Michael Ledeen thinks that my arguments for avoiding dangerous but ineffective U.S. involvement in Iran are “silly.” I guess if I had to choose one word to characterize his response, it would be “nonsensical” — though “offensive” is a close runner-up.

Ledeen thinks that I didn’t believe what I wrote because I said that if the crisis escalates, the administration should consider a different response. Let me assure him that I do believe what I wrote. However, I also have a long-held view that American foreign policy should be defined by U.S. interests and shaped by the international environment in which we operate rather than be pre-determined by an ideology that fails to adjust to new circumstances. If the crisis significantly escalates, it would be irresponsible — and nonsensical — not to reconsider our policy.

In responding to my statement that “it is far from clear that there is a substantial difference for U.S. interests” between Ahmadinejad and Mousavi, Ledeen commits an error and a misrepresentation. The error lies in his attributing the statement to one of my colleagues. (I cited my colleague to the effect that European support for a harder line on Iran’s nuclear weapons could evaporate if Mousavi became Iran’s president, not on the difference between the two candidates.) The misrepresentation is his failure to mention my reference to U.S. interests, and particularly (in the following sentence) my reference to Iran’s nuclear-weapons program and its support for Hamas and Hezbollah. Ledeen elected not to make a case that Mousavi would give in on either of these issues and instead focused on the protests. Yes, Mr. Ledeen, the protests do demonstrate that many Iranians think there is a difference between Ahmadinejad and Mousavi — but I suspect that they see the difference more in how the two men approach Iranian domestic issues, such as the economy and certain elements of clerical rule. Or does Ledeen think the Mousavi supporters are in the streets because they want to abandon Iran’s effort to build a nuclear bomb?

Bizarrely, Ledeen also tries to make a distinction between offering “political and moral support” and offering “encouragement” to the Iranians backing Mousavi in the street protests. This makes little sense. The dictionary provides several definitions of “support,” most of which I assume Ledeen is not proposing (though I suppose he may want America to pay the protesters’ bills, presumably secretly and perhaps through his good offices, as he once established key connections in Iran which facilitated the Iran-Contra disaster). The more relevant definitions of support include “to advocate,” “to assist or help,” and “to comfort or keep from losing courage” (which sounds a little like “encouragement”). Ledeen seems to want all three, but he tries to blur what “encouragement” means by saying that the U.S. didn’t encourage Mousavi’s supporters before the election, rather than addressing the points I tried to make about the administration’s post-election conduct and calls to change it.

Ledeen moves from nonsensical to offensive, however, when he says that “Those who say we would be blamed, or that we would alienate the Iranian people by supporting” the protesters “say that because they don’t believe in America, not because they care about the future of the Iranian people.” For the record, I completed the edits to my piece in the Washington Post from a hotel in Philadelphia, two blocks from Independence Hall, where our nation’s founders discussed and signed the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. I spent the weekend there, taking my three children to see this and other sites that were decisive for America’s creation and explaining why they matter to our country and to the rest of the world. So, Mr. Ledeen, I love and believe in America — but the America I believe in is one where people tolerate one another’s opinions without questioning their patriotism. Also for the record, my own extended family includes expatriate Iranians. I do not presume to speak for them, but I do care about those who remain under a repressive government.

Ledeen concludes by stating, “Neda must not die in vain. Iran must be free.” This no doubt makes him feel morally superior to the rest of us. But for the president of the United States to say that “Iran must be free” without doing something serious to make it happen makes it likely that not only Neda but many others will die, thus discrediting the United States and setting back Iranians’ hopes for a freer future. As someone who wants the United States to prevail wherever it chooses to become involved, and who wants to see freedom in Iran, I think that is both nonsensical and offensive.

– Paul Saunders is executive director of the Nixon Center and associate publisher of The National Interest.