There is an apparent paradox in the US and West’s reactions to the Iranian protests and Egyptian protests. It’s an important apparent paradox, maybe the greatest paradox of the US and the West, and we should pay more attention to it. Indeed, what we said before in ” Iran, the West, and a Paradox“, should be more explained and discussed in details. This time we want to remind ourselves of some important issues like the Capitalism principles or the Iran-Contra scandal in 1980s. We should try to compare Iran with Egypt systematically. In fact, we have some main hypotheses or axioms:
 Mubarak and his regime are the West’s friend
 Khamenei and his regime are the West’s enemy
 Accusing opposition of being US puppets could succeed in Iran.  Capitalism that rules the US says: “There is no permanent friend or no permanent enemy. Our Interests determine our friends and enemies.” and “Our leader is our interests”
And we have some important theses that the West and Western media have concluded form above hypotheses:
 The US or West doesn’t help Iranians, for Iranians’ sake (because of hypothesis)
 The US or West doesn’t want the Islamic regime (because of hypothesis)
 The US or West could do nothing politically to help Iranians or the US has no influence in Iran and it is not in a position to do anything behind the scene (because of hypothesis)
There is no doubt that hypothesis is correct. The Capitalism and its principles rule American politicians life. Hypothesis were correct for decades, but because of hypothesis it could be incorrect now and Mubarak could become an enemy for the US and its interests. Hypothesis could not be correct for all years and all cases as well. In fact, for many years and many cases the US and Islamic regime were the real friend. The Islamic regime has served the US interest. ‘ The media should not deceive us, we should see the obvious facts and think more about the hidden or obvious interests. In the near future we would write more about how the Islamic regime serve the US interest. But don’t forget that hypothesis and the Capitalism principles could simply reject thesis and reach us to a paradox. But we could provide much more supportive facts.
The media repeatedly emphasize the importance of the theses  and . But do we forget the Iran-Contra scandal in 1980s ? the three-way arrangement between the US, I-s-r-a-e-l and the Islamic regime, from 1981 to 1986, in which Iran bought American weapons from I-s-r-a-l in order to finance President Reagan’s covert death squads in Central America. [*] Here we could see how fake enemies could work together. The media repeatedly say:’ There is great hostility between the US and Iran ‘ . But this hostility or fight could be a fake or sham fight. Is this impossible? No, at least the Iran-Contra scandal showed us that it’s possible [*] It is naive to think that it’s impossible. Their fight could be sham fight, a false fight, and as we call it in Iran a “Jange Zargary”. Indeed, their mutual interests and hypothesis imply this fake fight. Don’t forget that the Islamic regime is a capitalistic regime, too.
The facts show us that the Mubarak’s regime and its thugs were going to regard the US support as “foreign meddling” and support Mubarak in reaction, but they were just a minority and the majority of Egyptians welcomed the US support. Did we forget the street battle between Mubarak’s thugs and Egyptian protesters? We have exactly the same fact in Iran, and hypothesis is totally wrong. The majority of Iranians welcome the US support, and just Basijis and Khamenei’s thugs, are going to regard the US support as “foreign meddling” and support Khamenie in reaction. This would be a big mistake or a big lie, if we think or say the opposite. The media should not deceive the foreigners about hypothesis and they should be aware that Iranians hate the Khamenie’s regime much more than any other nation in the world. The Khamenie’s regime is the enemy of Iranians and the majority of Iranians want to topple the regime and welcome any foreign support and help. Indeed, hypothesis is totally incorrect, and theses and  are just hypocrisy and a big lie.
We end with a simple questions: Do we treat our enemy like our friend ? If hypothesis and thesis were correct, The West or US certainly would do their best to topple their enemy. At least they would help the Iranians as much as they helped Egyptians. They would be so excited and happy to hear about Iranian protests, and they had to be so sad and angry about Egyptian protests, not vice versa. They would use their media to provoke and help Iranians, like what they did in Egypt. They would make speeches about Iran at least like their speeches about Egypt, full of ‘must’, ‘urge’ and ‘immediately’ . ‘But why do they refuse? Why do they content themselves to merely political rhetoric? Why do they act as if Mubarak is their enemy and Khamenei is their friend? We know that If a matter were vital for their interests, they would not consider public opinion at all. They would ignore public opinion or deceive them by political rhetoric. We have not forgotten their shameful reaction to Wikileaks. Iranians say:’ We just want Obama to make speeches about Iran like what he did for Egypt and Mubarak. We want him to put serious political pressure on the regime, like what he did with Egypt, but why does he refuse?
[*] Howard Zinn in his famous book ‘People History of United States’ has written about this fact in details. And the following sources are not bad: – The U.S. and Iran, Friend or Enemy ?
– IranContra.org with some formal details
– The Iran-Contra scandal
– The Iran-Contra Affair 20 Years On