USA administration cannot abandon the Iranian people who're oppressed

Jamie Fly and Katie LaRoque at Freedom House make a vital point why it's wrong for the USA administration to take any steps that would enable a sadistic dictatorship to remain in place and continue subjecting its citizens to horror stories:

In early 2026, when Iranian surgeon Alireza Golchini saw protesters with gunshot and stab wounds from the regime, he did what doctors are trained to do: he treated them. For that, Iranian authorities arrested him, charged him with “waging war against God,” and threatened him with a sentence that can carry the death penalty. His alleged crime was not violence or espionage; it was providing medical care to wounded Iranians.

His story is a reminder of a simple reality: the Islamic Republic is one of the world’s most repressive regimes. Just recently, a woman was sentenced to 74 lashes for singing in a YouTube video without a hijab, and a 17-year-old swimmer and boxer was sentenced to death for participating in a protest. The regime just executed another dissident, bringing the total number of political executions in 2026 to at least 45.

[...] For the Iranian people, however, the US-Iran deal as currently formulated is likely to deepen repression. It will strengthen the authorities that only months ago were imprisoning, executing, and killing Iranians in the streets for demanding basic freedoms and improved living conditions.

Late in 2025 and early 2026, millions of Iranians took to the streets in the most significant challenge the Islamic Republic has faced in decades. Authorities answered with a crackdown that left thousands dead and tens of thousands arrested. The regime also imposed a near-total internet shutdown that lasted for months, cutting Iranians off from one another and from a world that might otherwise have witnessed the scale of the violence. Yet reports indicate that a final agreement could bring this same regime sweeping sanctions relief, access to frozen assets, and billions of dollars in new investment. For Iranians who risked their lives demanding change, the likely outcome is not a more moderate government, but a more entrenched and repressive one.

[...] At a minimum, the United States should make any relief conditional on five things: the release of Iran’s political prisoners, an end to the executions handed down in protest cases, a binding guarantee against another nationwide internet shutdown, and the return of the Americans now imprisoned in Iran or barred from leaving—six by the assessment of the James W. Foley Legacy Foundation. Tehran should also be required to come clean about the fate of kidnapped former FBI Agent Bob Levinson and help his family recover his remains. These are among the clearest and most immediate signs of whether Iranian authorities are prepared to act in good faith.

See, these are vital reasons to topple a savage dictatorship, along with exiling monsters from what you would think civilized countries. I notice that Federalist editor John Daniel Davidson, who previously took disturbing positions that put his supposed understandings of reality under question marks, is now seemingly making valid points about the state of Europe while discussing SCOTUS' defeatist positions on birthright citizenship in the USA:

In countries like France and Britain, which have large numbers of Muslim migrants, this means multigenerational communities of non-citizens with a totally different cultural and political worldview — one that’s openly hostile to the host country. They will eventually, as they are beginning to do now, carve out their own insular polities within the nation, Balkanizing the country and destroying the possibility of republican self-government or even the possibility of national survival. An Islamified Britain will no longer be Britain, but something else.

Obviously, this can't go unopposed, but then, why did Dumberson oppose the war against Iran? Considering their Islamic tyrants were financing jihadism overseas, they could also be financing infiltration into the USA through illegal immigration, and does that sit well with Dumberson? Does it sit well with him that an innocent and defenseless woman could already have been tortured over an Orwellian Thoughtcrime? If he's not willing to approve of taking serious action against sadists in Islamofascist countries like Iran, then this current editorial of his rings totally hollow. That's why what he's saying now should be approached with caution, because it's not enough to defend just your home country, and to turn a deaf ear and a blind eye to the plight of innocent foreigners in distress is offensive, morally or otherwise.

If the Trump administration continues to allow the Islamofascist dictatorship in Iran to continue governing, it's always possible that could ruin election chances in mid-term. And if that's what happens, it'll make clear that when serious action isn't put to use, no matter the turnout, you cannot be surprised if the public will ultimately be disillusioned with the notion certain movements like conservatives really support responsibility, and applying equal standards everywhere. Also note how the Daily Caller is writing reports that're potentially hostile to Israel, which seem to be lamenting that Israel's military wanted to terminate "negotiators" from Iran, and you know something's wrong. If those very "negotiators" harbor Islamofascist beliefs themselves and are loyal to the dictatorship, why are they considered valuable? There are no doubt movements in the country that can be considered far better candidates for replacing the tyrants, and refusing to consider them only worsens the situation.