 Short of military action
Iranians, now, more than ever, need the U.S. as a strong-armed
friend
By Shahla Azizi
June 30, 2003
The Iranian
The History of U.S relations with Iran since WWII
is studded with incredible gaffes. Afraid of communist takeover
and Soviet influence in Iran for much of this time the U.S. blindly
backed a dictatorship that became less and less popular.
When the
time came for an indigenous, Ghandiesque, nationalism in the
person of Mossadeq, the U.S. failed to win him over through negotiations
and instead opted for a cold-war style coup d'etat in 1953
which brought the Shah back to power for the cost of a few
million dollars. But the real cost of the '53 coup d'etat was paid
later in '79 when their well-groomed English-speaking-without-an-accent
puppet was overthrown by a revolution that unleashed an anti-American
Islamist movement whose reach extended to September 11th.
The success of the Islamic Revolution of 1979 gave
much courage to all discontented Muslims. Its example produced
Islamic movements
in many parts of the world. Before '79, an Islamic Republic
was a mere utopian theory existing in the minds of a few revolutionary
clerics but after the coming to power of Khomeini it became a reality,
a tangible option. Islam, the revolution in Iran proved, was the
best way to both battle Western cultural hegemony and American
imperialism.
Marxism was a Western concept better suited for industrial
nations with largely literate populations. It did not speak in
the language of the tribal, rural and still mainly pre-industrial
Muslim nations of the Middle East and Africa.
By overthrowing a movement like Mossadeq's for fear
of it being taken over by the communists, the U.S. aborted the
birth
of an anti-imperialist ideology in the form of nationalism. So
when the time came for the people to overthrow the Shah's
dictatorship and claim their independence from America, Islam was
the only viable ideology. The U.S. then stood shocked as Iran ousted
the Shah, took her embassy hostage and went on to spew anti-American
propaganda in the region for the next twenty-four years.
Now Iranians have tested this Islamic form of government
and rejected it. They have rejected it because it is a form of
dictatorship
worse than before for it now tells them not only what to say but
what to wear and drink as well. They have rejected it because the
clerical leaders have proven to be more corrupt and hypocritical
than their tie-donning predecessors. A weak economy and a suffocating
society have become unbearable, especially for the youth who make
up the majority of the population. It is this rejection that was
recently being voiced in the streets and universities of the country
asking for the removal of the regime.
The demonstrations fizzled out but not after a good
dozen of nights and much violence and arrests of students. Now
all in Iran are
watching to see if 18th of Tir (July 9th) which will mark the anniversary
of the student uprising of four years ago will produce more regime-damaging
protests. People wonder if the force and intimidation used by the
regime and its thugs (the Bassijis and Ansar Hezbollah vigilantes)
is sufficient to, similar to four years ago, subdue the movement.
Once again the U.S. is facing a decisive moment
in the history of its relations with Iran. Should she back the
protestors or should
she opt for staying on the sidelines and watching to see what happens?
Should she back the reformists in government or should she push
for regime change?
At this juncture the U.S. should not waver in
its support of the majority of Iranians who oppose the clerical
leadership.
To do
so would be irresponsible. The official line of the Bush administration
is that while it supports the protests and desires a regime change
it does not need to get directly involved. The Iranian people,
the U.S. claims, will win their own victory.
Whatever gaffes have
been made in other countries and in the past, in Iran, today, the
youth that has mustered enough courage to face
government thugs in order to voice its frustration with the clerical
regime, expects and deserves the U.S. to be a strong-armed friend.
Since the hated rulers have co-opted anti-Americanism,
the Iranian people have rejected it to the point where they are
now less anti-American
than many Europeans! They actually resemble the Europeans after
WWII who were delighted by the Americans who had helped liberate
them from fascism.
The U.S. should certainly not negotiate with the
reformist in government, as the Europeans and some within the Bush
administration seem to
favor, just when their credibility and popularity has run out.
This would be another gaffe. The majority of Iranians are tired
of Mullahs-- period.
Any dialogue with the regime will smack
of appeasement. Picking on Iran for its allegedly bellicose nuclear
program or for harboring of Al Qaeda members will only prompt the
ever savvy mullahs to use the allegations as bartering chips in
negotiations – it also detracts from the international focus
on the indigenous social unrest.
Iranians are ready for regime change and are capable
of finding their own way. They just are up against thugs and need
some support
to scare the opponents into playing fair. The U.S. should provide
that kind of support, no more, no less. She should put enough pressure
on the regime and force her reluctant European allies to do the
same, so as to minimize bloodshed.
To put pressure on the clerical
regime to respect the human rights of its people when they protest
against their government is the surest way for the U.S. to fortify
her newfound popularity with Iranians who came out on the
streets recently because in many ways, since September 11th and
George Bush's "Axis of Evil" speech, they depend
on the U.S. to stand by her rhetoric.
The U.S. need not attack
Iran militarily and the days of covertly backed coup d'etats
are over, but she should not stand back so far that the people
she has encouraged to take to the streets, are left alone to
be imprisoned or eliminated. If this regime is simply kept from
using
violence against its own people, its days are most certainly numbered.
* Send
this page to your friends
|
Short of military action
