Editorial: Silence wisest response to Iran protests

The fresh outbreak of violent protests in Iran has created a problem for Western leaders. Perhaps President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's only remaining ace as he clings to power is his ability to play on many Iranians' misgivings about the United States and Israel, in particular. Any hint of support for the demonstrators, or criticism of Iran's President or its non-elected ruling clerics, is, therefore, bound to trigger accusations of foreign meddling. Unfortunately, the temptation to comment has proved too overwhelming for some in the West. The death of at least eight protesters convinced a few leaders already alarmed by aspects of Iran's nuclear programme that silence was no longer an option.

President Barack Obama, who said little last June during large-scale demonstrations sparked by the disputed presidential poll that returned the hardline Mr Ahmadinejad to power, did not hold back. He condemned Iran's "iron fist of brutality" against the demonstrators, and praised the "courage and determination of the Iranian people". Britain and France joined in, with French President Nicolas Sarkozy assailing Tehran for the "bloody repression of the protests".

Mr Ahmadinejad was quick to seize on such comments, as would any populist leader. He told Iranians they offered evidence the demonstrations were "a play ordered by Zionists and Americans". This undoubtedly persuaded some to join the tens of thousands who poured into the streets late last week in support of Iran's rulers at state-sponsored rallies. Many of the marchers were civil servants, who were given the day off to attend the rallies, but others were core supporters of Mr Ahmadinejad bused in from rural areas. Despite an economy in tatters, the President has used targeted support to retain his popularity among the poor in the countryside.

The counter-demonstrations were designed to signal that Iran's rulers could reclaim the streets whenever they chose. Mr Ahmadinejad and Iran's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, owe a debt to the West for their success. They have also been shrewd in their reaction to the demonstrations, minimising the number of martyrs to the protesters' cause and seeking to weaken the main opposition leader, Mir-Hossein Mousavi, by arresting key aides.

But this cannot disguise the fact that the tide continues to turn against them. The demonstrators have already proved resilient in the face of crackdowns and are now showing a disregard for authority that borders on impunity. They number both young, urban activists, who were a major part of the earlier protests, and moderate clerics critical of Iran's leaders. The two groups are united in opposition but not necessarily in intent.

The clerics have no desire to replace the theocracy or, indeed, scrub out the constitution created by the Islamic Revolution 30 years ago. They wish simply to see the back of Ayatollah Khamenei. The ambition of the more secular activists is broader, encompassing the sort of personal freedoms that will lead, inevitably, to a greater degree of representative democracy.

In time, the youth of what is an extremely youthful nation will have their way. But in the short term, the outcome is far more difficult to forecast. It seems, however, that Iran is on a collision course. The chances of a mediated outcome are dwindling by the day. If the police abandon all pretence of restraint, widespread bloodshed seems inevitable. The build-up of this crisis has rekindled memories of the overthrow of the Western-backed Shah. The comparisons are apt. On this occasion, however, the West has much to gain by not providing ammunition for Iran's rulers - no matter how strong the sympathy for the protesters.