Will the violence in Iran turn into another Hungary 1956?

The news out of Iran today is both stunning and joyous.

Shouting “death to the dictator,” Iranian protesters took to the streets again yesterday and today. In response, the government crackdown has become more violent — there’s tear gas in the streets, helicopters monitoring the scenes in the streets, burned out cars, and up to nine deaths. Reports say that soldiers fired upon unarmed dissidents. As the picture above shows, these are not scattered incidents, but large, organized groups of Iranian citizens willing to sacrifice their lives for their cause.

During the past few months, I admit that I read the news of the on-going protests with some skepticism. My cynical side told me that the protests would not last, that the iron claw of tyranny would have its way in Iran. Today’s news stories have convinced me that the protests are not going away. This is a confrontation that will either end in a bloody civil war or the ultimate overthrow of the religious fanatics controlling Iran.

Here’s my question for all those who opposed the Bush policy of regime change in Iraq: If the Iranian protesters ask for our help, should we intervene? Or should we do as we did in Hungary in 1956 and let the forces of tyranny crush this revolution?

Here are some incredible photos and videos of the Iranian protests as published today by the Los Angeles Times.

Hillary gives Iran a pass on election crackdown.

While “deploring” the violence against the Iranian people following the contested re-election last month of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton offered Iran an olive branch yesterday during her long-awaited policy address yesterday at the Council of Foreign Relations.

She told the Council –

Neither the President nor I have any illusions that dialogue with the Islamic Republic will guarantee success of any kind, and the prospects have certainly shifted in the weeks following the election. But we also understand the importance of offering to engage Iran and giving its leaders a clear choice: whether to join the international community as a responsible member or to continue down a path to further isolation.

Direct talks provide the best vehicle for presenting and explaining that choice. That is why we offered Iran’s leaders an unmistakable opportunity: Iran does not have a right to nuclear military capacity, and we’re determined to prevent that. But it does have a right to civil nuclear power if it reestablishes the confidence of the international community that it will use its programs exclusively for peaceful purposes.

Iran can become a constructive actor in the region if it stops threatening its neighbors and supporting terrorism. It can assume a responsible position in the international community if it fulfills its obligations on human rights. The choice is clear. We remain ready to engage with Iran, but the time for action is now. The opportunity will not remain open indefinitely.

From the Iranian perspective, it is unlikely that this limited-time offer from the Obama Administration will be taken seriously.

Indeed, Ahmadinejad responded today by saying Iran would “strike its enemies in the face,” and again rejected pressure from the international community to  curb Iran’s “right” to develop nuclear power.

The question is, will the Clinton-Obama policy of turning the other cheek only make Israel, an Old Testament nation-state, more likely to take action on its own?

You can read the full text of Hillary’s address to the Council on Foreign Relations here.

Obama takes Hillary’s advice on Iran, then snubs her.

For days Barack Obama had been tip-toeing around the violence taking place in Iran, fearful that the Great Satan would once again be accused of meddling in Iranian affairs. His caution did not pay off as Iran’s government accused the U.S. of meddling anyway.

Behind the scenes, however, Hillary Clinton and the State Department were pressing Obama to take a more forceful stance against the Iranian crackdown. Several days after making their case, Obama did, indeed, use the language Hillary had been seeking: Obama finally said he was “appalled and outraged” by Iranian behavior and “strongly condemned” the violence against anti-government demonstrators.

A Washington Times story suggests that State Department employees were very familiar with Obama’s more forceful language because they had given it to him.

“It was a happy surprise,” one administration official said. “It was echoing the line the secretary had been pushing for a couple of days.”

Some in Washington are suggesting that Obama’s initial resistance to Hillary’s advice and then not acknowledging her assistance or at least informing her ahead of time that he had planned to communicate her perspective on the protests, is an indication of a strain between the two former Democratic primary adversaries.