[FREE IRAN Project] In The Spirit Of Cyrus The Great

[stefania]

Interesting Times - Bush's Iranian End Run

Jerusalem Post - By Saul Singer
Dec 10, 2004



The mullahs have us over a barrel, literally. French ambassador to Israel Gerard Aroud, in a burst of candor, admitted to The Jerusalem Post that nothing short of an oil embargo would stop Teheran's nuclear program, so Europe's current feckless diplomacy was the only realistic alternative.

But is it? The Bush Administration does not seem to think so. According to a report on Tuesday from Knight Ridder, "the White House and the Defense Department are developing plans to increase public criticism of Iran's human rights record, and offer stronger backing to exiles and other opponents of Teheran's repressive theocratic government."

This is the best news I've heard in a while, and long overdue. If true, it means that the White House does have a strategy toward Iran, and it's called regime change.

Some dismiss this as unrealistic as a European oil embargo. "[Bush Administration] hawks speak of supporting a democratic revolution inside Iran, but none seems likely soon, and many of Iran's democrats also want the bomb," a Washington Post editorial claimed on Monday.

This sort of wisdom is as conventional as it is misplaced. It is true that the mullahs could perhaps go on crushing dissent for some time, assuming that the Iranian democracy movement continues to be ignored and dismissed in the West. But why assume this?

The US has barely begun to do what it can to support the Iranian opposition. And there is what to support. In just the past week, Tahkim Vahdat ("strongest unity"), the largest student organization in Iran and the force behind "reformist" mullah Khatemi's rise to the presidency, has swung its weight behind a campaign to force a referendum on the regime. Eight of Iran's most prominent dissidents, including some still in Iranian jails, have endorsed an effort to collect 60 million signatures in support of a referendum calling for a new democratic constitution to replace theocratic rule.

Though the petition drive is only a few days old, 20,000 signatures have already been collected, many handwritten and smuggled out of Iran itself.

IT IS clear what must be done. Human rights organizations should endorse the referendum campaign. President Bush and other world leaders should publicly meet with its organizers to show their support. The US Congress and other parliaments should commit themselves to the campaign for Iranian democracy.

The more international support they receive, the more the Iranian people will lose their fear of the regime. On Monday, Khatami was shouted down at Teheran University by students demanding a referendum and blaming him for failing to bring promised freedoms. One read from a statement saying: "Unfortunately, what Khatami sees as tolerance, we see as his extreme weakness towards the opponents of democracy."

It is a fair guess that these students were emboldened by Bush's reelection, and see a brief window of opportunity to organize before Iran's scheduled May elections. They also are surely taking notes on events in Ukraine.

Why should the world be more tolerant of rigged elections in Iran than in Ukraine? So far, the mullahs have managed to avoid the sort of velvet revolutions that swept away governments in central Europe and are now being played out in Kiev. But there is no reason, given a similar level of global support for democracy, that the mullahs will continue to be able to arrest and intimidate an emboldened people indefinitely.

The claim that supporting democracy does nothing to ameliorate the nuclear threat is not thought through. First, it is not true that the opposition is equally in favor of developing nukes. As Mideast scholar Michael Rubin notes, Iranian dissidents told him that nukes are the mullahs' way of preserving their power, so they are very opposed to the regime's attaining them.

Even more importantly, even if an Iranian nuke is unstoppable, it makes a huge difference what sort of regime has its finger on the button. A democratic, pro-Western Iran might well go the way of other countries that have mothballed or abandoned their nuclear programs.

Finally, supporting the opposition opens up a whole new front of leverage against the regime. The mullahs likely fear their own people at least as much as they fear Western sanctions, and realize the two are connected.

If international support for the Iranian opposition ramps up, the mullahs could well make serious concessions on the nuclear front to ease the pressure. For the same reason, it is important to call Iran to account for its strenuous efforts to torpedo, through terrorism, the two democratic processes the world is championing: among Palestinians and Iraqis.

Currently, Iran is in the hotseat over nukes, but less so over terrorism and violations of human rights. Bush should do an end run around European appeasement on the nuclear issue by turning up the heat on the regime's other two claims to pariah status.

Those who oppose military action, whether American or Israeli, should see that supporting Iranian people power is a much preferable, and even more effective, alternative.


SMCCDI Note: There's a big debate among Iranians on the way, timing and content of the requested free elections. A majority of Iranians want an election after the fall of the Islamic regime and for the choice of the future secular system between a plural republic or a constitutional monarchy.

The majority of Iranians do not trust elements or organizations, such as, "Tahkim Vahdat" as they were linked to the Islamic regime since the 1979 revolution and want a more clearer debate and organization for the heading of the elections after the fall of the regime in order to avoid any fraud.

That's why a new site www.70000000.com has been launched and many debates are made on Iranian TV and radio networks often critic of the article's mentionned project.
_________________
Referendum AFTER Regime Change

"I'm ready to die for you to be able to say your own opinions, even if i strongly disagree with you" (Voltaire)