Today marks the tenth anniversary of the attack by hardline vigilantes on a university hall of residence in Tehran that led to at least one death and signalled an all-out attack on students demonstrating for greater freedom and democracy in Iran. A decade later, after hundreds more deaths, police and Basij militias are ready to use deadly force again, should those protesting at the fraudulent re-election of President Ahmadinejad dare to take to the streets to mark the anniversary.

Any demonstrators ready to risk their lives for democracy will receive only the flimsiest verbal support from the outside world. The G8 leaders, meeting in Italy, have pussyfooted around the issue, slow to call for new sanctions, uncertain how to deal with Tehran’s nuclear programme and loath to sacrifice their own interests to give support to the opposition. A G8 statement last night saying it “deplores” post-election violence changed nothing. Britain, selected by the regime as the scapegoat for the protests and bloodshed that followed the presidential election, has called for solidarity from its European partners over the arrest of nine Iranian employees of the British Embassy in Tehran. One is still being held on the ludicrous charge of inciting the riots. But the EU has shown little readiness to act in concert, to withdraw envoys from Tehran or threaten Iranian diplomatic interests across the Union.

President Sarkozy, to his credit, has spoken out loud and clear, standing up for Britain from the start. France is one of the few G8 members calling for tougher sanctions, partly because of — or even despite — the arrest of a French teacher, accused of espionage. Yesterday he toughened his stance, warning that if there was no progress with Iran over nuclear talks by the time of a G20 meeting in Pittsburgh in September, “we will have to take decisions”. Within the G8 his call has predictably run into the opposition of Russia. Moscow’s cynical determination to accept what Mr Ahmadinejad called the “cleanest and freest election in the world” reflects its own fear of political opposition. But what of the pusillanimous stance taken by Silvio Berlusconi, the G8 host, or Germany’s unwillingness to rock the boat?

A courageous stand on an issue of principle might have gone some way to rescuing Mr Berlusconi’s tarnished reputation, and hinted to his embarrassed compatriots at some remaining scraps of political morality. Germany seems incapable of taking a robust stance on any foreign issue, especially when its own large trading interests could be threatened. For both countries, “dialogue” with Tehran is a convenient synonym for fudge.

Washington, at least, has more guts. The Obama Administration has more to lose than any of its European allies over Iran. It has invested heavily in a new policy of negotiation, incurring not only the ridicule of the Republican Right but also the wrath of its ally Israel. Mr Obama has promised a new beginning with the Muslim world, and has bitten his tongue over the Iranian election to mark a break from previous US policy. But Hillary Clinton has made clear that Washington will call for more sanctions if the policy of engagement fails.

Within Iran, a few top clerics have continued to question the election, a rare defiance that underlines the fiasco that the fraud has been to the Islamic Republic. They, and weary Iranian protesters, need support. Where is the G8’s response?