Contrary to recent reports that the Syrian regime could unplug the country from the web entirely, Assad considers the Internet a vital tool to winning the civil war. This is a cyber war, Othman told me. It is an opportune time for the United States to show that its support of digital freedom can save lives. If communications technology is the way in which the United States chooses to intervene in the Syrian conflict, why not unleash the full capabilities of American technology?

An argument against arming the rebels is the possibility of weapons ending up in jihadist hands. But is communications equipment just as dangerous? On the contrary, more coordinated and safer communications between commanding officers in the Free Syrian Army and the jihadists who have joined their cause may help reel in the latter in a post-Assad Syria.

There are currently two separate U.S. policies that are falling short of Washington's goal of safer and more widespread communication among the Syrian opposition. The first is American sanctions on Syria that make it more difficult for the regime's opponents to obtain vital anti-tracking software. With fewer tools to evade government surveillance, these Syrian activists are more vulnerable to Assad's death squads. The second is the State Department's distribution of satellite phones, modems, and other gear to the Syrian opposition through a training program based in Istanbul. Reports that this equipment has only on occasion reached the front lines bode ill for the rebels and for America's future influence in Syria.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has made the freedom to communicate -- whether online, on the phone, or in the public square -- a central goal of U.S. statecraft over the last four years. The State Department has ramped up funding for projects promoting Internet freedom, with $30 million allocated last year on circumventing censorship.

But for every dollar the United States has spent on Internet freedom, countries like Iran and China have spent many times more in countermeasures. Iran has spent about $1 billion on an internal version of the Internet that analysts say is nearing completion. The Washington Post reported this week that there is a shortfall in funding for the State Department Internet freedom program. With budget cuts looming over many U.S. foreign aid programs because of the fiscal crisis, the funding gap between Tehran and Washington on the subject seems likely to widen.

Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has called his country's investment in Internet censorship "the soft war" against the United States and he sees it as a strategic asset to be deployed to protect its regional interests.

"Nowhere in the region has (censorship) been as severe as in Iran, which is what makes their assisting Syria so dangerous," Jillian C. York, an expert on Internet censorship at the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), told me in an email. The Syrian opposition could benefit greatly from technical assistance to circumvent government surveillance. But U.S. sanctions on Syria make it illegal for American tech firms to sell this software to the Syrian opposition. The few exemptions that exist have not been effective in making this software more available to Syrian users.