Pro & Con: Should U.S. take a harder line in the Iranian election crisis?

The subsequent massive rallies protesting the regime's actions should serve as a reminder to the world that no matter the faith, culture or country, all people desire freedom.

This said, honest observers of the region rightly note that the election was rigged to begin with.

Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei is the ultimate decision maker in all matters of state in his country, including who will be allowed to run in Iran's presidential elections.

Mir Hossein Mousavi, the candidate that hundreds of thousands of protestors have taken to the streets to support, may be the most moderate of Iran's serious recent presidential contenders, but he was a key player in the early years of the modern Persian Islamic theocracy.

His recent bid for office was backed by Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, the former president of Iran during the 1990s and the so-called reformist alternative to Ahmadinejad in Iran's 2005 election.

Rafsanjani once asserted "the use of even one nuclear bomb inside Israel will destroy everything;" hardly a moderate ambition.

Thus President Obama was intellectually correct when he downplayed the differences between Ahmadinejad and Mousavi, but the protests taking place across Iran are about more than just a candidate.

There is a proud tradition in the United States of standing with those who risk their lives to demand their freedom.

Yet the best the present American administration can muster is a few muted statements, and the observation that Mousavi is not much better than Ahmadinejad.

From support for terror to Iran's nuclear-weapons program, every policy dispute the West has with Iran is a symptom of that country's authoritarian disease.

Until the ultimate power in Tehran rests with the people, no election is fair, no voter is free and no diplomatic engagement legitimate.

During his speech Monday at the National Press Club, Reza Cyrus Pahlavi, the former Crown Prince of Iran, stated that Tehran's tyrants may characterize democratic solidarity as meddling in the affairs of others. But, he asserted that it is "vital that the free world not fall for such cruel cynicism," and he pleaded with the free world not to let these thugs "define what is disrespect for sovereignty."

The people of Iran have taken to the streets precisely because they refuse to be intimidated by the Iranian regime. President Obama should acknowledge their courage by displaying some of his own.

In 1963 President Kennedy went to Berlin and declared "All free men, wherever they may live, are citizens of Berlin, and, therefore, as a free man, I take pride in the words, 'Ich bin ein Berliner.'"

Nearly a quarter century later President Reagan stood in the same city and demanded that Soviet Leader Mikhail Gorbachev "tear down this wall."

President Obama enjoys an exceptional level of popularity around the globe. But what is the point of such esteem if he is unwilling to risk it in an effort to change the world?

There is a point at which the "wait and see" approach betrays hesitance, not thoughtfulness. The time has come for the president to loudly deliver the message that the West will stand with the Iranian people as they march in the streets to reclaim their country from its despotic rulers.

During his campaign for vice president, Joe Biden noted that the world would test Obama within six months of the president's having taken the oath of office. This is that moment.

Ari Morgenstern, an Atlanta based media relations consultant, is a graduate student in political science at Georgia State University.

NO: Tough talk unites moderates and hard-liners against U.S.

By Sameh Abdelaziz

The loud critics demanding that the American administration insert itself in the Iranian populist revolt against Ahmadinejad's government fail to understand the uprising roots, Middle Eastern politics, and even the basic principles of nationalism.

How many more times do we need to listen to the name Aflac or Geico to think of the talking duck, or envision the little lizard?

Similarly, the American brand of freedom and democracy is established and well. We must question the added value of injecting ourselves in the election dispute, against the potential harm to the brave men and women battling government militias in Tehran's streets.

It is easy to issue a cowboy- style statement demanding that the Iranian government nullify the election. It is possible to stand tall declaring all future negotiation dead unless Mir Hossein Mousavi becomes the president of Iran. Such actions will satisfy many of the critics, but will hurt the cause of freedom and the long-term American interests in the region.

It is naive to think that the people putting their lives on the line demanding change in Iran are angry only over the election results. The election is the straw that broke the camel's back. It is also wrong to explain their rage and frustration through the simple prisms of sudden yearning for freedom and democracy, because they weren't born yesterday and they had the same system of government for the last 30 years.

The people shouting "Allah Akbar" — God is great — from rooftops in the middle of the nights are Iranian moderates. They always believed in democracy and freedom of speech, but were silenced for years by their government under the false premise of a united Iran in the face of the perceived American threat.

We know too well how nations react under a threat. After 9/11 we united like never before, we put flags on cars and in our offices and yards. Our young volunteered in droves to serve in the armed forces. All of us read the paper and participated in community functions.

We didn't object to calling some segments of our society names. We accepted the government spying on our calls and restricting some of our constitutional rights. No dissidents stood up and questioned any of these actions because of the national threat we faced. A similar environment thrived in Iran for the last 30 years, and crushed all forms of rebellion.

In fact, Iran is only one of many governments and organizations in the Middle East that use our occasional irresponsible statements, and the raw force we project at times, to oppress moderate voices and to brand them as traitors in the face of a national threat.

Middle Eastern culture also magnifies the political implications of these perceived national threats.

There is a proverb common in most Arab and Muslim countries that explains the difficulty America has experienced for years in its attempt to win hearts and minds. The saying translates to, "My brother and I will stand up to our cousin; my cousin and I will unite against a stranger." America has played for years the role of the stranger; in the process, it united the brothers and the cousins.

The new American foreign policy based on mutual respect and shared interests changed with a stroke of brilliance the Middle East we know. It eliminated the national-threat lie, gave the moderates voice and exposed the split within the political elite.

The fight over political Islam has just begun in the streets of Iran, and it will expand to neighboring lands. It will be long and hard but will be won by the moderates as long as the world has the patience and the vision.

The Obama administration made the right decision by refraining from any direct interference in Iran's affairs. It should continue on the path of reconciliation, and extend friendship to the people of the region.

But for all the talking heads, my advice is to keep quiet and give freedom a chance. Any other course of action will put the genie back in the bottle.

Sameh Abdelaziz of Marietta is IT manager for a major global distribution network.