|
Weekly Commentary
Freedom: Antithesis to Tehran’s
Fundamentalism
The menace of Islamic fundamentalism, which kills, bombs, maims,
sows horror and vengeance, has only one antithesis: freedom and
democracy. Thus, a meaningful war on terror hinges on the
expansion of secular democracies and support for indigenous
anti-fundamentalist, democratic forces who are working toward
such a goal.
Since 1979, the ayatollahs’ Iran has emerged as the heartland of
Islamic fundamentalism and terror, and it is where it must first
be defeated, a noble goal that Iran's democracy movement is bent
on accomplishing.
The totalitarian nature of the Iranian regime, which thrives on
suppression and export of terror, renders it incapable of
change. To survive, it kills the thirst for freedom and instills
terror. It also exports its brand of fundamentalism and
terrorism beyond its borders to conceal its intrinsic inability
to resolve problems at home. Thus, it cannot cease this export
as long as it rules.
Under such slogans as "liberating Jerusalem via Karbala," the
mullahs have worked to export “Islamic Revolution” throughout
the region and Iraq. The emergence of Shiite fundamentalism in
Iraq is not an inherently "Iraqi" phenomenon. It is made in
Iran. Iraqi Shiites, like their Sunni and Kurdish brothers and
sisters, aspire for democracy and freedom.
Iran's mullahs, who wrote the book on how to hijack a nation's
long-denied aspirations for popular governance, have now put
their know-how into practice in Iraq to create an offshoot
theocracy. To this end, they have mounted an increasingly
sophisticated and multi-faceted campaign in Iraq.
At the same time, Iran is busy recruiting thousands of
volunteers for suicide attacks against the US-led coalition
forces in Iraq. Last summer, Iran’s official media quoted a top
Revolutionary Guards official as saying, "We have identified
some 29 weak points for attacks in the U.S. and in the West."
Meanwhile, Tehran is on a crash course to reach the nuclear
point of no return in its efforts to develop a nuclear arsenal.
Having a nuclear weapon is at the heart of Iran’s doctrine of
political and military hegemony and strategic survival in the
region.
Stability in the Persian Gulf region would be seriously
undermined if the Iranians succeed in acquiring the A-bomb. The
specter of a nuclear-armed Iran – the most active state sponsor
of terrorism – is far too ominous to let Tehran’s appeasers in
the European Union and apologists in Washington to dictate our
nuclear policy.
Despite its repeated failure, engagement diehards continue to
speak of the need to strike a bargain with Tehran. This runs
counter to the interests of the Iranian people and the United
States. Engagement, and all of its aliases such as “grand
bargain” and “direct dialogue,” must therefore be thrown out the
door.
Iran’s nuclear threat and its sponsorship of terror could be
halted only through a regime change policy, not by direct
military intervention but by throwing our diplomatic and
political weight behind Iranians as they endeavor to oust the
regime in Tehran. By reaching out to Iranian dissident forces,
we can strike a better balance of power between the regime and
its opposition.
Our blacklisting of Iranian opposition groups, prompted by the
Clinton administration’s desire to mollify Tehran, has hampered
Iran’s democracy movement and limited our ability to reach out
to the democratic opposition groups in Iran. In line with the
call by many veteran US policy experts, the U.S. can help its
own cause by removing Iran’s main opposition group, the
Mujahedeen-e Khalq (MEK), from the list of foreign terrorist
groups. There are sufficient political and legal grounds to do
so.
The United States has recognized the status of Mujahedeen
personnel as ‘protected persons’ under the Fourth Geneva
Convention. This determination was, according to the State
Department’s deputy spokesman, due to the fact that the group
was not “belligerent” during the Iraq war.
According to the New York Times, following “a 16-month review”
and “extensive interviews by officials of the State Department
and the Federal Bureau of Investigation” there was not “any
basis to bring charges against any members of the group”.
The Times also quoted US officials as saying that the Mujahedeen
“is not known to have directed any terrorist acts toward the
United States for 25 years” and that “members of the group
signed an agreement rejecting violence and terrorism.”
Never before in the history of US-Iran relations, have democracy
in Iran and the security interests of the United States been so
intertwined. We can achieve the former and safeguard the latter
by ensuring that Iranians succeed in replacing the tyranny in
Iran with a democratic, secular state. Time to act in now!
(USADI)
Return to Top
National Review
Online
October 5, 2004
Iran, When?
Months before the liberation of Iraq I wrote that we were about
to have our great national debate on the war against the terror
masters, and it was going to be the wrong debate. Wrong because
it was going to focus obsessively on Iraq, thereby making it
impossible to raise the fundamental strategic issues. Alas, that
forecast was correct, and we're still stuck in the strategic
quagmire we created. Up to our throats. So let's try again to
get it right.… The terror masters could not possibly stand by
and permit an easy triumph in Iraq, for that would seal their
own doom. For them, the battle of Iraq was an existential
conflict, the ultimate zero-sum game. If we won, they died. But,
blinded by our obsession with Iraq, we did not see it...
Had we seen the war for what it was, we would not have started
with Iraq, but with Iran, the mother of modern Islamic
terrorism, the creator of Hezbollah, the ally of al Qaeda, the
sponsor of Zarqawi, the longtime sponsor of Fatah, and the
backbone of Hamas…
Moreover, the Islamic Republic was uniquely vulnerable to
democratic revolution, for, by the mullahs' own accounting, no
less than seventy percent of the Iranian people hated the
clerical fascist regime in Tehran, and hundreds of thousands of
young Iranians had shown a disposition to challenge their
oppressors in the streets of the major cities. Had we supported
them then and there, in the immediate aftermath of Afghanistan,
when the entire region was swept by political tremors of great
magnitude, the evil regime might well have fallen, thereby
delivering an enormous blow to the jihadis all over the world. I
do not think we would have needed a single bomb or a single
bullet.
… Those who attended closed discussions with the Iraqi defense
minister a week ago heard a long list of evidence and cries of
outrage against the murderous mullahcracy next door, and even
though the leaders of the West — sadly including some of our own
— continue to pretend that diplomacy may yet settle things in
the Middle East, they cannot possibly believe it. This is a
fight to the finish, still a zero-sum game.
In the past week, the Iranian people have again taken to the
streets in every major city in the country. The chatterers pay
no heed, because there is only one zero-sum game that interests
them, which is the election, and the election is about Iraq, or
so they say. Except that it isn't, really. It's about the war.
The real war, the regional war, the war they are waging against
us even if we refuse to acknowledge it…
Excerpts from an article by Michael
Ledeen, Resident Scholar in the Freedom Chair at the American
Enterprise Institute.
Return to Top
National Post
October 07, 2004
Dragging A Neighbour
Into Anarchy
U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell recently told the
International Herald Tribune that "Iran is providing support for
the insurgency in Iraq." He added, however, that "the extent of
its influence over insurgent forces is not clear."…
Theoretically, the Iranians should have little motive for
supporting Iraq's guerrillas and terrorists. Iran is largely a
nation of Shiite Muslims… The wisest course for Tehran, one
would think, would be to permit a smooth transition of power
following elections, and then extend influence through friendly
Shiite intermediaries in Baghdad's new government…
Yet an overwhelming array of facts show Iran has embraced the
opposite strategy. In September, Mr. (Iraq's Defence Minister,
Hazem) Shaalan displayed an array of weapons with Iranian
markings that had been captured from insurgents in Najaf...
Dozens of Iranians captured during the clashes were shown on
Iraqi television.
According to Iran's official press, there are currently more
than 1,200 Iranians in custody in Iraq. Iraqi media has recently
reported that a truckload containing 1,800 82 mm-mortar rounds,
three mortar launchers, 250 Katyusha rockets and large
quantities of explosives was seized in transit from Iran to
Iraq. Iranian independent opposition sources say 4,000 Shiite
clerics from Iran have been sent to Iraq since the fall of
Saddam's regime. According to the same sources, thousands of
Revolutionary Guards disguised as religious pilgrims have also
been dispatched.
Why is Iran stirring up Iraq's guerrilla war when it might just
as easily profit from a smooth transition to democracy? The
answer lies in Iran's domestic affairs: If Iran, a dictatorship,
were to permit a truly democratic political structure to take
root next door, it would only provide encouragement to the
millions of young Iranians who have been militating for similar
reforms back home…
In the long run, promoting stability in Iraq will require
democratization in Iran -- for Tehran's theocrats will never
accept a democracy on their western border. Until that day, the
United States and other Western nations should hold Tehran to
account for the violence and chaos it is deliberately fomenting.
It is bad enough that 70 million Iranians must live under
tyranny. Iraq's population must not be allowed to suffer the
same fate.
Excerpts from an article by Nooredin
Abedian, a writer living in France, and a former university
professor in Iran.
Return to Top
|
