America first, but not alone. Freedom isn’t the threat; neglect is. In the U.S., the promise is simple: speak, assemble, publish—so long as you don’t coerce or harm.
That promise breaks when we stop defending a few non-negotiables: no political violence, no covert direction by hostile actors, no corruption above the law, and no policing that treats peaceful dissent as a crime.
This isn’t abstract for Nick Berg, author of Shadows of Tehran. His life sits at the intersection of openness and threat. An Iranian-American with a dual identity who later served in U.S. Special Operations, Berg’s story shows how open societies create room for reinvention—and how that same openness can be probed by those who play by different rules.
The paradox: openness is a strength and an attack surface. In the U.S. (and across other democracies), the fix isn’t to narrow freedoms—it’s to tighten the red lines around methods, not ideas:
- Zero tolerance for organized violence and coercion.
- Sunlight on money and covert direction (foreign cut-outs, criminal proxies, front groups).
- Accountable policing that facilitates peaceful protest while surgically isolating the violent few.
- Independent courts and clean elections so no one is “above the rules.”
Berg’s arc—fleeing tyranny, earning his place in America’s most demanding ranks, and telling the truth about what freedom costs—underscores the civic duty woven into liberty: keep the public square wide; keep the boundaries bright, narrow, and enforced.
That’s how you stop the one-in-a-thousand bad actor without punishing the 999 who came to build, study, serve, and speak.
Is Freedom Dangerous?
Freedom turns “dangerous” only when free societies stop defending their own guardrails. America’s task—our task—isn’t to shrink liberty. It’s to defend it with precision and integrity.
For more on Nick Berg’s journey, dual identity, and Special Operations service—and why these red lines matter—explore the Shadows of Tehran blogs and read Shadows of Tehran the book.
Where religion can amplify the risk—and how to answer it (without blaming faith)
This isn’t a critique of religion. Faith communities are among the strongest defenders of dignity and freedom. The danger comes when belief is weaponized—by states, movements, or proxies—to justify coercion, recruit for violence, or launder power through identity.
How the risks show up
- State capture by creed: when religion is fused with state power, dissent becomes “heresy,” and coercion wears a moral badge. Nick Berg’s Tehran backdrop is a warning about what happens when that wall collapses.
- Proxy mobilization: extremists (or foreign handlers) wrap operations in religious language, use charities or community groups as fronts, and radicalize a tiny minority while the vast majority of believers reject violence.
- Street-level escalation: protests around sacred issues can be peaceful—and then get hijacked by a few who seek confrontation, dragging police and communities into spirals of mistrust.
Red lines that protect both freedom and faith
Where does “protect worship” end and “prosecute coercion” begin?
Protect worship; prosecute coercion. In law and practice, free exercise of religion is non-negotiable, but the line is bright at violence, threats, and incitement. That’s the ICCPR reading (freedom of religion protected in full, with limits only where necessary to protect the rights of others), reinforced by the Rabat Plan of Action, which sets a high threshold for restricting speech and targets incitement rather than belief. Assembly standards from European bodies add the same guardrails: facilitate peaceful worship and protest; act only when conduct crosses into harm.
How can we require transparent cross-border funding without chilling civil society?
Transparency for cross-border funding (with due process). Open societies should require disclosures when organizations—religious or secular—receive foreign-directed money above clear thresholds. International guidance backs the principle that civil society has a right to seek and receive funding, including from abroad; when states regulate, rules must be necessary, proportionate, and reviewable. Venice Commission opinions and the UN Special Rapporteur on association rights both stress disclosure over denial, with independent oversight and appeal.
How do we target methods—not identities—in surveillance and policing?
No identity dragnets. Surveillance and policing must be warrant-based, narrowly scoped, and externally overseen. European courts have struck down bulk, indiscriminate data retention or mass interception that lacks strict safeguards—clarifying that investigations must be targeted and proportionate. Protest-policing guidance likewise centers on necessity and proportionality standards. The aim is to pursue means (illicit finance, covert direction, organized violence), not profile communities.
How can credible faith and community leaders act as force multipliers against escalation?
Partner with credible leaders. Clergy and lay leaders are proven force multipliers against radicalization and escalation when supported with transparent, rights-respecting programs. Major frameworks—from the Global Counterterrorism Forum’s community-engagement good practices to OSCE community-policing guides and UNDP’s prevention agenda—recommend locally led coalitions, privacy-respecting tip lines, and rapid de-escalation capacity at sensitive events.
Why this fits Nick Berg’s story
Berg’s life bridges worlds—immigrant and American, persecution and service. Shadows of Tehran is a reminder that when religion colonizes the state, everyone loses—believers included. In the U.S., the mission isn’t to police belief; it’s to guard the civic space where believers and skeptics both live free, while drawing firm lines against anyone—religious or secular—who tries to rule by fear.
Keep the square wide. Keep the red lines bright. Defend both with integrity.
