Iran: With Whom to Engage?

Last week, I had the opportunity to address over forty members of the United States Congress with the goal to encourage their recognition of the importance of engaging the Iranian people and their ongoing struggle for human rights and democracy.

I began my remarks by asking, "If the U.S. is to continue to assert engagement as the path forward in the case of Iran, whom precisely should the engagement be with?"

If the U.S. supports the Iranian people in their struggle for democracy -- for human rights and liberties -- it will empower their movement, catalyzing their success. And in so doing, the West will find its solution to nuclear proliferation: democracy itself. It is only in a democratic Iran where the international community will find a trustworthy, transparent and accountable counterpart.

I am and have always been opposed to any military action against my homeland. But it is also clear that any diplomatic efforts deprived of appropriate pressure points would be toothless, thus incapable of producing the desired results. In hopes of providing U.S. lawmakers with tangible guidance on Iran, I offered a three-pronged combination of measures that offers the best prospects for long-term stability: (1) a more vociferous support for the Green Movement's legitimate calls for human rights and democracy; (2) targeted sanctions against the individual financial power of the regime's leadership; and (3) serious commitment, support and work to increase communications into Iran, out of Iran, and within Iran.

Similar to my discussions with members of the French National Assembly, the British House of Commons and the European Parliament, I detailed this strategy by urging the Members of the U.S. Congress to embrace their greatest ally against nuclear proliferation: the Iranian people. The Iranian people have loudly and unequivocally vocalized their demands for a democratic system of government, which by definition will be transparent, responsible and accountable. Solidarity from world leaders sustains the momentum they need in their campaign for the establishment of freedom and democracy at home, and peace and stability in the region. I cannot imagine any achievable sanctions that could create pressures commensurate with what the people of Iran have already demonstrated.

I, along with most Iranians, was quite disheartened to learn that earlier this month, the U.S. State Department had denied all funding to a human rights center, as well as an online Farsi-English journal of democracy, both of which focused on Iran. It is simply counterintuitive for America -- at this critical moment in Iran's history -- to deflate, through such actions, the hopes and aspirations of the Iranian people. It is exactly what the clerical regime wants: a confidence builder in its usage of an iron fist against a citizenry that has so courageously withstood the blows of wielding clubs, chains and untold rape and torture.

As Iranian democracy activists remind us, "There is a reason protesters hold signs written in English on the streets in Iran. They are not just practicing their language skills!" As I confer with international opinion and policy makers, I regularly make the emphasis, as I did with members of the U.S. Congress, on the importance of targeted personalized sanctions against the regime's leadership and individual private financial fiefdoms, rather than the Iranian people. The imposition of smart sanctions that specifically target the assets of key decision makers, and the means of the Revolutionary Guards to oppress the people, can prove effective. The critical goal, however, must be to weaken the financial power of the oppressive forces inside Iran. Clearly, if the West is to enforce new sanctions, those sanctions must be intrinsically tied to the Green Movement's outcry for freedom.

As with so many fronts in this modern-era, at the end, it is all about communications. I encourage investment in technologies that increase communication with the Iranian people. America in particular needs to increase the available mediums of dialogue with the Iranian people by strengthening the ability of the Iranian people to access news and information and to overcome the electronic censorship and monitoring efforts of the Iranian regime.

This renewed dialogue would allow the world to demonstrate its solidarity with the democracy-seeking Iranian people. It would also improve the accuracy of the information received from Iran. But perhaps most importantly, improving these technologies would allow the Green Movement within Iran to communicate, organize and mobilize much more efficiently.

Finally, I regularly remind my audiences that history has taught us that the democratic process must come to fruition as a result of an internal discourse. In the meantime, the international community must stand in solidarity with the people of Iran through a palpable commitment to their struggle.

By supporting the Iranian Green Movement and the people's legitimate quest for human rights and democracy; sanctioning the financial strength of Iran's leadership; and improving communications technologies, we shall provide a solution that not only works for the free world, but also for my compatriots, and even perhaps the region at large.

Excerpts from:

“Iran students carry on protests - November 3, 2009”

“The opposition plans large demonstrations Wednesday, the first in six weeks. But in the West, some analysts have begun to discount the opposition movement’s power.”

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-iran-protests3-2009nov03,0,459006.story

“In the West, some analysts have begun to discount the opposition movement’s ability to affect Tehran’s decision-making. Some say months of repression have gutted the protest movement of its organizational capacity and leadership.”

“Our view is that the regime has largely neutralized the opposition,” said Mark Fowler, a former CIA analyst who now heads Persia House, a service run by the Booz Allen Hamilton consulting firm in Washington. “It seems to us that they have pretty much decapitated the opposition in terms of leadership. I don’t think the government is particularly worried about it.”

“Many also doubt the opposition’s ability to serve as an alternative to the hard-liners who have the upper hand in Tehran.”

“Mousavi is not a liberal per se,” said Fowler. “When he was prime minister, he would have made the conservatives and the hard-liners proud.”

“During a conference in Washington last month, Ataollah Mohajerani, a confidant of opposition figure Mehdi Karroubi, refused to distance himself from Ahmadinejad’s nuclear policies.”

In a series of opinion pieces and public speeches, Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann Leverett, who have served as Middle East analysts for the CIA, National Security Council and State Department, have urged the Obama administration to abide by the results of Iran’s election and to engage with Tehran’s current leadership.

November 4, 2009 Protests in Iran

According to a few Iranian sites ( in Persian), including IranPressNews, various eyewitnesses participating in demonstrations say martial law or military rule has been imposed in Tehran since this morning. Many plainclothes Regime personnel (Basijis) speak with provincial accents - so they must’ve been brought over from different provinces to Tehran. Protestors are being beaten up, attacked by batons, and tear gas thrown at them. Regime is shooting at people and in the air in Haft Tir Sq.

Several “metro” (subway) stations (stops) have been suddenly closed since this morning without prior public announcements. They will remain closed until end of demonstrations today. They include “haft-tir”, “Taleghani”, “Darvaze_dolat”, and “ferdowsi”.

Students from University of Esfahan (Isfahan province) who were intending to protest were prevented from doing so by Regime officials who are heavily scattered all around the University. Currently several thousand students inside the university are chanting slogans; an interesting one reported is “Russian Embassy is a den of spies”.

Students are also demonstrating in Mazandaran province. So far, 3 have been arrested. Their families are present in front of the University of Mazandaran demanding the release of their children.

Slogans all over the walls saying “Death to Khamenei” at Azad University in Arak. Regime officials apparently are running around trying to erase the slogans.
Protests as well in Yasuj University in Yasuj (Southwestern Iran near Zagros Mountains).

AS I am posting this it is 11:40 AM local time in Tehran, Nov, 4. No doubt more reports will surface later on....

Iran is run by consensus among different groups, mainly:
the parliament (Majlis)
the president,
the supreme leader (a very silly name, that could be taken from the Monty Python's Flying Circus)
and the Expediency Discernment Council

these groups are trying to obtain the least winning coalition to enforce their policies, and to reduce the power of the other groups. For instance Ahmadinejad has bribed the IRGC into his flock by promoting his friends to top position within the IRGC and given IRGC related companies nice state contracts. The power of Khamenei has been reduced both by Ahmadinejad and by the Expediency Council (that are negotiating between the Majlis and the Guardian Council) and the Assembly of Experts that now is looking for a post-Khamenei solution, probably with a committee and not one "leader".
Read these links http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=110339&sectionid=351020101 and http://www.tehrantimes.com/index_View.asp?code=207093 for an example of these negotiations.

The actions by Moussavi and Karroubi that are supported by some of the factions above (among them Rafsanjani, that is fighting for his money) is an unknown X in the equation.

One of the reasons that Iran is sending conflicting information, is that everything is up for negotiations and some steps would increase the power of one group on the expense of other groups. The do not have a master plan that they are following, they have no idea themselves of what will happen.
However, some groups have access to big money that they are using and supporting activities in other countries (read Hamas, Hizbullah, Syria etc) that they think would increase their power within Iran. In many cases the Iranian government has no clue of what these groups are doing. In that sense it could be said that Iran is not a state as they do not have a government that controls its own territory !

However, strange as it may seem, Iran has a structure that could be transformed into a democracy, the key thing is to get rid of the "Supreme Leader" stuff, but that is easier said than done as he is supported, or rather guarded by the thugs in the Basij militia.

What follows is not a personal dig at you I hope you realize. In reading your post, I wanted to share some thoughts.

Iran since Khomeini 1979 has been designed to run by two elements: 1) interlocking structures, and 2) Culture (religion), because it was envisioned that should there be any attempt to pull it apart in the future, it would be much harder to do so than reliance on a single “supreme leader” or “a Shah”. The latter as the case was 3 decades ago.

This attempt is called a “strategy”, much more powerful than Shah’s monarchy strategy, because in the old days the monarchs also derived their positional power from the mullahs and religion. Who is and was the boss? Since then, IRI, has employed a variety of “tactics” as well to keep itself in power and in business, both in Iran and elsewhere.

IRI is, also, much more designed by “cultural” Islamic elements and values; not necessarily what many Iranians said they wanted in 1979, but what culturally has dictated Iranian society i.e. Religion of Islam, and a belief in a Rahbar (leader) to guide them. Therefore, the “supreme leader” label is not too “monty python” like to many Iranians even to date. Iranians still want a “rahbar” i.e. supreme leader. What they don’t seem to want is a “dictatorial rahbar”.

A key strength of IRI & its mouthpieces has always been their ability & willingness to read peoples’ mentality at grass root levels, play with it, and shape it as IRI desires, by force or sweet talk (propaganda) acceptable and attractive to ordinary folks. IRI continuously seeks feedback from the people, through different channels. The West doesn’t get it nor cares. The West judges from its own point of reference.

It was the foolishness of majority of Iranians to think that they could have Islamic Democracy, whatever that meant, back in 1979. It wasn’t all Carter’s fault. So, a good portion of Iranians supported an ayatollah along with its PR machine, who lied, deceived and did a sell job of democracy, professing to want, go and live in Qom.

A slogan at the time in Iran was something along the lines of “vaghat shah bere harchi beshe, beshe”, it translates: Only let’s get rid of the Shah, whatever will be, will be. How ignorant and shortsighted was that? Many Iranians still don’t get the abomination they brought on themselves, until IRI repeatedly proves them otherwise.

Khomeinist regime and Khomeini himself very much learned from the Shah’s government and it’s Structural and Cultural mistakes & weaknesses. IRI has its tentacles way over anything in and out of Iran, way more than the Shah’s government ever did or could. Quite a few of the worst offenders are NOT in Iran, they are Iranians and non-Iranians outside Iran. They aren’t all “useful idiots” either. Russian Embassy isn’t the only den of espionage.

The Shah’s regime did mostly revolve around a “supreme leader” called “the Shah”. IRI’s existence does not. The supreme leader role, call it Vali Faghih if you find the term supreme leader comical, (it does not refer to the incumbent in the role), is protected by IRI constitution not just the Basij. Same goes for IRGC role and actually the entire Islamic Republic setup – interlocking structure supported by a brainwashed religious culture. BTW, we are talking about today’s Islam, not Christianity of the yester years.

The “consensus groups” given in your post, if in any hierarchical order of influence at all, is not accurate. Although, these “consensus groups”, you call them, only validate my earlier point above about a complex structural setup, giving an air of consensus, a process of checks and balances and a false notion of democracy for the people. It is actually a very clever design and a well thought through one.

The Majles is immaterial. Has been for years, and will be so long as the Islamic Republic is in force. There is no bona fide account to confirm “the power of Khamenei has been reduced both by Ahmadinejad and by Expediency Council”.

Over the last 30 years, there has been continual and ongoing “negotiations” among the elite of the thuggish regime as how to continue to maintain the ENTIRE Regime in power by “modernizing or updating” it, which would at best mean shifting power and money, if you will, from one Regime basket to another. They are all the same regime baskets! It doesn’t mean much in terms of democracy for Iran. It means, at best, shifting power within the Islamic Regime itself.

Post-Khamenei solution in terms of a committee or one leader will not make much of a difference at all.

What I agree with, so far as I understand your post, is getting rid of “supreme leader” is a step in the right direction of dismantling the ENTIRE regime, eventually and hopefully, down the track. But, only if Iranians aren’t continuously fed this nonsense about Islamic Democracy, and religious this and that and wake up to their own strengths and weaknesses, including their own previous lack of foresight and learn from it.

I can also assure you that the Regime exactly knows what to do and how to defend itself, which means Iran because its power & money are based on a nation state called Iran, and are derived from Iran as a Nation State.

IRI needs to be pulled apart: culturally, structurally, financially, militarily and so on. A committee replacing a “supreme leader” role is not the answer. The West works towards its own ends and with its own understanding and perspective in cultural relativism, political correctness and economic advantages. I don’t fault that. The West has choices though. I won’t say what I think they are, but they can examine them carefully, and make the best ones based on longer terms objectives that won’t be too chaotic all around. In Iran, much will be left up to Iranians themselves, their judgement, what they can live with and without for Iran - we can’t change the old Iranian generation, but there is hope for the new one.

Thanks, I think that a good comparison of the present status of IRI is Soviet pre-Gorbachev. The elite in IRI knows that they have to do something, but are not prepared to shake the boat as it might have consequences that would remove them from the power. Probably a majority of them, and not only those that have studied abroad, would prefer a government that would allow religion to be a private matter.

Many in Qom would appreciate if the Mullahs would back off from the dirty work of politics as they think that the clerical authority (Velayat-e Faqih) should be redefined and not disturb the religious sphere.

One prominent opponent of the present interpretation is Ayatollah Montazeri, but you can find a broad spectrum of ideas among the Mullahs.

However, as I have the opinion that "follow the money" is the best description of any system from criminal behavior to political system, I would refer you to this article about the North Korean system and apply it to the groups in IRI:

Their belief in the system is gone, but God knows how long this will continue. In the long term, the system is not sustainable. Everybody knows it, and maybe the leaders of the system understand it, but their major goal is to die peacefully in their own beds. Therefore, every year of their high life-style sipping Hennessy cognac is a small victory. They feel that the longer they stay, the better—even if they understand that in the long run they will be out of power. And many of them hope that the system will outlast their own life spans.

http://www.rfa.org/english/commentaries/lankov-nk-02202009171534.html

It shows the problem of change.

I know you like to often compare pre-Gorbachev and Gorbachev period with IRI and look for solutions in that context.

As you know, I don’t see much of a comparison - aspects yes, but, no actual comparison with Gorbechev period or USSR. You might have got a clue from blogger Andisheh too months ago as to why IRI is not comparable to Gorbachev.

Condi made similar assumptions you seem to make - she was said to be an expert on USSR, used to be part of Carter admin and then moved over to become a registered Republican; the rest is history I hear. USSR was a Communist State, IRI has aspects of a communist & a Fascist state, but is not one. It is much more complex.

I will read the link you gave. One thing I think for sure. Iranian regime of Islamic Republic will not go quietly, peacefully. Velayate_Faghih is their bread and butter, including ayatollah montezari, though he is, age wise, near his deathbed, good riddance to him.

I haven’t been to Qom. But, unless you’ve been to Qom, your guess is almost as good as mine as to what many mullahs in Qom would appreciate. As a rule, and based on cultural experience in Iran, I’d say, they, many (mullahs in Qom) need to be politically neutralized. They will not go easily nor retreat from power, money and social influence. Why give up the power, good life and all the money? It is neither in their mullah mentality, nor intention. Most Iranians know it already. Whether they choose to follow them or not is another matter.

I agree, money talks as always. But, we are talking very much a different talk here, not a Chevron type of money or a resource energy talk for example.

Totally agree, genuine change is always very difficult too, especially on a mass scale.

Was Boroujerdi whose petition you’ve posted ever part of IRI? This guy wants a clear disconnect between religion and state. At least that’s what he claims. No?

Which Montezari are you referring to? Ayatollah Hossein Ali Montezari? If so, this Montezari wrote the Islamic Republic Constitution and was instrumental in supporting Khomeini’s rise to power and the embedding of IRI Regime in its first decade of atrocities!

Montezari then had his differences with Khomeini (not Khamenei). Montezari wanted to “Reform” IRI after some 7 years (almost at the end of Iran-Iraq War, which Khomeini, the supreme leader, prolonged with Saddam to ensure Khomeini’s Islamic Revolution would carry on in Iran). Once claimed a successor to Khomeini by Khomeini, after disputes with Khomeini, Montezari was put under house arrest by Khomeini & remains “supposedly” so until now, but committed to “reforming” the Islamic Republic.

Montazeri remains an ardent lover and loyalist to IRI, occasionally allowed to speak by IRI as their propaganda & moderate Islamic mouthpiece, and often promoted by “moderate” and reformist Islamic Republicans of the world as an example of what Islamic Democracy in Iran is all about.

I am pretty sure you already know these. Why put Montazeri and Hossein Kazemeyni Boroujerdi in the same sentence and try to connect them?

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.