|
Weekly Commentary
Freedom for Iran is the “Calling of our time”
President Bush last week captivated many nations under the yoke
of tyranny by his visionary articulation of a compelling case
for expansion of liberty. “The best hope for peace in our world
is the expansion of freedom in all the world,” he said.
For those who have been tirelessly advancing the cause of
democracy in the trenches of the struggle for freedom, President
Bush’s words had strong resonance, more so in Iran than anywhere
else.
Iranians probably have their doubts if this were just another
great inspiring inauguration speech followed by business-as
usual. And that would be understandable. For many years, while
pledging support for freedom and human rights, America sided
with oppressors of Iranians under the pretext of the Cold War
geo-strategic realpolitik or appeased the turbaned tyrants under
the mirage of cultivating change within the regime. This time,
however, Iranians could be more optimistic.
President Bush stressed, “It is the policy of the United States
to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and
institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal
of ending tyranny in our world.”
Given the mullahs’ subjugation of Iranians at home, and the long
list of global and regional threats posed by this outlaw regime,
Iran and Iranians must be the focus of this policy.
Acknowledging the past errors in U.S. foreign policy that viewed
support for human rights in “distant lands” contrary to its
interest, the President said, “America's vital interests and our
deepest beliefs are now one… Advancing these ideals is the
mission that created our Nation. It is the honorable achievement
of our fathers. Now it is the urgent requirement of our nation's
security, and the calling of our time.”
A much ignored reality of the nature of tyrannies is that,
driven by necessity of preserving their rule, they embark on
expanding their lethal and destructive potential beyond their
borders. More than just a choice, export of terror and
fundamentalism for Tehran rulers is a survival imperative.
Appreciating this fact, President Bush said in his speech, “For
as long as whole regions of the world simmer in resentment and
tyranny - prone to ideologies that feed hatred and excuse murder
- violence will gather, and multiply in destructive power, and
cross the most defended borders, and raise a mortal threat.”
By far, more efficient than any sanctions, naval blockades, or
military strikes, the rulers of Iran are susceptible to the
yearning of Iranians for freedom and their resistance to end
this reign of terror. As Mr. Bush articulated, “There is only
one force of history that can break the reign of hatred and
resentment, and expose the pretensions of tyrants, and reward
the hopes of the decent and tolerant, and that is the force of
human freedom.”
This is the true strategic leverage Washington has over the
mullahs, not sanctions or commerce. The ludicrous idea that we
can dissuade them by an economic and commerce incentive package
is either a dangerous diction or utter ignorance of the nature
of the clerical regime. It is tantamount to cowardice submission
to Tehran’s potential for terror and destruction and a sign of
despicable gluttony for trade with a regime whose coffers are
used to finance its machinery of terror and WMD.
Iran’s ruling mullahs have failed to quell Iranians’ yearning
for liberty. Left to their own devices, however, the mullahs
will never stop suppressing Iranians, closing down their torture
chambers and dismantling the gallows. Therefore, Iranians’
resistance movement for freedom must be empowered to tear down
this wall of suppression.
Last week President Bust pledged that “America will not pretend
that jailed dissidents prefer their chains, or that women
welcome humiliation and servitude, or that any human being
aspires to live at the mercy of bullies.” Addressing those “who
live in tyranny” he said: “The United States will not ignore
your oppression, or excuse your oppressors. When you stand for
your liberty, we will stand with you.”
But beyond an inspiring and visionary oration, President Bush’s
speech must be the framework for a much-anticipated policy
toward Tehran where specific practical measures for diplomatic
and political support and empowering Iran’s democratic
opposition movement seeking regime change are articulated.
President Bush said, “Liberty will come to those who love it.”
We may humbly add, “Liberty will come to those who love it and
struggle for it”. “Freedom now” for Iran is the true “calling of
our time.” (USADI)
Return to Top
International Herald
Tribune
January 28, 2005
Empower
Iran's opposition forces
By Maryam Rajavi
PARIS - How should the world deal with the challenges posed by
the Iranian regime, with its continuing support for terrorism,
increasing meddling in Iraq and relentless pursuit of nuclear
weapons? Approaches under debate range from engagement, with the
hope of empowering the "moderates," to military invasion. But
the best option is to initiate change through the Iranian people
and the organized resistance movement.
There is no need for war; no one would want to see an Iraq II
played out in Iran. But engagement, which has shaped policy
toward Iran on both sides of the Atlantic for two decades, has
been a disaster, strengthening the most radical factions of the
ruling theocracy…
But there is another answer: democracy…
As a first step in that direction, Western governments must not
assist the ruling theocracy. And that means removing the
terrorist tag that has been put on the People's Mujahedeen
Organization. The group is the pivotal force in the largest
Iranian opposition coalition, the National Council of
Resistance, which has revealed Tehran's nuclear, missile and
terrorist plans.
In 1997, the U.S. State Department placed the People's
Mujahedeen on the list of foreign terrorist organizations as a
goodwill gesture to Khatami, who was Iran's new president. But
after a 16-month investigation in Iraq, where the group has had
a presence on the Iranian frontier for 18 years, the United
States determined that its members were "protected persons under
the Fourth Geneva Convention" and that there was no basis to
charge any of them.
Over the years, many U.S. Congressmen and their counterparts in
Europe, citing the group's widespread popular and religious
roots in Iran, have described the People's Mujahedeen as a
legitimate resistance movement and the antithesis to Islamic
fundamentalism, stressing that it should be removed from the
terror list. In November, the International Conference of
Jurists, a convention of 500 human-rights lawyers in Paris,
declared that blacklisting the organization was a violation of
the European Convention on Human Rights, the fundamental right
to defense and the presumption of innocence.
The Iranian resistance is committed to holding free and fair
elections within six months of regime change, to electing a
constituent assembly and handing over affairs to the people's
elected representatives. It seeks a peaceful Iran without
weapons of mass destruction, on good terms with its neighbors
and dedicated to friendship with the world community.
More than fifty years after the coup that toppled the elected
government of Mohammed Mossadegh, fate has again put America at
a historic crossroads. This time, unlike in 1953, the United
States must identify itself with the Iranian people and their
aspirations for freedom, democracy and a secular state. Only
such an approach can guarantee lasting peace and stability in
the Middle East.
Excerpts from an article by Maryam
Rajavi, president of the National Council of Resistance of Iran
Return to Top
Daily
Telegraph (UK) - Editorial
January 22, 2005
It wouldn't take a war to
overthrow Iran's mullahs
We can be sloppy in our approach to foreign affairs. Because of
their geographical and alphabetical proximity, we tend to
bracket Iran and Iraq together.
You will hear even politicians and television presenters
committing the solecism of describing Iranians as Arabs. It is
imprecision of this kind that is clouding the debate over the
proper response to the mullahs.
There is a superficial resemblance between the Axis of Evil duo.
Ayatollah Ali Khamenei's Iran, like Saddam's Iraq, is a tyranny,
silencing dissent and imprisoning its opponents.
It has been linked to numerous terrorist attacks, as far afield
as London and Buenos Aires. It has ordered monstrous human
rights violations at home, including the execution of teenage
girls and the show-trials of Jews.
Whereas our knowledge of Iraq's weapons programme depended on
guesswork, we have concrete evidence that Iran is equipping
itself with a nuclear capability.
Two years ago, Iran deployed Shahab-3 ballistic missiles, with a
range of 800 miles. At the same time, it was found to be making
enriched uranium.
On current trends, Iran will have the bomb by 2008. Why, then,
does President Bush not pursue the same policy that he followed
in Iraq? Because, beneath these facile similarities, the two
states are very different…
Whereas there was no chance of creating a functioning democracy
in Iraq without direct intervention, there is reason to hope
that, given the opportunity, Iranians would shake off their
theocracy and join the modern world.
How might we catalyze such a revolution? In three ways.
First, we should cease our dealings with the mullahs. EU
countries, in contrast to the Americans, have pursued a policy
of "constructive engagement" with Teheran, exchanging state
visits and sending Jack Straw on repeated visits. (Iranians take
Britain especially seriously, perhaps imagining that we are
still the power we were when we last occupied their country in
1941.)
That policy is now in shreds, as Iran's nuclear program nears
completion.
Second, we should give financial and political assistance to
dissidents inside the country.
Third, we should back the main resistance group, the People's
Mujahidin, which, until recently, we treated as a terrorist
organization in order to appease Khamenei….
Return to Top
The Washington Times
January 26, 2005
Iran filling political vacuum?
By Ilan Berman
Who's in charge of Palestinian politics? Following his
commanding performance in the January 11th Palestinian
presidential elections, officials in Washington and Jerusalem
are looking to Mahmoud Abbas, Yasser Arafat's successor as head
of the Palestinian Authority (PA), as their new political
counterpart -- and potential peace partner. Yet alarming signs
suggest that the biggest beneficiary of the political changes
now taking place in the Palestinian Territories might just turn
out to be the Islamic Republic of Iran.
An Iranian foothold in the West Bank and Gaza Strip is certainly
not a new development. Both directly and through their terrorist
intermediaries in Lebanon, Iran's ayatollahs have been meddling
in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict for years. But the death of
Yasser Arafat, and the political vacuum that has emerged in the
wake of the Palestinian strongman's passing, have laid the
groundwork for even greater Iranian infiltration of Palestinian
politics.
Signs of this expanding influence are already visible. Over the
past two years, Iran's ayatollahs have provided substantial
resources to their most potent terrorist proxy, Hezbollah, in
order to increase the Lebanese militia's presence in the West
Bank and Gaza Strip.…
Iran is also increasing its leverage among the Palestinian
Authority's Islamist factions. Over the past two years, Israel's
successes against Hamas have led the group to seek an
accommodation with Hezbollah, signing an unexpected strategic
accord in March of 2004 to cement Hezbollah's--and
Iran's--influence over the most prominent terrorist organization
in the Palestinian territories…
When he was in charge of Palestinian politics, Yasser Arafat
found this sort of activity troubling enough to publicly oppose
it. Back in October, for example, the PLO chairman himself took
the unprecedented step of denouncing the Islamic Republic's
meddling…
Now, however, the Palestinian Authority's various factions --
jockeying for political position in the West Bank and Gaza Strip
--have begun serious efforts to curry favor with the Islamic
Republic…
All this suggests that American and Israeli policymakers could
be asking the wrong questions. In the wake of Mr. Abbas'
electoral victory, both countries have begun to debate the new
Palestinian leader's reformist credentials, as well as his
ability to resume real peace negotiations with Israel. But,
given the growing inroads Iran is making in the West Bank and
Gaza, a more important issue might be the plans for the
Palestinian Authority now being laid in Tehran.
Ilan Berman, is Vice President for
Policy at the American Foreign Policy Council in Washington and
author of the forthcoming "Tehran Rising: Iran's Challenge to
the United States."
Return to Top
|
