George W. Bush has announced his support for democrats and reformists from Beirut to ‎Damascus and from Baghdad to Tehran. ‎

This simple and ordinary remark has apparently created trouble for reformists in Iran, as ‎their conservative opponents have interpreted Bush’s remarks as proof that reformists are ‎beholden to the United States. As a result, in their own defense, reformists have begun to ‎condemn Bush, accusing him of deliberately planning to undermine reforms in Iran ‎through such remarks. ‎

There has not been a single president in the history of the United States who has not ‎voiced support for democratic forces all over the globe, even if he has acted to the ‎contrary. Bush’s remarks, in effect, are no different than remarks of Islamic Republic ‎officials in support of freedom fighters and Islamists all over the world. ‎

It is clear what would happen if other countries in the world use the remarks of Islamic ‎Republic’s officials to suppress resistant or freedom-fighting groups. Just as Iran’s vocal ‎support of resistance fighters across the world cannot be used a pretext by other ‎governments to suppress domestic opposition, Bush’s general support of democrats and ‎reformists cannot be used by the Islamic Republic as an excuse to ban reformists from ‎participating in elections. ‎

Furthermore, the subject of Bush’s reference is not entirely clear. By "democrats and ‎reformists" in Iran, does he mean the Participation Front, the Mojahedin of the ‎Revolution, E’temad Melli Party, the Association of Combatant Clerics, and dozens of ‎other groups that operate under the reform banner in Iran?‎

It is very unlikely, based on Bush’s past policies, that he really meant he groups that ‎operate under the reform banner in Iran. If that were the case, he would not have named ‎Iran along with Iraq and North Korea as part of the Axis of Evil, especially when ‎Khatami was Iran's president. ‎

With this in mind, should Bush be condemned for his general remark in support of ‎reformists in the Middle East? From a logical point of view, one cannot condemn the ‎head of a government from speaking what is in the best interest of his nation and to tell ‎him to shut up! Obviously, the head of any government would shy away from voicing ‎support for despised figures across the world such as dictators, terrorists and warmongers, ‎and would instead prefer to be known as a supporter of loved and respected figures such ‎as seekers of freedom and justice. ‎

Certainly a man like Bush will never say that he supports dictators, warmongers and ‎terrorists in the Middle East - no sane person would. With that in mind, the fact that ‎reformists in Iran are unhappy with Bush's remarks in support of democracy in region ‎means that Bush must either shut his mouth, or if he decides to open it, support terrorists ‎and dictators. ‎

The real issue is not Bush's remarks. The real issue is that why should groups that ‎identify themselves as reformists or democrats in Syria, Lebanon, or Iraq, face ‎intimidation because of certain remarks made by Bush. ‎

Another related point is that reformists in Iran are enduring very difficult times if they ‎have to face intimidation for the remarks of a foreign country's president. Obviously if ‎reformists had a bit of power they could have announced loudly, what is it to us that Bush ‎has made such remarks? Leaders of other nations say thousands of things every single ‎day, why are we responsible for what they say? ‎