AnotherPath in Iran
By David
Amess | Contributor
Aug. 3, 2016, at 11:15 a.m
July 14 marked
the first anniversary of the Iran nuclear agreement, which exchanged extensive
sanctions relief for the limited restrictions on Iran's nuclear program. The
occasion brought with it a renewed outpouring of criticism for what many
politicians and foreign policy experts justifiably see as a giveaway to a
brutal regime with a notorious record of human rights abuses and sponsoring
terrorism.
Just days
earlier, on July 9, Iran's democratic opposition coalition, the National
Council of Resistance of Iran, held its annual rally outside Paris, calling
attention to the regime's ongoing domestic abuses and calling for regime
change. Naturally, the event saw a great deal of overlap with the nuclear
issue, as a number of prominent figures took
the stage to deliver speeches in support of the coalition and in opposition to
the conciliatory policies that led us to last summer's Iran dal, the Joint
Comprehensive Plan of Action.
The rally
brought these speakers together from a wide range of countries and political
leanings. Republicans from the United States, like Newt Gingrich and John
Bolton, joined Democrats including Howard Dean and Bill Richardson. European
participants included former French Secretary of State for Human Rights Rama
Yade and the former President of the European Commission, Jose Manuel Durao
Barroso. At the rally, some reiterated their skepticism about the nuclear
arrangement, while others focused on the absence of the promised trend toward
moderation in other aspects of the Iranian regime – a promise that helped to
sell the deal to countries worldwide and to the public.
In the
aftermath of the rally, the Iranian regime showed the world
community more evidence of this lack of moderation. The Iranian Foreign
Ministry gave rather hysterical statements denouncing
some of the countries that sent delegations to the event, and in doing so,
Iranian authorities made it clear that they are unwilling or unable to tolerate
a peaceful demonstration even on foreign territory, much less inside the
Islamic Republic itself.
All of this
political action and commentary raises a very basic question about the current
state of Iranian-Western relations: What is the motivation behind this policy
of appeasement on the nuclear deal and its implementation?
Perhaps the
simplest answer is that policymakers actually believe the deal will stall
Iran's progress toward a nuclear weapon. Yet that belief seems highly dubious,
since much of the recent criticism has emphasized a lack of transparency in
International Atomic Energy Agency inspections and ongoing uncertainty of
Iran's baseline nuclear knowledge. Yet what is more important is that even if the nuclear issue has
been resolved for as much as 10 years, as
its advocates tend to claim, that does not change the fact that Iran's behavior
in other areas has gotten worse to compensate.
This has been
demonstated by the escalating rate of executions in the Islamic Republic, along
with the recent spate of arrests of artists, writers and dual-nationals, and by
Tehran's persistent refusal to compromise over support of Syrian dictator
Bashar Assad, or to limit the Revolutionary Guards and the Iranian paramilitary
role in conflict areas like Yemen and Iraq.
These factors
and many others, which were all highlighted in the speech of the National
Council of Resistance of Iran President-elect Maryam
Rajavi at the July 9 rally, rule out the rationale behind the
nuclear agreement. It cannot be true that the Obama administration and its
allies actually believe in the moderation narrative they put forward as
justification for the nuclear agreement.
The recent
policy initiatives suggest Obama and other Western leaders see no other
alternatives. Along those lines, some advocates for the nuclear agreement did
indeed make the claim that the world faced a stark choice between rapprochement
and war.
If this was
actually the case, adopting a self-defeating compromise in order to avoid
another armed conflict would be somewhat understandable. However this last
justification for appeasement is as misguided as the moderation narrative of
the nuclear deal itself, and if the global media had paid more attention to the
rally, people would better understand why.
There is an
alternative to conciliation and war. It involves supporting the Iranian
resistance movement that gives voice to the democratic aspiration of the
Iranian people. Ending appeasement, even if it is a daunting task, would be the
best course of action. Yet policymakers do not seem to recognize the Iranian
resistance and see the popular support it enjoys among the Iranian people; if
they did, they would not need to reformulate their own policy positions.
The economic
sanctions that have brought the Iranian regime to the nuclear negotiating table
have edged it further to the brink of collapse, stripping billions of dollars
from its repressive forces and notably the Revolutionary Guard. The
regime could have collapsed and it might still. But that would require the U.S.
and the EU to admit that appeasement is not the way forward with any brutal
regime, least of all the theocratic regime ruling Iran that has a peaceful,
democratic and credible alternative waiting in the wings.
No comments:
Post a Comment