DEBATE

I am writing this article knowing full well that I am opening a can of worm and that some of my closest associates may never forgive me. But I have stayed silent for too long, and I refuse to see yet another opportunity to free Iran to pass by due to the employment of the wrong tactics by us in the anti-regime opposition (as opposed to the pro-regime opposition).

For too long, the opposition has suffered from low self-esteem. We never felt comfortable taking a direct debate with our opponents, fearing that people wouldn’t side with us, circumstances weren’t right, too early to reveal our end objectives etc.

Though most of us know deep inside that the mullahs will never give up power and that the only way to achieve a democracy in Iran is through military means, the majority in the opposition are fearful of expressing these views. Clearly, these are not easily accepted views, and it takes a lot for a person to say that he or she believes that the homeland must be bombed. Nevertheless, that is the reality and the reluctance of ordinary people to accept this is precisely because the opposition has refused to have this debate. If we had a full debate, more people, perhaps even a majority would come around to this view, in my opinion.

Instead, we in the opposition have done everything we can to avoid having the debate.

This frustrated me immensely during the Bush years. We had a great President back then who not only understood these realities, but who also understood that without American and Israeli backing no Iranian opposition group could topple the mullahs. But instead of taking this issue to the Iranian people and the Iranian-American community, we shied away from it. And those who stood in the way of going all out militarily against the mullahs (such as NIAC and CASMII), we dealt with by attacking and discrediting them.

I was a big opponent of this strategy. Not because I have any fondness for NIAC, but because I believed that their efficiency in preventing our agenda was rooted in our lack of self-esteem and unwillingness to have a debate with them. NIAC beat us numerous times on Capitol Hill, and our response was to discredit them in the Iranian-American community – every time they scored in Washington, we attacked them in LA.

Even we monarchists began systematically spreading the writings of Hassan Daioleslam, in spite of his association with the Mujahedin. Some of us thought we were winning, but were we really? We may have done a lot of damage to NIAC’s image and certainly we succeeded in harming its ability to fundraise, but NIAC managed to make the liberation of Iran through military means (since there is no other way) an evil concept.

Had we taken NIAC on in a debate back in 2006, Iran would have been liberated by 2008. I am confident of this. Both the Bush administration and Israel was fully ready to take out the mullahs. But they couldn’t battle Tehran without the full and unconditional support of Iranian-Americans.

We missed that chance because we didn’t dare to have the debate.

And today, I am writing this because I am fearful that we will miss yet another golden opportunity to liberate our homeland. We are committing the same mistake as we did three years ago – instead of having the inevitable debate, I am receiving email instructions to send around articles attacking Akbar Ganji, NIAC, Hadi Ghaemi, Hamid Dabashi and many others.

We should know by bow that this isn’t the right strategy. Certainly not under these circumstances – when the people of Iran are rising up, when they are shouting death to the Dictator, when they are calling for an Iranian republic, then why let the NIAC folks get off the hook by only spreading petty articles about them? We should take the fight to their territory. We should have the debate, let the best arguments win in the free market of ideas. If not now, then when? When the Basij are killing Iranians indiscriminately, who can defend non-action by the US? When the blood of Neda is still on the streets in Tehran, who can oppose sanctions? When Ahmadinejad has revealed that he was a “petty dictator” all along, who can support Obama’s naïve call for diplomacy?

So let me start the debate with the following proposition.

The events of the last few months have not changed the Islamic Republic, it has revealed the Islamic Republic. It is and has always been a dictatorship. It cannot be reformed, and there is no such thing as moderates there. Deep inside, Moussavi is no different than Ahmadinjead. In fact, what Ahmadinejad is doing today to Moussavi, Moussavi did 30 years ago to others. Now more than ever, the horrific IRGC militia is ruling Iran and they will never give up.

So they must be destroyed. It’s as simple as that.

Gasoline sanctions must be imposed on Iran. Not because sanctions are enough to overthrow the mullahs, but because a significant weakening of the economy is needed prior to a military attack. The weaker Iran is, the shorter the military fight and the smaller the total number of casualties. (Consequently sanctions should not be sold as a solution but rather as a measure to soften the enemy before the final operation).

With massive American aerial attacks for three weeks on the IRGC, Iran will be in turmoil. To avoid a rallying around the flag effect (which unfortunately cannot be completely avoided), the US will keep a low profile politically and let most of the talking be done by Reza Pahlavi, Shahriar Ahy or Hassan Daioleslam. Alternatively, a council of various opposition groups can be assembled.

If the bombings are heavily targeted, and only hit IRGC compounds, then the already sour popular sentiment in Iran can escalate further. In the best case scenario, no American boots on the ground will be needed, but most likely, an invasion of Tehran from air will be necessary to finish off Khamenei´s rule.

A reasonable scenario is that the entire operation will be completed in three months. Even if everything possible goes wrong, and Iran follows the path of Iraq, then it may take up to five years before a stable government is set up. That may sound bad, but the alternative is that the IRGC continues to rule and impoverish Iran for another three decades. And remember, Iranians are ready for democracy far more than the Iraqis ever were, and America has learnt from its mistakes in Iraq – it won’t repeat them in Iran.

Of course, let me be clear: People will die. My own relatives may day. But aren’t they dying already? Aren’t the youth of Iran being tortured, raped and killed in Evin already? And aren’t their deaths a complete waste today? Wouldn’t it be better to die while actually fighting for freedom?

Does it feel good making this recommendation? Not at all. But if Khomeini didn’t have the guts to call people to the streets knowing very well that they would get killed, there would never have been a revolution in 1979.

And if we don’t have the guts to call for the only solution available to us right now – US military strikes and an invasion of Iran – then we won’t have our revolution in 2009. Or possibly for another three decades.

So let’s have this debate.