Replies

No Family Fight
The Iranian struggle for freedom.

By Mohammad Parvin
July 17, 2003, 9:15 a.m.
National Review Online

A Persian proverb accurately characterizes the current U.S. policy toward Iran: "Pushing away with feet while pulling forward with hands." On the one hand, President Bush rightly recognizes the Iranian mullahcracy as a terrorist regime and acknowledges the struggle of the Iranian people to overthrow it. At the same time, his secretary of state, Colin Powell, expresses opposing views quite frequently. In his shocking July 3 remarks, Powell called the recent uprising in Iran a "family fight" and cautioned that President Mohammad Khatami had been elected in a free election. In the process of justifying his erroneous assessment of the elections in Iran, he insulted the Iranian people by saying that: "President Khatami was elected by his people, not in an American kind of election, but in an election, essentially tapped into the desires of the people."

Powell, of course, has it all wrong. Either his knowledge about Iran is very limited or he has been won over by the Islamic Republic of Iran's (IRI) lobby groups. The recent uprising in Iran was anything but a "family fight."

Secretary Powell, haven't you heard the Iranian people's slogans in recent demonstrations, reported by many Western correspondents? Does "Death to Khamenei" or "Shame on Khatami" signify a "family fight"? How else do you expect the people to show their hatred for this terrorist regime and its frightening repression? How many students have to be arrested, tortured, and executed before you acknowledge that the Iranian people do not want this regime? Did you notice that the majority of Iranians stayed away from the recent elections in Iran, in spite of fierce campaign and constant appeals by Khatami?

Powell should acknowledge that human rights and the principles of democracy are universal and must be applied to the Iranian people the same way that they are applied to the Americans.

The U.S. Department of State has identified Iran as one of the top terrorist regimes in the world. What else do you need to be convinced that IRI is a terrorist regime and should not be supported by the U.S. and the world community? This regime has been condemned eight times by a U.S. federal court for terror counts against the U.S. citizens. This regime has been involved in many terrorist acts — including bombings of a Jewish center in Argentina and of the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia, which killed, among others, U.S. Marines. Iranian dissidents have been assassinated, even abroad, by agents of the Iranian government.

The oil companies' lobby groups and their Iranian fronts — such as the American Iranian Council (AIC) and a whole host of other individuals-and many U.S. lawmakers painted the U.S./Iran relationship as a black-and-white one. They set up a U.S. military-intervention scenario against Iran and conclude (very conveniently) that to avoid disastrous battlefield consequences, the U.S. should establish dialogue and trade with IRI instead!

The ideal course — which is desired by freedom-loving Iranians and serves the best interests of the United States — is to be found in neither of these two ways.

The humane alternative is for the U.S. to recognize the Iranian people's struggle for democracy and formally declare that it does not recognize the Islamic regime of Iran as the representative of the Iranian people. The U.S. should allow the people of Iran regain their freedom — and change the regime on their own.

— Mohammad Parvin is an adjunct professor at California State University and director of the Mission for Establishment of Human Rights in Iran.

http://nationalreview.com/comment/comment-parvin071703.asp

"If you want on or off this Iran ping list, Freepmail me”

AL-DA'WAH OFFICIAL DISCUSSES PARTY SPLIT.

Khudir Ja'afar from the Islamic Al-Da'wah party discussed the status of his party following reports of an internal split between those members inside Iraq and those in the diaspora, in an interview with the London-based "Al-Hayat" daily, published on 15 July.

Ja'afar indicated in the interview that while differences exist between the two groups, it should not be interpreted as a split within the party, saying, "We called ourselves the internal organization because we aimed our activity toward inside Iraq. We are two branches of the same party and are in agreement on almost all matters." He added that the differences that exist "are not of a political nature but of an administrative dimension," and said efforts were under way to settle them.

Asked which religious leadership the group follows, al-Ja'afar stressed that Al-Da'wah's "understanding of political action doesn't call for a religious leadership." He said that the party is supported by Ayatollah Kazim al-Ha'iri, but cautioned that it does not subscribe any one person to a single leadership role. "Some of us follow [Muqtada] al-Sadr, while others follow [Muhammad Baqir] al-Hakim or [Grand Ayatollah Ali] al-Sistani," he added. Regarding the position of the Al-Najaf Hawzah (religious seminary) vis-à-vis other hawzahs he said, "The Hawzah is one; there is no Hawzah that is mute while another speaks. We believe that Muhammad Baqir al-Sadr, the founder of Al-Da'wah Party deepened Islamic thought, while Muhammad Sadiq al-Sadr expanded the horizon of the Islamic movement and turned it into a popular current. It is the Sadr school in its two branches."

Regarding the Vilayet Al-Faqih (rule of the jurists), Ja'afar told "Al-Hayat," "We call for upholding the Vilayet Al-Faqih," but, he added, "it is not necessary that the Faqih who rules in Iran should be the same to rule in Iraq or Lebanon. We support the multiplicity of the Vilayet Al-Fakih. Ja'afar said that the Al-Da'wah would participate in a coalition government in Iraq, as long as that government draws its legitimacy from the Iraqi people. He called on the U.S.-led coalition forces to remain in Iraq until order is established, saying, "If the Americans withdraw, the regime will immediately be restored to power." (Kathleen Ridolfo)

Source: RFE/RL IRAQ REPORT Vol. 6, No. 31, 17 July 2003

Comment:
Bad news for the killers of Abdul Majid al-Khoei, who was hacked to death near the holy shrine of Imam Ali in Najaf by Jamaat al-Sadr al-Thani led by the thug Moqtada Sadr i.e. followers of the late Ayatollah Mohammed Sadeq al Sadr.

The humane alternative is for the U.S. to recognize the Iranian people's struggle for democracy and formally declare that it does not recognize the Islamic regime of Iran as the representative of the Iranian people. The U.S. should allow the people of Iran regain their freedom — and change the regime on their own.

We have only the most limited relationship with Iran today. Bush has spoken out on the need for freedom. I think the idea of "formally declaring it does not recognize the Islamic regime" is a little redundant. Don't we still have millions of Iran's money in the bank from the hostage situation. It is clear that Bush in particular, and most of the US have no love for the mullahs. None the less we don't go making declarations about standing governments.

The people of Iran supported the imposition of the theocracy in large numbers 30 years ago. It's up to them to remove them. I think they are foolish if they believe it can be done with student protests. Better to start stockpiling AK-47s and get on with the job at hand. Good luck!