"Leave Iran to the Iranians - do not interfere" and similar slogans have been bombarded all over activist media, some of it by the Islamic Regime as a warning to the meddling West, and some of it by nationalistic protesters and reformists on the streets. The real question is, to what extent is there foreign intervention, by whom, and should there be more of it? what is the difference between intervention and support? certainly foreign powers have had a hand in shaping Iran's destiny, but this call to inaction, or laissez-faire seems misguided to me. Now, totalitarian regimes such as the theocracy, because they represent a monopoly of authority, have a real problem seeing the difference between official foreign state actions and any action from the other estates, be it commerce, media, or private advocacy. When a journalist writes a column lambasting the Ayatollah, this is not a foreign state intervention. when a company cancels its siemens or nokia contract, this is not a destabilization attack. when individuals take a moral act of conscience and decry their solidarity for the wave of protesters in Iran, this is not an organized zionist conspiracy. since Martin Luth King jr's civil rights movement, Mahatma Gandhi's Civil Disobedience, and Bernard Kouchner's Droit d'Ingérence have been redefinig the role of private conscience acting on the public. the public here, means without respect for borders, sovereignty, or any of the artifical boundaries that are being pulled up. Conscience is a universal and human virtue which does not stop at a frontier line in the desert. It is for these reasons, as an excercise of private acts of conscience, that a journalist writes, a ceo blockades, a pop star denounces, and a citizen tweets or joins a hunger strike. So while "Western" states operating on the political should stay away, their citizens have every right to express their support, lend out a hand. this is what a democracy really means. the right to direct action. This action can be subtle or severe, simply a show of faith, a transmittal and publication of censored information, or counsel in strategies and courses of action to help iranians on the ground. Here I would like to adress the hypocrisy of all these wretched Islamist states when it comes to this discourse. Under the virtue of so-called islamic charity and muslim brotherhood states like Iran and Syria continue to support violent extremist factions abroad. This relationship is so direct that Iran is now trucking back and flying back hundreds of armed militias, from lebanon, azerbaijan, afghanistan, wherever. Make no mistake, these are not here for free. They were directly financed, supported, aided and abetted and have come back to help the iron hand that feeds them. Even if the fighters are not paid directly in cash, an exchange of favours, of future aid in their own domestic jihads are tacitly on the table. These are not noble freedom fighters. These are mercenaries, jackals of teh worst kind. Which is the greater interference: pro-democracy activists exercising private conscience and showing their solidarity, or essentially organized armies of foreign zealot vigilantes, paid to come here and enforce the tyranny of a failed state in its last spiteful breath? I can honestly say I don't think western media opinion is a licensed state propaganda effort. there's enough of a divergence of opinion to show this. I can truly say that foreign bassij militias ARE a licensed act of inter-state repression on the part of Iran and its less stable and democratic neighbours Forget the slogans. Free your conscience.