The original justification for the US military action in Iran is now nowhere in sight.

The US Memorandum of Understanding with Iran to bring an end to the Iran War, which remains the basis of negotiations on a final agreement that are expected to resume this week, could have hugely damaging effects in one area that so far has received little attention: human rights.

“The Memorandum focuses almost entirely on military withdrawal, the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz, nuclear commitments, sanctions relief and a $300 billion reconstruction fund,” United Nations human rights officials noted recently. “The Iranian people—who have suffered enormously from both external military aggression and internal repression—are barely visible in this framework.”

Meanwhile, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe stated that human rights have not been sufficiently central in US diplomacy with Tehran. It argued that “lasting peace and stability in Iran” will not come about “in the absence of respect for human rights, democracy and the rule of law.”

That’s right, and Tehran’s brutal mullahcracy is capitalizing on US disinterest by cracking down more fiercely on the Iranian people. It has “stepped up” its hanging of political dissidents, arrested thousands of “alleged traitors and spies,” kept them in harsh conditions, seized their families’ properties, set bail high enough to force people to sell their possessions, extracted forced confessions, and conducted sham trials.

The crackdown has come in the months since President Donald Trump took to social media in January to urge those participating in nationwide protests over human rights and economic opportunity to “KEEP PROTESTING—TAKE OVER YOUR INSTITUTIONS,” promising that “HELP IS ON THE WAY.” He later vowed that those who killed or abused protestors would “pay a very big price.”

But no direct US help for the protestors ever came. And though the United States wiped out much of Tehran’s leadership in its subsequent bombing campaign, the regime survived, and its new leaders are reinforcing it—in large measure by taking retribution against the protestors and their supporters.

The question is whether Washington will remain silent as Tehran slaughters its people. If so, the implications could be profound not just in Iran but in authoritarian nations across the globe. By ignoring Tehran’s crackdown as it negotiates an agreement, Washington will dishearten not just besieged Iranians but also dissidents elsewhere while giving freer rein to autocrats to crack down harder.

For decades, human rights activists around the world have looked to Washington to voice support for their efforts, and they’ve been energized when Washington has done so. Natan Sharansky, for instance, recalled that he and other dissidents in a Soviet prison were electrified when they heard that President Ronald Reagan had labeled the Soviet Union an “evil empire.”

Why should we care? For two reasons.

First, authoritarian regimes tend to be aggressive beyond their borders, threatening regional peace and global stability. As Soviet physicist and human rights activist Andrei Sakharov put it, “A country that does not respect the rights of its own citizens will not respect the rights of its neighbors.”

Second, Americans benefit from a freer, more democratic world. We benefit economically from trade and investment opportunities, and we benefit in security terms because democratic nations virtually never go to war with one another.

For those who recognize the vital role that Washington has played in promoting human rights since World War II, our decision to give Tehran a free pass on its current crackdown is particularly ill-timed.

The United States will soon celebrate its 250th birthday, which will focus global attention on America’s founding principles, rise to global power, and longstanding efforts to promote human rights.

Our celebration will come, as Freedom House reports, amid the 20th straight year of decline in political rights and civil liberties around the world, which should inspire more human rights promotion from Washington, not less.

In the 1970s, Congress reacted to President Richard Nixon’s disinterest in human rights promotion by institutionalizing human rights in US foreign policymaking by, for instance, requiring the State Department to issue annual reports on human rights practices in other countries, withholding aid and other benefits from rights-abusing nations, and creating new State Department posts to focus on human rights abroad.

But as Sharansky and other dissidents around the world have made clear for decades, nothing is more powerful than the public words of a US president in inspiring human rights activists to continue their work.

When the Green Movement took shape in Iran after the fraudulent Iranian presidential election of 2009, President Barack Obama refused to give the movement full US support, saying he didn’t want the United States “to be seen as meddling” in Iranian affairs. He has, however, since said he regrets that decision.

That about-face should be instructive. Even while negotiating an agreement with Iran, President Trump, too, can reverse course, shine a consistent light on Tehran’s abuses, and give human rights promotion a global boost.

About the Author: Lawrence Haas

Lawrence J. Haas is a senior fellow at the American Foreign Policy Council and the author of, among other books, Harry and Arthur: Truman, Vandenberg, and the Partnership That Created the Free World. Haas writes widely on foreign affairs, is quoted often in newspapers and magazines, and appears frequently on TV and radio. Previously, he was communications director for Vice President Al Gore and, before that, for the Office of Management and Budget.

The post Iran’s Human Rights Abuses Haven’t Disappeared appeared first on The National Interest.