The Islamic Republic isn't asking for our "support" here on lbo-talk, and our support or lack of it won't make any difference. For me at least it's mostly a matter of trying to think clearly, and do whatever little we can (which may be vanishingly close to zero, of course) to avert another imperial war.
One may believe that the IR is "reactionary" -- though it seems to me more of a mixed picture than that -- but surely there's no doubt that the Iranian revolution was a considerable setback for the Empire, and that the IR's continued existence and prestige are a thorn in the Empire's flesh. This seems like a Good Thing.
Joining our voices to the chorus of execration for the IR, just to show how bien-pensant we are, seems pointless to me -- nobody is asking for our opinion on the subject -- and, to the extent that it has any effect at all, counter-productive (if the goal is to avert war). Yes, I know, we always follow up our execrations with a solemn, po-faced assurance that we're anti-interventionist, but it's a little too much like running with the hare and hunting with the hounds for my taste. Our execrations and protestations tend to cancel each other out and reduce whatever near-zero effect we might have had to absolute zero, or less.
More generally, I think we should cut out the bien- pensant thing and try a little harder for bloody- minded. Cheering on Ahmadinejad & Co. is about as bloody-minded as you can get and it suits me fine.
If anybody asks, But what about the way they treat gay folks? And women? I just say yeah, I wish they wouldn't do that stuff, but it's for them to sort out, not us. People either agree with that -- at which point I've achieved _my_ goal -- or they don't. If they don't, with luck this eventuates in a concrete discussion of the actual history, motives, and consequences of intervention under high-minded pretexts, rather than some abstract, schematic, and -- I think -- insufferably presumptuous attempt to issue the IR a report card.