For the past two weeks, Americans have been observing the scenes from Iran of demonstrators protesting peacefully against the allegedly rigged results of the national elections, and the rough tactics adopted by the paramilitary to suppress them. A number of lives have been lost, and uncounted additional ones have been injured. Many in the United States, including prominent politicians, have called for a stronger reaction from the United States to help the demonstrators, but the options available to the U.S. are very limited.

The hostility of the Iranian government toward the United States stems from the overthrow in 1953 of the democratically elected government of Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh by the CIA, with encouragement from Britain, whose major oil company had been nationalized by Mossadegh. This is the same Mossadegh that Time had named its Man of the Year in 1952, calling him the "Iranian George Washington." The person mainly responsible for coordinating the coup was Kermit Roosevelt Jr., a senior officer in the CIA's Middle Eastern Division, and grandson of President Theodore Roosevelt. The U.S. then reinstalled the Shah of Iran as emperor.

The Shah was finally overthrown in the Iranian revolution of 1979, and an Islamic Republic was established. The following year, Saddam Hussein attacked Iran, and when it looked as if he might lose, America came to his rescue, ostensibly to maintain a balance of power in the region. Hundreds of thousands of Iranian lives were lost during the eight years of war, and many Iranians have not forgotten the help the United States provided to the aggressor Saddam's regime.

As President Obama stated in one of his recent speeches on the crisis, this history of U.S. involvement in Iran has made it particularly difficult for America to do more to help the protesters. The president has been precisely right in his carefully chosen words, indicating support for the right of all peoples to protest peacefully and condemning actions that result in loss of lives, but not raising hopes that the United States will interfere militarily in what is going on in Iran. He has made clear that it is the Iranian people, and not other countries, who will decide who governs them.

The same neo-conservative voices that used to claim that we would be welcomed with roses in Iraq are making similar claims now about how a more active role by the U.S. would be well-received by the Iranians. On the contrary, no prominent politician in Iran wants to be identified as being supported by the U.S., since it would make it easier for the regime to discredit him as carrying out the wishes of a disliked foreign power.

Further, the past results of our encouragement of local efforts for greater freedom have not been good for the local populations. We encouraged the Hungarian uprising against the Soviet Union in 1956, and watched helplessly as the Soviet army crushed it. After the first Gulf War, we encouraged the Marsh Arabs and the Kurds to rise against Saddam, and stood by as they were massacred by the ex-dictator's army.

We do not have diplomatic relations with Iran, so we cannot break them to express our displeasure. We already have tough sanctions against Iran because of its nuclear program, and can make them tougher still. Beyond that, our ability to influence events in Iran is very limited.

The situation in Iran is evolving rapidly, and it is in our interest that some arrangement comes out of the turmoil, which would allow more freedom of expression for the people of Iran and more opportunities for interaction with the international community. The United States will still need to negotiate with the leadership of Iran about the nuclear issue, guarantees for Iran's own security, and the greater integration of Iran with the global community. Ultimately, that is where the interests of most Iranians and Americans coincide.