Home >> Middle East >> Iran  Email  Print Iranian Opposition to Islamic Republic and Western Countries Military Option Kambiz Basetvat - 1/11/2012 The United Nations atomic watch dog recent devastating report revealed Islamic Republic (IR) regime of Iran’s uninterrupted and continuous work to weaponize its atomic research. The report increased the level of tensions and convinced the western countries to impose new sanctions on IR.
This development coupled with the revelation of a bold IR conspiracy to kill the Saudi Arabia ambassador to US in an explosion in a crowded public place increased speculation of western countries military option necessity that has been on the table since the beginning of IR hostility toward western countries interests. These political developments, which spiked the level of conflict between US and its European allies with Islamic Republic regime of Iran over its quest for nuclear arm, created uproar amid Iranians diasporas. The possibility of western countries use of military force against Islamic Republic regime demonstrated the Iranian political pundits’ interpretations, positions and disagreements.
Although Iranian political mentality still suffers and follows the well known path since nineteenth century, that is encumbered a sense of victimization by western countries and resentment of the west, now, however, it shows noticeable cracks and exceptional views of western countries real intentions toward Iran. There are two discernable groups of Iranian opposition to IR: one group sees many harmful consequences from use of military force against Islamo Fascist regime of Iran, such as increase of Iranian people misery due to war and augments establishment of Islamo Fascist regime. The other group in use of military force against IR sees many benefits and eventual collapse of the regime and the chance to materialize the quest for Iranian freedom from the claws of Islamo Fascist.
Following the increase of possibility of military response to Islamic Republic challenges by free world, the Iranian political pundits’ opposition to IR propaganda against military attack to IR atomic installations went into high gear. These oppositions consisted of individual essayists and publishers of manifests singed by a group of well known and unknown individuals. The overwhelming belief in these papers carries absolute opposition to military attack to Iran. The wording has been chosen diligently, the military strike is an attack against Iran not the Islamic Republic regime dictatorial apparatus, and also as a consequence the Iranian people will be hurt not the regime. What is new in some of these papers is the condemnation of Islamic Republic for its atomic ambitions which creates international crisis and legitimizes military strike against Iran. It seems they are trying to balance their political stance against two combatants. In these reasoning there is no right side or wrong side, there are just war mongers. These high minded political pundits have a condescending attitude toward both sides of the conflict. The free world is as evil as Islamic Republic.
In the free world, in the media there is a group of essayist promoting the baselessness of the Islamic Republic punishment with sanctions or military strike for its quest to become an atomic power. Their argument is since Israel maintains a stock pile of nuclear weapons and nobody makes a fuss about it, therefore, they conclude Iran (Islamic Republic) has the right to possess nuclear technology. These essayists usually relate IR nuclear activity to Israel and Palestinian conflict and the injustice Palestinians suffer in the hands of Israelis. While they consider themselves IR opposition, there are great deals of similarities between this group of essayist arguments with IR official propaganda machine. They equate western countries democratically elected and run government to dictatorial Islamo Fascist government of Iran.
So far three manifests for condemnation of engagement of western countries in military strike targeting IR nuclear installations have been published with many Iranian political pundits signature. Two of these manifests are from the same group of political activist opposing IR; the first written in hurry and pretty much a short version under the title of “One hundred twenty Iranian intellectual condemning dictatorial regime and military incursion to Iran.” The second version more sophisticated and longer with an English version but conceptually not much richer with a different title as follow “The manifest of a group of political, civil, student, journalist activist in opposing the war.” [1] While the second manifest title introduces the signatories, the first manifest does that in the manifest. In both manifests it has been established that the adherents are pro democracy, promoters of human rights and stanch enemy of the current regime in Iran. The Islamic regime, in the manifests, was condemned and trashed for violating Iranian citizens’ human rights, imposing political and social dictatorial regime, ingraining deep corruption in financial institutions and in the government, and turning the Iran’s international status to an outlaw country. The manifests go on to question the sanity of IR quest to become nuclear power and rebuke IR for losing trust of UN Atomic Energy Commission.[2]
The manifests strip legitimacy of Islamic Republic government with one accusation after another. The harsh political indictments of the Islamic regime in these manifests do not rationalize military punishment of IR for the signatories of the manifests. The signatories declare that the Iranian people will put the Islamic Republic behind and march forward, though, there is not such a outcome in foreseeable political future of Iran in the forecast. The known political activists adhere to these manifests expose the political leaning of signatories, which includes Islamist reformers, socialist, royalist, and remnant of national front. Their subtle opposition to military campaign against Islamic Republic is adamant and clear. The central arguments of manifest are military attack targeting Islamic Republic regime military and nuclear installations kill innocent Iranian people, obliterate countries infrastructure, increase political oppressions and finally prolongs life of IR. They see no contradiction in their arguments and assume their reasoning will effect western countries decision to remove military option from table in response to IR, and they don’t imagine this will embolden and increase IR aggression.
On the other side of the Iranian opposition spectrum to IR, concerning western countries military option against Islamic Republic, are a group of essayist who do not see themselves in a position to shape the US and its allies policy toward IR contrary to Islamist reformist, who are the former Islamic republic high ranking officials, and they are presently the darlings of US State Department and American universities professorship. These essayists, who oppose and carry heavy load of resentment toward IR, were not a part of the 1979 Islamic Revolution, and in the ongoing dispute between western counties and IR they see an opportunity for destruction of IR. These essayists did not publish a manifest and followed their individual rational; they argue destruction of Islamo Fascist military ability encourages Iranian people to rise up and prostrate the regime. Furthermore, they believe the continuation of Islamic regime is far more destructive to long term Iranian national interest and kills more Iranians then a war which would obliterate Islamist oppressive power base. Also, the IR militaristic firm holds to political power, they postulate, denies any chance of oppositions’ success in a foreseeable future.
The historian and poet Mr. Ali Mirfetros wrote an article in support of a military strike solely to Islamic Republic military installation which would spare the general public and country’s infrastructure; his article infuriated Islamist reformers and communist and ignited an avalanche of criticism.[3] An internet university stripped Mr. Mirfetros honorary doctorate degree; and it was publicized in a diehard Islamist newspaper of Mr Bani Sadare, the first handpicked IR President and later disgraced and escaped to its former sanctuary in France. Mr. Mirfetros well known positive view of Israeli furthered his dislike by Islamist fundamentalist as well as reformist in addition to communist who share the war front with them against western countries. These essayists contemplate that the Iranian people need western countries help to regain their freedom from Islamist political criminals.
The stark differences of Iranian opposition to the IR conflict with the west produced a direct confrontation amid Iranian pundits. Another manifest published in support of Mr. Mirfetros freedom of speech and his entitlement to have a different opinion but not for the context of his opinion and signed by a group of poets, writers, and political activists.[4] This manifest, while written in support of international principal of freedom of speech and opinion and condemnation of those Islamic elements who are in business of suppression of speech, contains its own interpretation of IR quarrel with west. The manifest strongly condemns IR and holds its leaders responsible for mischief internally and internationally; also, it portrays foreign countries intentions toward Iran as vulgar and demeans them outright. Furthermore, it condemns war in principal and professes IR looking to engage in a war to shore up its survival and rejects military punishment of IR. The manifest has a different and harsher approach to IR. Although this manifest takes a step toward defending opening the discussion, but it is in unison with those who are against western countries military option in their confrontation to IR. Still, individual signatories were criticized for lack of foresight in support of Mr. Mirfetros call for destruction of IR military power base[5]. The same military force that brutally suppressed a mass uprising for free and fare election more than two years ago.
The common practice of Iranian leftists is to attract the support of Iranian poets and writers with the aim to acquire legitimacy amid general public for their political ideology. In the case of Mr. Mirfetos, whose political stance contradicts with the leftist, he would be attacked shamelessly and chastised; however, in case of Mr. Khoei, a well known and liked poet, who is one of signatories in support of Mr. Mirfetros freedom of speech without harassment, his deviation from official leftist policy takes the form of an article with complain from an old friend for an unexpected behavior, which if it continues becomes an outright critical attack. Another writer a professor, Dr. Kazem Almdari, who deviates from the leftist political norm by saying “humanitarian intervention of western counties all are not misguided”, in the context of an ongoing discussion of the west’s military option in dealing with IR looming military atomic peril, was attacked by leftist foot soldiers in an internet site where he felt he is among friends.[6]
Although it seems that still among Iranian political pundits American and Israeli haters have the upper hand, and their political metaphor as far as western countries are concerned dominates these pundits mentality, however the light at the end of tunnel could be seen. The Iranian leftist grip on intellectual circles was lost considerably, but this intellectual vacuum filled with a new generation of well educated Islamist, who penetrated American educational institutions in great numbers. While maintaining their Islamic zeal, these educated Islamist fill technical, intelligence, and other ranks of bureaucracy of Islamic regime.[7]Obviously, Iranian opposition stance to IR makes its way to the military calculations of the western countries; still there is a limit to its consideration. The political development, in recent years, isolated the leadership of Islamic Republic and many Islamist factions joined its opposition. One can with certainty claim it is true that there is not much outright support for a military strike to IR military installations; however, apparently there is not much support to defend IR either. Iranian opposition to IR will continue their contradictory rational; however, a military strike will be advantageous for them and they will benefit from that.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] http://www.iranhumanrights.org/2011/07/civil-socity-warns-against
[2] http://news.gooya.com/politics/archives/2011/11/13
[3] http://mirfetros.com/fa/?p=2322
[4]http://www.newsecularism.com/2011/12/05.Monday/120511.Declaration-of-writers-on-freedom-of-speech.htm
[5] http://www.newsecularism.com/2011/12/14.Wednesday/121411.Maziar-Tapouri-Open-letter-to-Esmail-Khoei.htm
[6] http://us.mg203.mail.yahoo.com/dc/launch?.partner=sbc&.gx=1&.rand=2412jjmq8utkv
[7] http://www.newsecularism.com/2011/12/14.Wednesday/121411.Massud-Noghrekar-Said-Emami-is-still-alive.htm
|
