Could an Iranian Counter-Revolution Go Velvet?

Like many Iran followers, my every engagement with the people, language, and news from the country brings me back to the very same question. Would an Iranian counter-revolution go velvet?

In other words, if the democratic opposition in the country managed to shake the foundations of Iran and encourage serious reforms, could the transition happen peacefully? What if the Western nations finally lent their full support to the opposition?

In yesterday's New York Times and International Herald Tribune, some of our heroes of the Nobel Peace Prize left as well as a number of Nobel laureates in the sciences published a full page letter calling for the U.S., Russia, UK, and Germany to put the weight of their support behind democracy activists in Iran. As a huge fan of Elie Wiesel, Betty Williams, and Jody Williams, I am enthused to bring the news to you, and to encourage you to make the same calls for change.

However, in support of the call, I'm actually shocked that the letter did not directly address the reasons these governments have not yet put their full weight behind democracy advocates in Iran. Isn't that the most important detail in advocating for policy change? The U.S., for example, is not failing to support the Iranian reformers because they don't think the Iranian government hasn't done anything wrong. The U.S. is cautious for two huge, delicate reasons which must be reconciled before it is safe to put U.S. support behind the reformers.

First, Iranian security is sometimes using ties to U.S. government agencies, Western press, and political persuasion organizations like the Open Society Institute as flags to indicate which Iranian citizens to focus serious surveillance attention to, if not arrest. The Iranian government already executed two demonstration organizers. If the U.S. increased its support for reformers suddenly, Iran's security apparatus would dramatically increase arrests and threats to anyone connected to such support.

Second, although historical models are not always helpful, I think there's a case to be made that if the democrats manage to secure the beginnings of serious reforms it will create an avalanche that would not necessarily go velvet like lovely 1989 Czechoslovakia. More likely, given the circumstances, it would range somewhere from 2000s Indonesia (very painful yet somehow barely working out) to 1980s Lebanon (blood bath).

Perhaps our leaders in peace need to be more clear. Should we advocate for full U.S., Russian, UK, and German support to democracy reformers to the extent of more loudly criticizing the Iranian government alone? Funding reformers at a risk of increasing their troubles with state security? Or backing them even if the pressure turns the battle into civil war?

As for this writer, I obviously do not hold a Nobel, so admittedly I'm writing from the press box. However, I do think that calls for policy change should not simply criticize but should directly address the reasons the policy leaders are either indifferent or cautious.

We want to support reform in Iran, but we do not want to create a civil war. The forward, yet peaceful path requires passion but also finesse, detail, and nuance. We do hope to see democracy leaders working together with Islamic reformers in the current government with gradual changes, not a NATO war against the Ayatollahs with Iranian students as the cannon fodder.

Photo credits: Hamed Saber (Tehran democracy demonstration) and 27389271 (Tehran Basji offices besieged by protesters)