[Mb-civic] FW: the iran problem

[villasudjuan]

------ Forwarded Message
From: "Sohrab Mahvi" <sohrab at centralhouse.net>
Date: Sun, 15 May 2005 10:58:39 -0700
To: "villasudjuan" <villasudjuan at free.fr>
Subject: Fw: the iran problem


----- Original Message -----
From: <shirin123 at aol.com>
To: <undisclosed-recipients:;>
Sent: Saturday, May 14, 2005 10:38 PM
Subject: the iran problem


>
http://www.hofstrachronicle.com/media/paper222/news/2005/05/12/EditorialopEd
/The-Iran.Problem-951961.shtml
>
> The Chronicle - Editorial/Op-Ed
> Issue: 5/12/05
>
> The Iran Problem
> By Nathan Yadgar
>
> In the most recent issue of The Chronicle, Brian Bohl had an article
> about the recent act that passed through congress known as the Iran
> Freedom and Support Act. While Bohl did make some good points, the
> basis of his argument was predicated on an idealistic falsity that must
> be realized sooner rather than later. As stated, the act would fund
> groups of Iranian dissidents the amount of $10 million. In addition,
> Iranian government officials would not be able to enter American
> governmental buildings. Yet, what he fails to realize is that this is
> not merely a way for the alleged "neoconservatives" to rush to war.
> Rather, tougher stances like this are part of an ongoing American
> foreign policy shift, which looks to secure the world through the
> advancement of freedoms in the very countries that produce the exact
> dangers we are trying to fight.
>
> Bohl points to diplomacy as the best solution to the Iranian problem.
> What needs to be understood is that western style diplomacy is not a
> tool that can be used when working with totalitarian regimes such as
> Iran. The only way to use diplomacy as a possible tool is with the
> encouragement of Democracy and expanded rights as a bargaining chip.
> Looking back to the fall of the Soviet Union, diplomacy was a lost
> cause until we started linking foreign aid to internal freedoms.
> Gorbachev was not in favor of a failing Soviet Union, but it almost
> appears that he was because he had no choice. By linking external aid
> to the Soviet Union with internal reform we essentially ended the
> totalitarian regime by forcing them to choose between reform or
> internal economic failure which would obliterate the totalitarian
> regime. This model is very applicable to the situation with Iran. The
> three party talks that have been held with Iran have been an utter
> failure as the regime has continued to work towards its atomic desires.
>
> Rather than diplomacy we must slowly move to a policy of regime change
> in Iran. A democratic Iran would possibly be the single most important
> development in the Middle-East since the Iranian revolution of 1979
> launched the region into chaos. With a strong policy towards the
> democratization of Iran, as well as the budding democracies in Iraq and
> Afghanistan, and a hopeful continuation of the trend in Lebanon, we
> have a new Middle-East. In addition, a situation like this would
> severely limit the lifespan of the Allawite regime still in Syria.
>
> I realize that an invasion of Iran at the moment may not be feasible as
> we still have a large presence in Iraq. Also, a war with Iran would be
> nothing like what we have experienced in Iraq. Iran is a larger country
> with a stronger army, but most importantly, we would be facing an
> element of nationalism that we have not seen since World War II.
> Iranians are proud of their ancient Persian identities, and would fight
> to the death. Iraqis have no Iraqi identity, as the country of Iraq is
> a British creation, and they are not nearly as homogeneous as Iran is.
>
> That said; let us hope that an invasion is not necessary. In Iran there
> is a lot of unrest facing the regime that rules them. Fifty percent of
> the population of Iran is under the age of thirty, and have no real
> memory of what life was like before this regime took hold. They want
> change. Change from within would be tricky, and we would have to be
> very smart as well as careful on how we can bring it about. We can use
> the model of the Soviet Union, and it may conceivably work, but there
> are no guarantees.
>
> In addition, we would have to be careful about who we support regarding
> external Iranian organizations. I agree with Mr. Bohl that the
> Mujahhideen-e-Khalk is not the route we should be taking. They are an
> extremist organization whose only distinction from the Iranian Regime
> is that they are not in power; however, in anticipation of possible
> changes in the country, many dissidents have stepped up as possible
> leaders of a new government, one of them being Reza Pahlavi, the son of
> the former Shah.
>
> If you are still not convinced of the importance of regime change in
> Iran, and how it is universally wanted by everyone other than the
> regime itself, this may affect your viewpoint. Recently at an event
> hosted by the American Enterprise Institute, a distinguished speaker of
> Iranian descent spoke. He declared, "freedom is the most important
> thing, and that all people share a belief in freedom and have a common
> need for freedom. The Iranian people have become tired, fatigued, after
> twenty-five years of deprivation and suppression . . . They have been
> deprived of the basic means of life, or living. We cannot remain silent
> and watch the destruction, further destruction, of Iran and Iranian
> People." This speaker received a standing ovation. He was none other
> than Hussein Khomeini, the grandson of the Ayatollah Khomeini.
>
> The Idealistic nature of a college campus like ours would love to see
> diplomacy work in a country like Iran. But I submit to you, diplomacy
> will not work. Even if we see short term benefits, we can always rest
> upon the fact that the true long term benefits rest with a democratic
> Iran.



------ End of Forwarded Message