|
Analysis with Political and Social Commentary
The
Clergy Challenge
(M. Parvin, 12/11/07)
As long as the religious
dictatorship ruling in
Iran
exists, it will be a challenge for the
United States
. The
U.S.
is concerned about the Islamic Regime’s atomic ambitions and is
determined to stop it. This is a justified goal. Based on 28 years of
human rights abuse and terrorist activities, the Islamic Regime in Iran
(IRI) is a danger to Iranians and the entire civilized world even
without access to an atomic bomb. Of course, the right of the Iranian
people to atomic energy for peaceful purposes cannot be denied. But a
regime that is despised by the majority of Iranians and is holding onto
power by sheer force, has no right to deal with this vital issue. Fully
aware of its widespread unpopularity, the IRI has ignored the challenges
of oppositions for a referendum managed and monitored by the UN and the
international human rights organizations.
As justified as it is to
stop the IRI’s atomic activities, it is dead wrong to assume that this
goal may be achieved by either military intervention or negotiation
guided by the carrot and stick policy. Ill-informed about the power
structure in
Iran
and the role of Islamic revolutionary doctrine, as well as the hatred of
the Iranian people for this system, the
United States
government is embarking on the following three paths to enforce the
suspension of uranium by IRI:
- Tough
rhetorical stand that does not rule out military intervention.
- Back
door and open diplomacy that promises the acceptance of the IRI by
the world community in return for the suspension of uranium
enrichment.
- Applying
sanctions through Security Council resolutions and the U.S. Acts.
The first two options are
doomed to fail and will have disastrous consequences for the Iranians
and eventually the entire world. The third option is in the right
direction but lacks one major element: “the human rights of
Iranians.”
The military
intervention, no matter how limited and regardless of its targets, will
be manipulated by the regime to further repress any opposition. In the
event of a military strike by the
U.S.
or
Israel
, the IRI will consider itself the victim of aggression to attract the
sympathy of the world community and obliterate the Iranian opposition
harder than ever. By standing against
U.S.
aggression, they will become the champion of the people in the region,
gaining the greater support of terrorist groups, and allowing the
Islamic Regime to expand its hegemony in the region. Having become more
isolated by attacking
Iran
, and losing the support that it needs to pursue an effective sanction,
the
United States
will be forced to rely more on the second option that is accepting most
of the IRI’s terms and conditions of the IRI to suspend its uranium
enrichment process.
In spite of all its
rhetorical challenges to the West, the Islamic Regime knows well that it cannot survive and hold on to power
without gaining legitimacy from Western states. By pursuing a secret
nuclear program, it has placed itself in a position to bargain with the
West. The IRI knows well that the
U.S.
wouldn’t relent on the idea of controlling and suspending its
enrichment program but is insisting on it until it gets all the
incentives that it wants in return. The Islamic Regime wants the
U.S.
to guarantee its security, which the
U.S.
has accepted. They have dropped the “regime change” slogan and
presently seek the change of behavior that in turn is reduced to change
of behavior with regards to enrichment policy only.
1-
Membership in the World Trade Organization
2-
Removal of all restrictions for obtaining loans
from the World Bank
3-
Release of all frozen assets
4-
Removal from the State Department terrorist list
5-
Complete ban on the activities of an exile
opposition group, Mojahedin, and extradition of its leaders to
Iran
In
return, the IRI will accept the suspension of its enrichment and at best
will promise to adopt a non-interference policy in the Middle East and a
milder approach to elimination of
Israel
from the face of the earth!
Pursuing
the first two options (military intervention and engagement) will create
a win-win situation for the IRI. When the IRI suspends its uranium
enrichment, whether by force and threat of military intervention or by
incentives, it will be accepted by the Western states. Consequently, its
reign of terror in
Iran
would continue. This will have disastrous consequences for the Iranian
people and preserves a constant threat for the free world.
The terrorist activities
of the Islamic Regime cannot be stopped by making promises. It is
written into the IRI’s constitution that fundamentalist Islamic
ideology should conquer the world. The severity of this is apparently
not understood by the West. The Islamic regime believes that there is a
war between militant Islam and the rest of the world. This regime feeds
its supporters by using this ideological animosity. By adopting this
"god-given" mandate arbitrarily interpreted from the Koran the
Islamic regime has become the biggest sponsor of terrorism.
The
United States
cannot deal with the clergy challenge by either military intervention or
appeasement. The best and only option to remove the threat of the
Islamic Regime is to empower the Iranian people to bring about the real
change in
Iran
. It is not enough to say that we share their dreams for a secular
democracy. If the West and the
U.S.
want to empower the Iranian people in their fight for democracy, they
should not accept and legitimize their abuser. This should be manifested
in a smart sanction that would be enforced until the atomic activities
of the IRI and human rights violations have completely stopped.
There are many obstacles
against this basic and humane demand. Iranians in general and Iranian
expatriates in particular have a lot to do to remove these obstacles.
One of the main obstacles are the lobby groups that work diligently to
establish relations between the United States and the IRI regardless of
rising human rights violations in Iran and the danger posed by IRI’s
atomic ambitions.
The
extreme policies of either attacking
Iran
or making friendly relations with the Islamic Regime have been mainly
adopted and dictated by the Islamic Regime and its Iranian lobby groups
and individuals. The rhetorical stand of the
U.S.
has been masterfully portrayed by the regime’s supporters as the
U.S.
intention to resolve the conflict with IRI by force. By manipulating the
current anti-war sentiment of the American public, they have promoted
the other extreme: the policy that advocates friendly relations with a
terrorist regime. The IRI and its lobby groups
are well-aware of the possible effectiveness of sanctions, which
explains the reason they are fighting to prevent it by branding it as
military intervention.
The
current sanctions imposed by the Security Council and the
U.S.
have targeted the IRI and its military and financial institutions with
little effect on the Iranian people. What it lacks is the
acknowledgement that the relaxation of these sanctions is not contingent
upon observation of human rights. Contrary to what the IRI’s
apologists claim, smart sanctions have always been considered a weapon
of nonviolence and civil disobedience and have been advocated by human
rights activists and international organizations such as Human Rights
Watch (HRW). In his testimony before the Senate Task Force on Economic
Sanctions in 1998, Mr. Kenneth Roth, the Executive Director of HRW,
outlined the elements of smart sanctions and urged the
U.S.
to impose sanctions against
Sudan
and
Burma
[1].
Sudan
is still on top of HRW’s agenda for sanction. The U.S. Act of Sanction
against
South Africa
was a good example of smart sanction and the release of all political
prisoners was on the top of the preconditions to relax the sanction [2].
Lobby groups with the help of ill-informed American groups and media
have succeeded to falsify this issue and claim that smart sanction would
mainly target Iranians. Iranians should organize, expose and discredit
these lobby groups to remove the obstacles against imposing sanctions
related to human rights in
Iran
.
In
summary, the solution to clergy challenge is neither the military
intervention against
Iran
nor dialog with the Islamic Regime. There is a third option that, if
adopted, can bring about peace in
Iran
and security for the entire world. Third option would rely on the
Iranian people and empower them with smart sanction to eliminate the
danger of ruling clergy and establish a secular democracy.
Mohammad
Parvin, Ph.D., is an adjunct professor at the California State
University , an Aerospace Specialist, and Founding Director of the
Mission
for Establishment of Human Rights in
Iran
(MEHR) - http://mehr.org
References:
Original Publication:
http://americandaily.com/article/21217
MEHR
P.O. Box 2037
P.V.P.
,
CA
90274
Tel: (310) 377-4590
E-mail: mehr@mehr.org
URL: https://mehr.org
Back to Home
Page
|