October 17, 2001

* Can U.S. rely on IRI?

This essay is an attempt to answer issues raised by John Donnelly the editor of "Defense Week" in an article by the name of "Keeping quiet on Iran" published in the Washigton Times of October 16, 2001. The author's main points are:

"Any official public talk about Iran's possible role in terror is extremely sensitive right now. Iran has made encouraging remarks about helping the United States fight terrorism. So talking publicly about Iran's role in terror - current or past - could hurt chances of 'converting' Iran and might throw a wrench into the anti-terror coalition, especially among Arabs.

Keeping quiet about Iran is probably wise, for now. But put these facts in your file of things that may require attention a little later, in case Iranian rhetoric remains just that."

The Islamic Republic's handling of the WTC attack and the anti-terror campaign has opened an old debate: Can the West reach an entente with the Islamic Republic? Is the Islamic Republic reformable? Is the Islamic Republic the legitimate representative of 70 million Iranians? Are the current Allies such as Saudis or the Persian Gulf Sheikhdoms dependable?

It is wothwile to note that since the Iranian Revolution, the United States has not had a coherent, proactive policy in the Persian Gulf and the present fiasco is a direct result of that.

The 1970s "Two pillar policy" of Iran and Saudi Arabia as the two main strategic allies of the West was destroyed as a result of the revolution. The US therefore tried to arm and strengthen Saudi Arabia and the Persain Gulf Sheikhdoms to replace Iran as its main partner. Throughout the 1980's this policy seemed to work as America's so called allies financed Iraq's war against Iran and the Afghan Mujaheedin's war against the soviets.

The Iraqi invasion of Kuwait clearly demonstarted the undelying flaw of this policy. Despite being wealthy and well armed, none of these countries had a significant population mass or a professional class to handle Saddam Hussein. This necessatitated direct American presence during the Iraq- Kuwait war.

The 1990's ensuing policy of "dual containment" of Iran and Iraq also failed as the Europeans clearly did not tow the line and some of the US's best allies in the region became the primary beneficiaires of the breaching of the sanctions. For example Iran has been the UAE's main reexport partner for the last twenty years.

As a result of the above the West's major ally in the region are now the Saudi Sheikhs whose subjects are the principal perpetrators and financial backers of terrorism. The current debate in the west is what exacly is America's national interest in the region and who are America's allies in the region?

One school of thought is for America to "deemphasize" the Persian Gulf as the world's most important oil producing area and instead focus on Russia and the Caspian region for its oil needs. Call it a reversal of OPEC with the West banning oil purchases from the Arab countires. After all a destitute bin Laden can not organize attacks out of the desert.

The other school of thought that Mr Donnelly advocates is that the Islamic Republic is the West's best choice at least for now and as long as it is not singing a different tune. It is therefore worth to "keep quiet" and try to "convert" the IRP.

It should be pointed that the Islamic Republic has so far adroitly handled the situation. It has condemened the terrorist action, helped the anti terror alliance by closing its borders and providing assistance to the Northern Alliance Forces and now evicting terrorists such as Imad Mughniah thereby endearing itself to the West.

Internally, the regime has been singing its traditinal anti-American rhetoric to keep its traditional constituency happy.

At the same time the Islamic Republic has called for a UN sponsored attack rather than a US sponsored attack of the Taliban and has been working with the Saudis to put toghether an Islamic coalition to ensure that the anti terror campaign will stop at the Taliban and would not result in any fundamental shift in the current US policy in the region. The issue facing Western policy makers and anyone who would like to see a permanent end to terrorism is whether in the long run the Islamic Republic can be an ally and whether its very existence is not a future terrorist threat.

I believe America has once tested this option.The United States helped to create, arm and finance the Taliban as an ally against communist agression. The bet paid off as long as there was a common ennemy. With that threat gone there was no common principle or objective and the result is Terrorist agression against the United Sates.

Now consider this scenario: the Islamic Republic and the United States team up against the Taliban and win. In the aftermath of victory what exactly are the common principles, aspirations and objectives of the ruling mollas of Iran and the United States. This author believes that it is time for the United States to define its objectives and thereby build its alliances by reaximining the new socio economic realities which have emerged in the Persian Gulf region in the last twenty years.

The most noteworthy change is the emergence of a new modern, educated, secular and frustrated middle-class which never existed in the region. It is the engineers of Tehran, the Indian doctors of Abu Dhabi, the MBAs of Ryadh who have common principles and aspirations as any average American. They want stability, economic development, better jobs, better schools, more social freedoms, women' s rights, separation of church and state as any middle class american wants.

Their interests are in line now with a modern and free America and will be in line in the future. What binds them toghether are common goals and a common world view not temporary ennemies.

The Sheiks of Kuwait, the Princes of Saudi and the clerics of Iran have all one thing in common. They belong to the pre-modern age. Their whole social standing and source of power is against what America stands for. They will therefore never be real allies. You only need to examine the reaction of the people of these countries to the anti terror campaign for the best proof of my claim.

Saudis are Western allies, the government condemns bin Laden, but it has to break up pro-bin Laden demonstrations by its subjects. The Islamic Republic is an ennemy of the United States, yet it has to break up pro-Ameircan demonstrations. The issue for the Saudis and Iranians is not bin Laden but whether the US is supporting or containing the traditionalist and anti democratic regime that cannot address their main concerns.

Iran's sizable modern middle class which some like to call "the third force" is clearly the most stabilizing factor in the power politics of the region. It is well educated, young, secular and politically mature. It has been through a revolution. It has learned the hard way the results of flirting with religious fundamentalism and is now immune to utopian ideologies.

Arguably, America's strongest ally in the region is the Iranian modern middle-class and its representatives. The real question is therefore does the Islamic Republic as a whole or any part of it such as the so called "Reformists" represent this third force? To answer the question, America needs to apply a simple test.

America only needs to test the Islamic Republic and the reformists with its own modern values as crytralized in its constitution.

-- Can anyone, regardless of his religion and political beliefs run for office in Iran?

-- Can Bahais practice their beliefs in Iran?

-- Are you allowed to be an atheist in Iran?

-- Are state and church separated in Iran?

-- Is the judiciary secular and independent of the executive?

-- Does "due process" exist in Iran?

-- Is private property sanctified?

None one of the current factions of the Islamic Republic -- pro-Khamenei, pro-Khatami, new left, old left -- can come out and answer any of the above positively for the simple reason that the Islamic Republic's constitution openly and explicitly prohibits all the above. As a result none of the current factions of the ruling clergy in Iran are not representatives of Iran's modern middle class.

Does this mean that America should bomb or invade Iran? Absolutely not. This does however mean that any dialogue with or "conversion" of Iran should be predicated on the government of Iran or any group claiming to represent Iran to agree to and commit to the above.

It is interesting that those groups such as the supporters of Khatami or the so called Islamic left or the traditional Iranian communists who by definition cannot commit to secularism, universal suffrage and all other modern natural rights are crying wolf if anyone outside of their circle calls for a new approach to Iran by America. The reason is very simple, they do not represent the Iranian modern middle class.

Mihandoust

* Join the rest of us

Dear Mr.Pahlavi,

Reading the script of your interview with Hannity & Colmes in the Fox News channel of (Oct.9, 2001) saddened me .

I was saddened to see you trying to walk a thin rope, urging the United States and the international community to topple the "terrorist sponsoring government of Iran" by giving "moral support" and saying that you "never want to see ... to ever contemplate the possibility that my country could come under attack."

Do you really believe that foreign "moral support" alone could bring the Taliban government down? And if not, why are your beating around the Bush?

I am saddened that you have not realized yet that the days of Monarchy are over and the days of Velayate Faghih will soon be over too; and you and your family, thank God, were extremely lucky in not having the same fate as that of the French, Russian , Iraqi and many other royals. God forbid , KOUZEH HAMISHEH SAALEM AZ AAB DAR NEMIAAD. Do not count on Zaher Shah's revival. He was lucky to have escaped his relatives' coup in the first round of Afghanistan's power struggle.

I am saddened that it has not occurred to you yet as to why we had to wait for Reza Shah to kick the corrupt Qajar dynasty out of power, for the Allied forces to free us from the tyranny of Reza Shah and finally for a revolution to bring Mohammad Reza Shah's dictatorial government down.

I am saddened that we did not have a system, even a rudimentary one, to elect our rulers every so often, and prevent us from going through all these troubles.

A rudimentary system has been established for the past 23 years, thanks to the revolution. To prove your sincerity, and for the sake of unity, dear Reza , will you renounce the monarchy without ifs and buts, get rid of the BAADEMJAAN DORE GHAAB'CHEENHAA and join the rest of us in a united front to get rid of the mollas? Who knows? One day you can be our next president if you prove yourself.

Give this a serious thought please. You will not regret it. It will be done with or without your joining, but it is a unique historical opportunity for the Pahlavis to participate in this final stage of revolution of getting rid of the sheikhs and the shahs. Make a difference.

I am sorry that I talked more than I had intended. But how often can I have an audience with a royalty? Thanks for your time.

Best wishes.

Sincerely,

Peerooz

* Deep analysis

I wish the Washington foreign policy makers, particularly of the Middle East, would read your deep, truthful, comprehensive analysis ["Nefrine Budha!"] of their unwise policy time and again.

Warmest Wishes,

Mahvash Shahegh

* Supreme authority?

Mr. Sajjadi,

I was going to read your article ["Nefrine Budha!"] when I noticed the "warning" paragraph at the top of the page. It's good I took the time and read it before I proceeded with the rest of the page. I wonder what would happen I didn't read and comply with your orders.

Anyhow, since I know I'm not and expert on "complicated world of politics", I did not permit my self to read the entire article. However, I really want to.

I am a collage graduate and hold a professional job. I have been reading history and political books since the young age. I follow the news. I do what most people do to keep inform. I don't know if I am qualified to read and perhaps comment on your article. Is there a way for me to present my case and see if I measure to your standards? Will I be one of the fortunate ones?

On the other hand, maybe you should qualify yourself and tell me how you became the supreme authority on the world wide politics. How "a journalist residing in America" has gained his expertise in "Political Science" so much so he has no time for the common people.

Ray Irani

* Killing in self-defense

I am pleasantly overwhelmed by the controversy over the views I expressed in my letters "What we do best" and "Asserting principles". I will try to respond to all criticism as briefly as possible.

In response to "Filled with hate" from Sanaz: I will not bother to dissect any historical trivia and "analysis regarding the plight of Palestinians, Iraqis, Saudis, Iranians, Afghans, et al to justify why Islamic extremists are at war with western civilization. I would however dissect the statements of the chief hatemonger bin Laden before spewing out "Sabra and Shatila" as if it were the beginning of history or the United States was its chief perpetrartor.

All that dim excuse artists are doing is confusing the issue and putting empty buzz words in the mouths of people who need some rational justification for their gut hatred of the Western civilization. I would bet the vast majority of Muslim believers around the globe do not know enough geography to locate Israel on an unmarked map! Yet that never held anyone back from blaming Israel (and by association the West) as the primary source of their misery!!

May I reiterate that If atrocious political or military intervention were reasons or America to be hated, then the Vietnamese and Japanese should be waging a war of vengeance against the USA. How can people miss such a simple point?

On the accusation of racism, I would like to state that Muslims, extremists or not, are not a race. Therefore criticizing or opposing their beliefs does not make one racist. (Does criticism of hip hop culture, be it gangster rap or jailhouse fashion, make one racist against black people ?!)

In response to "Killing is unjustified by "George Eo Saltasebes": It baffles me where the inherently illogical premise that "killing is unjustified" comes from. It is akin to the hypocrisy of people who eat meat but do not believe in slaughter!!

There are such things as right and wrong and they are not entirely subjective. This truth alone is the essense of human civilization. Killing to uphold civilization and its values is NOT unjustified. For example killing in self-defense is justified. Killing to uphold justice is necessary and justified.

How can you let criminals who have sworn to kill us hide and get away? What would you do if someone kicked you in the nuts? Are you going to tell them that they are not justified?! And what if they decided to cut your neck? And what if they decided to move on and cut someone else's neck? And what if they took an innocent child hostage? Would that make them untouchable? Do we try to make them "understand"?

I understand the moral dilemma about killing. But getting destroyed while believing that "killing is unjustified is the dumbest answer.

In response to "McGovernment not the answer" by Ehsan Ghorani: I am stunned at the logic that likens the Islamic invasion to the introduction of "soccer" or "tea"!! I can see a few differences between the intoduction of "soccer" (or "tea") and "Islam". Here are a few:

1) Soccer was not imposed by rape and murder.

2) Soccer does not kill and torture people who don't want it.

3) Soccer does not burn books, ban music and art, and impose a ritual of reciting Arabic mumbo jumbo five times a day.

4) Soccer does not get involved in ethics or politics hence there is no "soccer republic".

5) Soccer does not impair one's logical thinking so as to comapre sport with religion and miss the difference.

I could go on and on but I do not want to be too funny and be accused of mockery. If the United States invaded and annexed Iran today would anyone welcome and accept it as something that will add to our "national identity" 100 years from now?

The reasoning behind Acceptance of Islam is like glossing over a violent rape with a shameful matrimony. It does not matter how long ago it happenned. There is no statute of limitations for raping a culture, at least not when the serial rapist is still at large striking everyday.

I don't know what makes Mr. Ghorani think that Mullahs' days are numbered. I've heard that for 22 years. There is no hope for Iran if everyone thinks like that. Apathy and blind acceptance are not the answer.

I do not advocate, nor do I believe in, eradicating Islam from Iran. I believe in subduing and containing it without punishing anyone who spiritually depends on it. There is no reason why Islam has to be an official religion. Iranians should not have to hear Islamic moan five times a day from masjids. There is no reason why masjids could not be used for rave parties or art exhibitions. There is no need for a religion class in school.

All of this seems reasonable and within the realm of possibility. By the way, I love soccer and I would like Islam if it were more like soccer and tea.

Omid Parsi
New York

* Art & copyright

I found it interesting that Yasmina Reza's Art dubbed "Honar" in Farsi is being played in Iran. It isn't contrary to its title an elitist play and is quite entertaining even if their is an underlying bitterness which appears gradually between the protagonists.

However it also should be reminded that many Western plays or film adaptations in Farsi are done without permission from the authors. The reason is that Iran never signed any form of guarantee or tr'eaty for the respect of copyrights in the US and or "Droit d'Auteur" like in France.

Thus films like "The Day of the Jackel" were adapted to the screen in an Iranian action film which nevertheless didn't make it at the box office. The interesting thing about it is that it allows Iranian artist a lot of freedom, as long as they respect the code regarding the Islamic laws of conduct, which Iranian filmakers like Kiarostami or Makhmalbaf and other new wave Iranian film makers have managed to contour.

It must be noted that their is a clear difference between the American notion of "copyright"and the French or European notion of "Droit d'auteur" which date back to the time of Beaumarchais french novelist, diplomat, famed lover, bastille prisoner, passtime revolutionary and spy of Louis the XVI who initiated the law which is an institution in France. The first allows the artist to buy the rights of adaptation of a play while the second defends the author of a play.

A copyright can be bought from the producers however the "Droit d'Auteur" preserves the authors rights on the work entirely. That means that if an artists work is considered as deformed during an adaptation the author can always interfere. It is not the case for copyrights where authors are helpless because he is no longer in possession of his work. This is the underlying GATT debate which has divided Europe, particularily France and America for the past years on cultural issues.

If Iranian artists or jurists have an opinion on this matter I would be most interested to have their views at this tribune.

Regards,

Darius Kadivar

* Woven in my heart

I just read your article in The Iranian about Afghanistan ["Limbs of no body"] and I am deeply moved by what you say. I lived in Kabul in the 1970's when no one I knew could understand why I had to be there... and yet that country has become a strong part of the weave of my heart ever since.

Your article was published in June. I would also be interested in your perceptions since Sept 11.

Thank you so much for sharing your thoughts about such a complex and mysterious part of our planet.

Most warmly,

Melody Winnig

* I called my senator

I read this story a couple of times ["The last mission"]. I printed it.

I called my United States Senator's office. I am taking your story to their office.

KN

Comment for The Iranian letters section