From containment to empowerment
Let the democratic movement of the Iranian people
to develop from inside
May 19, 2003
The Iranian
Expanded version of a talk given at the University of Washington’s
Persian Studies Program, Seattle, Washington, on Saturday, May 17,
2003.
The US-Iran relations can only be assessed in a boarder context
of the global United States foreign policy and in particular in
regards to the Middle East. It is also important to look at how
the new right’s influence has shaped the US foreign policy
in the current administration, and how the events of September 11,
2001, have provided the much-needed domestic justification for this
policy.
The title of this panel discussion suggests that while “containment”
refers to the Islamic Republic regime in power in Iran, the “empowerment”
applies to the Iranian people – a policy which has also presumably
been the motivation behind the US military attacks on Afghanistan
and Iraq over the last two years.
These two wars have indeed provided us with ample evidence about
the thinking behind the rhetoric’s of the new American foreign
policy under President George W. Bush. These had been spelled out
in the past by prominent figures of this administration, but were
generally ignored as being irrelevant at the time, as few if any
of them had any influence in the corridors of power then.
Now that they are well positioned in the Pentagon, the State Department
and the White House, we understand what “Project
for the New American Century” meant or what "Pax
Americana" was all about. In effect, we are facing a policy
of empowerment, not much of the nations under dictatorial rule,
but of the global American power in a unipolar world dominated by
a single superpower.
It is well documented that the current policy, followed under the
general term of “fighting terrorism”, was formulated
well before September 11, but that the tragic events of that day
provided the means to persuade a sceptic American public opinion
for military intervention in countries suspected of supporting or
harbouring terrorism.
Make no mistake: the US involvement in the Middle East has all
the hallmarks of colonialism, in the classical sense. Of course
almost all similar adventures in the past too had some justification
in terms of securing the trade routes, advancing the cause of civilization
and/or bringing the words of God to the natives. And of course,
not all colonialist adventures in the past were malign or of no
benefit to the humankind.
Indeed, it can be said that civilisation as we know it would have
been poorer if not for great advances by empires in the past. But
the by-products of these advances should not obscure the fact that
the real motivations behind almost all of them have been greed and
the quest for power and domination.
Moreover, an inevitable outcome of these adventures has been the
eventual rise of the people who have been at the receiving end,
and the humiliating withdrawal or defeat of the foreign power. The
history of the birth of the United States provides ample evidence
for this. As all empires have experienced in the past, military
intervention may bring swift victory at first but inflict a lengthy
headache later.
Today it is mainly this awakened desire of the current world superpower
for world domination that has drastically changed the political
map of the Middle East in less than two years. It is also the same
policy, which is at the heart of the administration’s thinking
towards Iran.
Iran under the Islamic Republic regime is not only a police state
with horrible record on human rights and a bastion of Islamic fundamentalism
and terrorism attached to it, but also an obstacle to the American
influence in the area and its desire to pacify the region both for
itself and for its ally in the area, Israel.
And so, we see a shift of policy from containment of the Iranian
regime in the 80’s and 90’s to what is now termed as
empowerment. As I mentioned earlier, “empowerment” was
also the buzzword frequently used in the case of military actions
in Afghanistan and Iraq.
These two countries have so far paid a heavy price in lives and
devastations, with little evidence of how much power the average
citizen have achieved or will acquire in the process. But the military
actions have secured their primary aims: a permanent foothold for
American military in those countries, and regime changes moulded
in a way to guarantee American political and financial interests
for the foreseeable future.
In the case of Iran, is it very doubtful that the American administration
will be using the same military means. But that the eventual end
is the same, is not in doubt. Here, the Americans are hopeful that
a groundswell of public opposition to the current regime in Iran
combined with political and military pressure would do the job for
them with no need for military intervention. And that of course
is a strong possibility.
In Iran of today, unlike Afghanistan or Iraq, there is a very
strong and vociferous public opposition to the current regime. This
opposition has been demonstrated in so many ways, from national
opinion polls to public displays of anger and dissent, to widespread
boycott of the nationwide local election on 28th February this year.
What is lacking is a strong opposition force that can galvanise
this public discontent into a mass political movement and present
a credible democratic alternative to the Islamic Republic regime.
This is very much recognised by the opposition political elite
in Iran, and as the situation becomes more critical there are signs
that old rivalries and mistrusts are giving way to a new understanding
among many Iranian democratic political figures and tendencies,
both right and left, towards a common solution. In this critical
situation, the way the Americans are going to behave would have
a very definite and profound effect on the eventual outcome of these
moves.
If empowerment of the Iranian people is the real aim of the US
policy towards Iran, it must be understood and committed that no
military intervention in Iran in any form or shape or in any circumstances
should be considered. Such an intervention would only strengthen
the hands of anti-democratic forces in Iran.
Moreover, even purely on military grounds, such an adventure may
not be as easily pursued and terminated as that of Iraq or Afghanistan.The
US military forces in both Afghanistan and Iraq encountered armies
who were mainly trained in offensive rather than defensive tactics.
As a result, these armies were not much of use in defensive positions.
Iranians, on the other hand, have had an 8-year experience of a
largely defensive war, and as such well may prove a hard nut to
crack in the battlefields.
The US should also refrain from making deals with the so-called
pragmatists in the current Iranian regime who are pursuing a Chines-style
rapprochement with the West and hope for a Nixon-like response in
return. The political developments in Iran has far outstripped that
of China in the 70’s, and any deal with the Islamic Republic
regime which ignores the democratic aspirations of the Iranian people
is doomed to a spectacular failure from the outset.
Instead, the US would best serve the interests of the Iranian and
American people by applying maximum political pressure on the Iranian
regime for improvement of human rights, and getting the European
and other democratic countries on its side to apply the same pressure
on the Iranian regime, and by supporting the strong and vibrant
democratic forces inside Iran.
It should also refrain from any selective approach towards Iranian
opposition political figures and tendencies and from trying to prop
up or promote those whose political ideas it finds more akin to
its ideological stands. In other words, it should take a broad view
of the Iranian political scene, keeping away from showing favours
to any political leader, and allow the future political leaders
of Iran to emerge rather than being propped up.
Only if these conditions (no military intervention, no behind the
scene deals with the current regime, and no leader making) are met,
the American pressure on Iran could be termed “empowerment”
and would be welcomed by the vast majority of the Iranian people.
It would also serve the best interests of the United States of America
in the long-term.
It is worth pointing out that the American policy towards Iran
and the Middle East over the last half a century have mostly been
determined not solely from the view point of the United States and
its national interests, but by consideration of a third country.
During the cold war, it was the Soviet Union, which played a pivotal
role in the American foreign policy in the Middle East.
The philosophy behind this approach was that what was bad for the
Soviets must be good for America. This policy led first to the Americans
propping and supporting a range of dictatorial regimes in the area
(most notably in Iran), and when it did not work, to promoting the
creation of a “green belt” on the southern borders of
the Soviet Union.
However, as both experiences failed, and the “green belt”
policy of the 70’s led to the emergence of Islamic fundamentalist
regimes in Iran and Afghanistan, it became clear that this dichotomy
did not always work - that not everything that was bad for the Soviet
Union was necessarily good for America. And then September 11 finally
brought home the disastrous consequences of such a dependent policy.
Now that the Soviet Union is gone, another country has taken its
position as the determinant factor of US foreign policy in the area.
The administration is now looking through the interests of Israel,
and whatever the US does in the Middle East today is coloured by
what is perceived to be good for Israel.
Again there is no guarantee that what is good for Israel would
necessarily be good for America. The American power may secure Israeli
supremacy in the area and eliminate any threat against it, but it
may well put the Americans’ long-term security and interests
in danger in a world infested with terrorism. As a result, the Americans
may again have to pay a high price for such a dependent policy in
the Middle East.
Only if Americans can articulate and follow an independent and
non-interventionist foreign policy, can they in true form claim
empowerment. They should look at what America’s long-term
interests require rather than what the sort-term interests of Israel
(or any other country for that matter) dictate.
Supporting democratic movements around the world, and allowing
democracies to develop form inside are in the best interests of
the United States in the long run. There are voices in America today
calling for either military action in Iran or spending money on
supporting certain political tendencies with little support inside
of Iran but a high visibility outside of it.
Neither of these would serve the cause of democratic development
in Iran or the long-term interests of the United States. A best
policy is a people-centred policy – to put maximal pressure
on the Iranian regime from outside and to let the democratic movement
of the Iranian people to develop from inside.
America has a proud history of home-produced and developed democracy.
It can be a major force in democratic developments around the world.
For America’s long-term interests it is better to deal with
a Turkey, which can use its democratic power to block an American
request, than a Pakistan or Qatar that easily accepts what is dictated
to it.
And as Americans are proud of establishing their democracy independently,
they should allow the same to happen in other countries around the
world. This is needed nowhere else more than in today's Iran.
Author
Hossein Bagher Zadeh is a human rights activist and commentator
on Iranian political and human rights issues.
May is...
Mamnoon Iranian.com Month
Support
your favorite magazine
* Printer
friendly
|
