The short text messages sent via cell phones and the web are giving an unlikely movement added momentum and coordination as the demonstrations head into their second week in Tehran.

Twitter, the microblogging social media website, is being hailed for its role in helping Iranians disseminate information in a time where authorities are tightening their already iron-grip on the media and free speech. Though the Iranian government is expert at online suppression, it is struggling to censor Twitter.

Any mass movement in Iran would garner attention from the United States regardless of tactics, but the role of Twitter is adding intrigue and (possibly overstated) exuberance for spectators here. The State Department claimed Monday that it asked the website to perform scheduled maintenance during the nighttime in Iran, maximizing access to protestors. This claim is disputed by some who perceive the Obama administration as taking undue credit; it is also seen as too meager by those who think the United States should step up intervention.

Knowing full well the history of failed intervention in Iran, the Obama administration is reluctant to say too much of anything about the movement. Interference by the “Great Satan” could hinder the movement, the president pointed out. Although he voiced he support for human rights in Iran, he reiterated the need for the United States to respect Iranian sovereignty.

Interference could be counterproductive in the country itself, as Iran and hardliner sympathizers could raise hell in Afghanistan and Iraq. Military intervention of some kind falls somewhere between implausible and impossible. Foreign involvement could hand the Iranian government a rare propaganda victory, even if against odds it actually prevented an Iranian Tiananmen.

Many, however, are still calling for President Obama to take a more aggressive approach, with some mistakenly believing the movement to be a rare display of pro-Americanism. Even if Iranians did want more support from the White House (they don’t), given the impracticality of intervening, ratcheting up fiery rhetoric could be a virtual death sentence for Iranian dissidents. Just like the government sponsored Radio Free Europe gave Hungarian revolutionaries the false impression that NATO troops had their backs in 1956 (pdf), tough talk from Washington again could condemn Iranian dissidents to the same fate. And although ruling out further diplomatic action against the Iranian regime would be foolish, the administration should pat itself on the back for its policy of limited intervention, employed wisely, if true, in the case of Twitter.

Government support for new forms of media should be tempered. Whereas traditional media used in the past to foment protest movements came from the top down, Twitter is a vessel for information from individual users — a true, if sometimes silly, expression of democracy. If the United States wishes to truly lead the world in democracy, it must, among other things, let media 2.0 do its own thing.  

Though this era of more democratized media, far from perfect it may be, is exciting websites like Twitter alone will not lead to sweeping changes in Iran, or anywhere else for that matter.  Whether it comes from a protestor or politician — in this country or Iran — talk is cheap and cannot fight a revolution. Where that talk is expressed in 140 characters of text, it can certainly help those who may be fighting it. Realizing that true change comes from within, making sure that line of communication is open for Iranians is a savvy move from the White House.

Also Interesting:

[+] Feds freeze over $30 million of online poker winnings

[+] The Fog of Wartime Contracting: An OhMyGov! In-Depth Report

[+] The week's 10 best political jokes - June 19, 2009

[+] DARPA developing translation device

[+] In Daniel Hauser Case, Liberty Suffers Too

[+] Stupid license plate earns Chicago man 170 tickets