|
Do
not let the Iranians struggle for a free
Iran
be compromised
By
M.
Parvin (11/2/04)
Based on the positions taken by
both presidential candidates before and during the presidential debates,
the
US
conditions to re-establish open relations with the Islamic Regime of
Iran has been reduced to one single demand from the Mullahs:
“To join the world community
you must give up your nuclear ambitions and comply with IAEA”
The murderous regime of
Iran
is welcome to the world
community and is offered lucrative incentives to accept this offer.
Their message for the Iranians who cannot live under such a reactionary
religious dictatorship, and believe that they deserve a democratic
government, is very clear: “Forget about the axis of evil. Forget
about the most active sponsor of terrorism, and forget about 25 years of
human rights violation. If we start a dialogue with the terrorists, we
can finally convert them and bring them into the civilized world! “
If nothing drastic happens, the future is going to be even harder
for those who struggle for freedom and secular democracy in
Iran
. Iranians will be facing not only the Islamic Regime of Iran to deal
with, but the entire world that has forgotten about them and only cares
about its own interests. Freedom loving Iranians will have only two
options:
1-
Put their future in
the hands of the ruling interest driven politicians in the hope that
someone would stand for their human rights and dignity instead of
serving their own interest, or
2-
By creating a strong
voting bloc have some impact on the policies made towards Iran based on
the rights and will of its people, and in doing so, guarantee the
stability of the region and perhaps the entire world.
Regardless of the outcome
of the
US
presidential election, the formation of a nonpartisan voting bloc is the
only way that Iranians abroad can stop the legitimization of the Islamic
Regime and help the movement towards democracy in
Iran
that is determined to change the regime of terror. We need to put
ourselves in a position to demand the respect for our human rights and ask
for expulsion and isolation of the Islamic terrorist regime form
the world community rather than begging the world for action and be
ignored.
The following compilation of the positions taken by
Democrats and Republicans over the last two years should further
motivates the freedom loving Iranian American to make a difference by
forming a nonpartisan voting bloc with clear demands from the US
government that may include:
·
Do not legitimize the Islamic Regime of
Iran even if it complies with IAEA.
·
Reduce your relations to the lowest
diplomatic level.
·
Impose a real sanction against the Islamic
regime.
·
Show moral support for the Iranians and
their struggle to change the regime and establish a secular democratic
government. Expose the human rights violation in
Iran
through the Voice of America and Radio Farda.
·
Form a tribunal through Security Council
to try those who have committed crimes against Iranians and support the
efforts of the Iranian individuals and groups who are seeking justice
for the victims of the Islamic Regime through International avenues.
Democrats
Position on
Iran
June
15, 2003
Q: How would you
try to stop the development of nuclear weapons in
North Korea
and
Iran
?
A: First, we must
ensure that
Iran
scrupulously adheres to all of its nonproliferation obligations and work
internationally to respond to any violation. But we must do more. We
should be prepared to engage with the current regime in areas of mutual
interest, such as terrorism and the drug trade, if that government takes
real steps to address our security concerns. At the same time, we must
work to support the active and legitimate reform movement that has
overwhelming support of the Iranian people....
North Korea
is a failed state that survives on subsidies and blackmail.... We need a
comprehensive solution with core elements: no nuclear weapons in
North Korea
; a broad-based strategy that talks to economic and other issues, as
well as military. We need to do all this in lock step with our allies.
Senator
Kerry’s response to MEHR’s letter, 12/1/03:
“We
must continue to pursue a policy of engagement with reformers within
Iran
, including President Mohammad Khatami. By working multilaterally and
with moderates in
Iran
, the
United States
will pave the way for a decreased nuclear threat to the world and a
greater respect for human rights to the Iranian people.
Senator
Kerry’s speech at Council on Foreign Relations, 12/3/04:
“As president, I will be prepared
early on to explore areas of mutual interest with
Iran
, just as I was prepared to normalize relations with
Vietnam
a decade ago.
Iran
has long expressed an interest in cooperating against the Afghan drug
trade. That is one starting point. And just as we have asked that
Iran
turn over al Qaeda members who are there, the Iranians have looked to us
for help in dealing with Iraq-based terrorists who threaten them. It is
incomprehensible and unacceptable that this administration refuses to
broker an arrangement with
Iran
for a mutual crackdown on both terrorist groups.”
“And as
president, I will engage
Iran
and I will renew bilateral negotiations immediately with
North Korea
, and I will seek a new international protocol to track and account for
existing nuclear weapons and to deter the development of chemical and
biological arsenals in the future.”
Task
force Report, July 19, 2004
headed by Zbigniew
Brzezinski, former National Security Advisor to the President :
Full text: http://mehr.org/Task_Force_Report.pdf
·
Selective
political engagement.
The
United States
should not defer a political dialogue with
Iran
until deep differences over its nuclear ambitions and involvement in
regional conflicts have been resolved. "Just as the
United States
has a constructive relationship with
China
(and earlier did so with the Soviet Union) while strongly opposing
certain aspects of its internal and international policies,
Washington
should approach
Iran
with a readiness to explore areas of common interests while continuing
to contest objectionable policy."
·
Incremental
progress vs. 'grand bargain.'
"A 'grand bargain' that would settle comprehensively the
outstanding conflicts between Iran and the United States is not a
realistic goal, and pursuing such an outcome would be unlikely to
produce near-term progress on Washington's central interests."
Instead, the Task Force recommends "selectively engaging
Iran
on issues where
U.S.
and Iranian interests converge."
·
Fewer
sticks, more carrots.
"
U.S.
reliance on comprehensive unilateral sanctions has not succeeded in its
stated objective to alter Iranian conduct and has deprived
Washington
of greater leverage vis-à-vis the Iranian government apart from the
threat of force." Given the increasingly important role of economic
interests in shaping
Iran
's policies at home and abroad, "the prospect of commercial
relations with the
United States
could be a powerful tool in
Washington
's arsenal."
·
Promote
democracy, not regime change.
"The
United States
should advocate democracy in
Iran
without relying on the rhetoric of regime change, as that would be
likely to rouse nationalist sentiments in defense of the current regime
even among those who currently oppose it." The
United States
should focus instead on promoting political evolution that would lead to
stronger democratic institutions internally and enhanced diplomatic and
economic relations abroad.
Senator
Edwards: September 2004
A critical review
of his comments is given at : http://mehr.org/you_gave_your_words.htm
“The
Washington Post” that if Iran did not accept this "great
bargain," this would confirm that the Islamic state was building
nuclear weapons under cover of a nuclear power initiative.”
"If
we are engaging with Iranians in an effort to reach this great bargain
and if in fact this is a bluff that they are trying to develop nuclear
weapons capability, then we know that our European friends will stand
with us.:
"A nuclear
Iran
is unacceptable for so many reasons, including the possibility that it
creates a gateway and the need for other countries in the region to
develop nuclear capabilities--
Saudi Arabia
,
Egypt
, potentially others.”
Republicans
Position on
Iran
President Bush:
First
State
of the Union Speech, 31 Jan. 2002:
“State
like these (
Iran
,
Iraq
, and
N. Korea
) and their allies constitute an axis of evil, arming to threaten the
peace of the world.”
“
Iran
aggressively pursues these weapons and exports terror, while un-elected
few repress the Iranian people’s hope for freedom.”
President Buss:
Statement, July 12, 2002:
We have
seen throughout history the power of one simple idea: when given a
choice, people will choose freedom. As we have witnessed over the past
few days, the people of
Iran
want the same freedoms, human rights, and opportunities as people around
the world. Their government should listen to their hopes.
In the
last two Iranian presidential elections and in nearly a dozen
parliamentary and local elections, the vast majority of the Iranian
people voted for political and economic reform. Yet their voices are not
being listened to by the unelected people who are the real
rulers of
Iran
. Uncompromising, destructive policies have persisted, and far too
little has changed in the daily lives of the Iranian people. Iranian
students, journalists and Parliamentarians are still arrested,
intimidated, and abused for advocating reform or criticizing the ruling
regime. Independent publications are suppressed. And talented students
and professionals, faced with the dual specter of too few jobs and too
many restrictions on their freedom, continue to seek opportunities
abroad rather than help build
Iran
's future at home. Meanwhile, members of the ruling regime and their
families continue to obstruct reform while reaping unfair benefits.
Iran
is an
ancient land, home to a proud culture with a rich heritage of learning
and progress. The future of
Iran
will be decided by the people of
Iran
. Right now, the Iranian people are struggling with difficult questions
about how to build a modern 21st century society that is at once Muslim,
prosperous, and free. There is a long history of friendship between the
American people and the people of
Iran
. As
Iran
's people move towards a future defined by greater freedom, greater
tolerance, they will have no better friend than the United States of
America
.
State
Department Fact Sheet, April 9, 2004
Iran
: Voices Struggling To Be Heard
Full text:
http://mehr.org/state_report_iran.pdf
A critical review
of this report is given at : http://mehr.org/Real_Freedom.htm
“Today
the courageous voices of the Iranian people are being stifled as they
call for their rights, beliefs and needs to be respected. In response,
the non-elected elements of the Iranian Government hierarchy are
rebuffing these calls and attempting to extinguish the voices.”
“In
June 1997 and again in 2001, a decisive election victory ushered
President Mohammed Khatami into office under the auspices of a reformist
agenda. The realization of this reform movement has been actively
stifled by hard-line elements within the government, most specifically
by the un-elected Guardian Council, a board of clerical leaders
and legal scholars. Reformist and dissident voices within the
government and society have been repressed and harassed by
government and quasi-government factions under the influence of the
hard-line clerics.”
“In
a move to diminish pro-reformist re-election chances, the
Guardian Council disqualified approximately one-third of the 8,200
submissions for candidacy, including those of more than 80 reformists
currently holding Majlis seats, effectively limiting the democratic
alternatives available to Iranian voters.”
“A
voice of Hope – Shirin Ebadi”
“Shirin
Ebadi was awarded the Nobel Prize for Peace in 2003 for her life-long
campaign to protect vulnerable and persecuted groups within Iranian
society.”
“Students
have mobilized to demand greater freedoms and to support reform efforts
by the Khatami Government, the Majlis, and individuals willing to speak
the truth.”
Bush: state
of the union address: 1/29/03 and 1/20/2004
Different threats
require different strategies. In
Iran
, we continue to see a government that represses its people, pursues
weapons of mass destruction and supports terror. We also see Iranian
citizens risking intimidation and death as they speak out for liberty
and human rights and democracy. Iranians, like all people, have a right
to choose their own government and determine their own destiny and the
United States
supports their aspirations to live in freedom.
First
Presidential Debate, 10/30/2004
QUESTION: Mr. President. What criteria would
you use to determine when to start bringing
U.S.
troops home from
Iraq
?
Bush: “A free
Iraq
will help secure
Israel
. A free
Iraq
will enforce the hopes and aspirations of the reformers in places like
Iran
. A free
Iraq
is essential for the security of this country.”
Kerry:
No reference to
Iran
Question: Mr. President, Does the
Iraq
experience make it more likely or less likely that you would take the
United States
into another preemptive military action?
Bush:
No reference to
Iran
KERRY: Thirty-five
to forty countries in the world had a greater capability of making
weapons at the moment the president invaded than Saddam Hussein. And
while he's been diverted, with 9 out of 10 active duty divisions of our
Army, either going to
Iraq
, coming back from
Iraq
, or getting ready to go,
North Korea
's gotten nuclear weapons and the world is more dangerous.
Iran
is moving toward nuclear weapons and the world is more dangerous.
Darfur
has genocide
Question: Senator Kerry: What is your
position on the whole concept of preemptive war?
KERRY: I mean, we
can remember when President Kennedy in the Cuban missile crisis sent his
secretary of state to
Paris
to meet with DeGaulle. And in the middle of the discussion, to tell them
about the missiles in
Cuba
, he said, "Here, let me show you the photos." And DeGaulle
waved them off and said, "No, no, no, no. The word of the president
of the
United States
is good enough for me."
How many leaders in the world today would respond to us, as a result of
what we've done, in that way? So what is at test here is the credibility
of the
United States of America
and how we lead the world. And
Iran
and
Iraq
are now more dangerous --
Iran
and
North Korea
are now more dangerous.
Bush: :
No reference to
Iran
Question: Mr.
President. Do you believe that diplomacy and sanctions can resolve the
nuclear problems with
North Korea
and
Iran
?
Bush: On
Iran
, I hope we can do the same thing, continue to work with the world to
convince the Iranian mullahs to abandon their nuclear ambitions.
We worked very closely with the foreign ministers of France, Germany and
Great Britain, who have been the folks delivering the message to the
mullahs that if you expect to be part of the world of nations, get rid
of your nuclear programs.
The IAEA is involved. There's a special protocol recently been passed
that allows for inspections.
I hope we can do it. And we've got a good strategy.
KERRY: With respect
to
Iran
, the British, French, and Germans were the ones who initiated an effort
without the
United States
, regrettably, to begin to try to move to curb the nuclear possibilities
in
Iran
. I believe we could have done better.
I think the
United States
should have offered the opportunity to provide the nuclear fuel, test
them, see whether or not they were actually looking for it for peaceful
purposes. If they weren't willing to work a deal, then we could have put
sanctions together. The president did nothing.
QUESTION:
Mr. President. Do you believe that diplomacy and sanctions can
resolve the nuclear problems with
North Korea
and
Iran
? Take them in any order you would like.
BUSH: And I think
this will work. It's not going to work if we open up a dialogue with Kim
Jong Il. He wants to unravel the six- party talks, or the five-nation
coalition that's sending him a clear message.
On
Iran
, I hope we can do the same thing, continue to work with the world to
convince the Iranian mullahs to abandon their nuclear ambitions.
We worked very closely with the foreign ministers of France, Germany and
Great Britain, who have been the folks delivering the message to the
mullahs that if you expect to be part of the world of nations, get rid
of your nuclear programs.
The IAEA is involved. There's a special protocol recently been passed
that allows for inspections.
I hope we can do it. And we've got a good strategy.
BUSH follow up:
Secondly, he said -- my opponent said where he worked to put sanctions
on
Iran
-- we've already sanctioned
Iran
. We can't sanction them any more. There are sanctions in place on
Iran
.
KERRY: With respect
to
Iran
, the British, French, and Germans were the ones who initiated an effort
without the
United States
, regrettably, to begin to try to move to curb the nuclear possibilities
in
Iran
. I believe we could have done better.
I think the
United States
should have offered the opportunity to provide the nuclear fuel, test
them, see whether or not they were actually looking for it for peaceful
purposes. If they weren't willing to work a deal, then we could have put
sanctions together. The president did nothing.
QUESTION: Senator Kerry, you mentioned Darfur,
the Darfur region of
Sudan
. Fifty thousand people have already died in that area. More than a
million are homeless. And it's been labeled an act of ongoing genocide.
Yet neither one of you or anyone else connected with your campaigns or
your administration that I can find has discussed the possibility of
sending in troops. Why not?
KERRY: Well, I'll
tell you exactly why not, but I first want to say something about those
sanctions on
Iran
.
Only the
United States
put the sanctions on alone, and that's exactly what I'm talking about.
In order for the sanctions to be effective, we should have been working
with the British, French and Germans and other countries. And that's the
difference between the president and me.
And there, again, he sort of slid by the question.
BUSH: Back to
Iran
, just for a second.
It was not my administration that put the sanctions on
Iran
. That happened long before I arrived in
Washington
,
D.C.
QUESTION: Senator Kerry. If you are elected
president, what will you take to that office thinking is the single most
serious threat to the national security to the United States?
KERRY: Weapons of
mass destruction, nuclear proliferation.
But again, the test or the difference between us, the president has had
four years to try to do something about it, and
North Korea
has got more weapons;
Iran
is moving toward weapons. And at his pace, it will take 13 years to
secure those weapons in
Russia
.
I'm going to do it in four years, and I'm going to immediately set out
to have bilateral talks with
North Korea
.
Bush: :
No reference to
Iran
Vice
Presidential Debate
Oct. 5,
2004
Question: Vice President Cheney.
Tonight we mentioned
Afghanistan
. We believe that Osama bin Laden is hiding perhaps in a cave somewhere
along the Afghan-Pakistan border.
If you get a second term, what is your plan to capture him and then to
neutralize those who have sprung up to replace him?
Cheney:
No reference to
Iran
EDWARDS: The vice
president just said that we should focus on state sponsors of terrorism.
Iran
has moved forward with its nuclear weapons program. They're more
dangerous today than they were four years ago.
North Korea
has moved forward with their nuclear weapons program, gone from one to
two nuclear weapons to six to eight nuclear weapons. This vice president
has been an advocate for over a decade for lifting sanctions against
Iran
, the largest state sponsor of terrorism on the planet.
It's a mistake. We should not only not
lift them, we should strengthen those sanctions.
QUESTION: Mr. Vice President, in June of 2000
when you were still CEO of Halliburton, you said that
U.S.
businesses should be allowed to do business with
Iran
because, quote, "Unilateral sanctions almost never work."
After four years as vice president now, and with
Iran
having been declared by your administration as part of the "Axis of
Evil," do you still believe that we should lift sanctions on
Iran
?
CHENEY:
“No, I do not. And, Gwen, at the time, I was talking
specifically about this question of unilateral sanctions.
What happens when we impose unilateral sanctions is, unless there's a
collective effort, then other people move in and take advantage of the
situation and you don't have any impact, except to penalize American
companies.
We've got sanctions on
Iran
now. We may well want to go to the U.N. Security Council and ask for
even tougher sanctions if they don't live up to their obligations under
the initial -- International Atomic Energy Agency Non-Proliferation
Treaty.
We dealt with
Iran
differently than we have
Iraq
partly because
Iran
has not yet, as
Iraq
did, violated 12 years of resolutions by the U.N. Security Council.
We're working with the Brits and the Germans and the French, who've been
negotiating with the Iranians.
We recently were actively involved in a meeting with the board of
governors in the International Atomic Energy Agency. And as I say, there
will be a follow-up meeting in November to determine whether or not
Iran
's living up to their commitments and obligations.
And if they aren't, my guess is then the board of governors will
recommend sending the whole matter to the U.N. Security Council for the
application of the international sanctions, which I think would be
exactly the right way to go. “
“We've made major
progress in dealing here with a major issue with respect to nuclear
proliferation. And we'll continue to press very hard on the North
Koreans and the Iranians as well.”
EDWARDS: Well, the vice president talks about
there being a member, or someone associated with Al Qaida, in
Iraq
. There are 60 countries who have members of Al Qaida in them.
How many of those countries are we going to invade?
Not only that, he talks about
Iran
. The reality about
Iran
is that
Iran
has moved forward with their nuclear weapons program on their watch.
They ceded responsibility to dealing with it to the Europeans.
Now, the vice president, as you pointed out, spoke out loudly for
lifting the sanctions on
Iraq
. John Kerry and I believe we need to strengthen the sanctions on
Iraq
, including closing the loophole that allows companies to use a
subsidiary, offshore subsidiaries to do business with
Iran
.
I mentioned Halliburton a few minute ago in connection with the $87
billion, and you raised it in this question. This is relevant, because
he was pushing for lifting sanctions when he was CEO of Halliburton.
Here's why we didn't think Halliburton should have a no-bid contract.
While he was CEO of Halliburton, they paid millions of dollars in fines
for providing false information on their company, just like Enron and
Ken Lay.
They did business with
Libya
and
Iran
, two sworn enemies of the
United States
.
They're now under investigation for having bribed foreign officials
during that period of time.
Not only that, they've gotten a $7.5 billion no-bid contract in
Iraq
, and instead of part of their money being withheld, which is the way
it's normally done, because they're under investigation, they've
continued to get their money.
QUESTION: Senator Edwards, as we wrap up the foreign
policy part of this, I do want to talk to you about the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Edwards: And it's important for
America
to confront the situation in
Iran
, because
Iran
is an enormous threat to
Israel
and to the Israeli people.
Cheney: No reference to
Iran
2nd
Presidential Debate, 10/8/2004
Question: Mr. President, yesterday in a
statement you admitted that Iraq did not have weapons of mass
destruction, but justified the invasion by stating, I quote, He retained
the knowledge, the materials, the means and the intent to produce
weapons of mass destruction and could have passed this knowledge to our
terrorist enemies.
Do you sincerely believe this to be a reasonable justification for
invasion when this statement applies to so many other countries,
including
North Korea
?
Bush: No Reference to
Iran
Kerry: This
president rushed to war, pushed our allies aside. And
Iran
now is more dangerous, and so is
North Korea
, with nuclear weapons. He took his eye off the ball, off of Osama bin
Laden.
QUESTION: Senator Kerry,
Iran
sponsors terrorism and has missiles capable of hitting
Israel
and southern
Europe
.
Iran
will have nuclear weapons in two to three years time.
In the event that U.N. sanctions don't stop this threat, what
will you do as president?
KERRY: I don't think you can just rely on U.N. sanctions, Randee. But
you're absolutely correct, it is a threat, it's a huge threat.
And what's interesting is, it's a threat that has grown while the
president has been preoccupied with
Iraq
, where there wasn't a threat.
If he'd let the inspectors do their job and go on, we wouldn't have 10
times the numbers of forces in Iraq that we have in Afghanistan chasing
Osama bin Laden.
Meanwhile, while
Iran
is moving toward nuclear weapons, some 37 tons of what they called
yellow cake, the stuff they use to make enriched uranium, while they're
doing that,
North Korea
has moved from one bomb maybe, maybe, to four to seven bombs.
For two years, the president didn't even engage with
North Korea
, did nothing at all, while it was growing more dangerous, despite the
warnings of former Secretary of Defense William Perry, who negotiated
getting television cameras and inspectors into that reactor.”
“I'm going to lead
the world in the greatest counter proliferation effort. And if we have
to get tough with
Iran
, believe me, we will get tough. “
BUSH: That answer
almost made me want to scowl.
He keeps talking about, Let the inspectors do their job. It's naive and
dangerous to say that. That's what the Duelfer report showed. He was
deceiving the inspectors.
Secondly, of course we've been involved with
Iran
.
I fully understand the threat. And that's why we're doing what he
suggested we do: Get the Brits, the Germans and the French to go make it
very clear to the Iranians that if they expect to be a party to the
world to give up their nuclear ambitions. We've been doing that.
Dr.
Parvin is an adjunct professor at the
California
State
University
and director of the
Mission
for Establishment of Human Rights in
Iran
(MEHR) - https://mehr.org
|
