Hopefully, the protests in Iran over the past few days will not abate. Rich Lowry here, as John Hinderaker at Powerline, have shared their diffidence about getting too excited with the talk of regime change in Iran. Smartly. But if I read them right, they also have taken to reconsidering such diffidence as Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has hardened and the images of Iranian police in face masks are shown trying to disperse the protestors — kicking, beating, and dragging them away to who knows where.

As John Hinderaker pointed out: “I am perhaps a little less willing than some of my friends on the right to assume that because demonstrators take to the streets and the government tries to crack down, it necessarily means that the government deserves to fall.” But, he goes on: “the difference here is that Iran’s regime is brutal–brutal when it hangs homosexuals, when it stones adulterers, when it drags college students from their dormitories.” He admits he has a new, “bright line standard: when your policemen wear ski masks, it’s time for a new regime.”

Here are some additional items to add to the standard: As CNN reports, yesterday, “Iran’s government banned international journalists from covering rallies and blocked access to some online communication tools in the wake of last week’s disputed presidential election. Reporters working for international news outlets, including CNN, could talk about the rallies in their live reports but were not allowed to leave their hotel rooms and offices.” And, of course, we know this regime is — to remind — the lead sponsor of terrorism in the Middle East, trying to acquire more nuclear technology while thwarting nuclear inspectors, and has openly talked of making possible a world without Israel or America.

President Obama spoke again yesterday about Iran saying, he had “deep concerns” about the disputed balloting. He said he believes the ayatollah’s decision to order an investigation also “indicates he understands the Iranian people have deep concerns.” But at the same time, Obama said it would not be helpful if theUnited States was seen by the world as “meddling” in the issue.

So there seems a new Obama standard as well. Meddling in U.S. corporate affairs, yes. Meddling in Israel’s domestic policy, yes. Meddling — which means nothing more than saying something — in Venezuela, Nicaragua, or Cuba (even while visiting their region and listening to their criticisms of the U.S.): no. And meddling in Iran: no. During the campaign we saw then-Senator Obama establish a moral equivalence between Georgia (whom Russia invaded) and Russia (who did the invading). Today, we see and hear lukewarm calls for restraint, free speech, and “respect” to use Obama’s word, for the regime of Iran.

The French president, to date, has been stronger on this than the U.S. president — and that is a shame; yesterday Nicolas Sarkozy said, “The extent of the fraud is proportional to the violent reaction. . . . It is a tragedy, but it is not negative to have a real opinion movement that tries to break its chains. . . . If Ahmadinejad has really made progress since the last election and if he really represents two thirds of the electorate . . . why has this violence erupted?” For this, French diplomats have been called in for a visit to Iran’s foreign ministry. At least attention is being paid.

There is a debate in this country as to whether President Obama should be more forceful in his words. I do not see how there can be much of a debate: on one side is brutal tyranny, on the other is a quest for democracy.

One last thing about concerns over U.S. rhetoric and Iran: The last time a U.S. president was seen as forceful and dangerous to Iran — or at least a presidential candidate — the years were 1980 and 1981. The joke that played throughout the world about that forceful leader, Ronald Reagan, was “What’s Flat and Glows?” The answer: “Tehran, one day after Ronald Reagan takes office.”

Reagan spoke of the Iranians as “barbarians” in 1980 after he won the election, and his people encouraged the Carter administration to let the Iranians know Reagan was unpredictable. The Iranians saw that and so did our own news analysts who, the day the hostages came home, the day Reagan was inaugurated, wrote such things as “Reagan was an unknown quantity and they would rather deal with Carter than Reagan.”

How about we bring back the words Reagan used: Barbarians. How about we also do something, something, to make the Iranian government just a little nervous by standing with those who are standing for the crumbling of a bizarrely repressive regime. Seems to me that kind of “meddling” is not a negative but rather a moral imperative right now.