that American support for the Iranian protesters was so obvious that it was best to keep quiet. Though, if that's the case, should we have been mute during the 1989 revolutions when the regimes in question were our Cold War adversaries? Surely, our rooting interest was obvious then?

Whatever the reason, if the new Iranian protests gather momentum, and begin to rival the 2009 effort, I wonder if Obama can dust off the old playbook after displaying such vocal support for Cairenes? Would a muted response seem like a betrayal to the Iranian people after the events of the last month? Or, if his 2009 response was correct then, must it be repeated today?