[FREE IRAN Project] In The Spirit Of Cyrus The Great

[cyrus]

Sean McCormack, US Assistant Secretary of State for Public Affairs, Talks to Kayhan (London)

February 07, 2006
Kayhan (London)
Nazenin Ansari

Source: http://www.iranvajahan.net/cgi-bin/news.pl?l=en&y=2006&m=02&d=09&a=10

Q1. On Monday 6th February Iranian officials sent a letter to the United Nations nuclear agency IAEA requesting that it remove by mid-month any seals and surveillance systems on Iranian facilities still being monitored by international inspectors. The letter also said Tehran would end all voluntary compliance with the U.N. group. This is despite the international community taking the most decisive action for several years in respect of the nuclear program of Iran. The United States has reiterated its commitment to proactive diplomacy whilst not taking the use of force off the table. The regime in Tehran fully knows the extent of the bite of the consequences of its intransigence but is not willing to give up. What other conceivable threats or incentives are there that Iran already doesn’t know about that could make them change course?

What we hope is that the fact of finding themselves before the United Nations Security Council, a place where they don’t want to find themselves, a place they have been trying to avoid for quite some time, will change their decision making process in terms of cost and benefit of pursuing the course they have decided to pursue up to this point. So our hope is that this phase of diplomacy will give them some time in the next several weeks to reflect upon this fact that they have now isolated the Iranian people from the rest of the world.

They have isolated the Iranian people needlessly because the international community has put before the Iranian regime what are very attractive offers that if they were to have further discussions it could possible address the desires of the Iranian government and the Iranian people for peaceful nuclear energy to produce electricity, and at the same time give the international community objective guarantees that the Iranian regime is not going to try develop nuclear weapons. That is the obligation that they signed up to under Non-Proliferation Treaty. Now unfortunately the Iranian regime has not lived up to their end of the bargain. They have used the cover of a peaceful nuclear program to try and obtain a nuclear weapon.

One thing I want to point out is that I am not sure that the Iranian regime is being completely truthful with the Iranian people. I am not sure whether they have made clear that the dispute is not whether or not Iran can have peaceful nuclear energy, we have acknowledged their right to peaceful nuclear energy. The problem is that the Iranian regime, a small group of people that actually control the levers of power of Iran have decided that Iran is going to pursue a nuclear weapon. That is what the international community has objected to, not Iran's right to have peaceful nuclear energy but the fact that they are not abiding by their international obligations and they are in fact trying to do something other than what they say they are trying to do and that is to pursue a nuclear weapon.

Q2. Do you see that this window of opportunity that currently exists for the diplomatic resolution of the dispute with Iran be extended beyond the normal time frame that it takes for the matter to be deliberated in the United Nations Security Council?

Well what I would expect is that this diplomatic phase proceed in a step by step fashion. Right now where we find ourselves is that the Iranian regime is being referred to the Security Council, now the Security Council has agreed that they are not going to take any action until at least March 6th. That is the date that the IAEA Board of Governors will hear a full report from Mohammad El-Baradei, the Director General of IAEA concerning Iran's cooperation with the IAEA or lack thereof and what the IAEA has found concerning Iran's attempts to pursue nuclear weapons. So there is a window here in this phase of diplomacy where the Iranian government can consider what pathway it wants to follow. Does it want to pursue the pathway of understanding and dialogue or does it want to pursue pathway of isolation. They are currently in the pathway to isolation. The rest of the world does not want that. They want to have the benefit of the Iranian people's great culture and history and poetry and music and sports. But right now what is happening is that Iranian regime is more and more isolating the Iranian people from the rest of the world and vice versa.

Q3. With the election of Hamas there is an Islamic Republic installed next to Israel. Are you not concerned that bringing democracy to the Greater Middle East and withdrawing your troops from Iraq, while Iran is being ruled by a government that is spending massive amounts of money, providing organizational, logistical support, sharing experience to have theocrats such as Hamas, the Badr army in Iraq and the Hezbollah in Lebanon, and Hamas in Palestine win elections would be an enormous boost for the regime in Tehran and propel it to duplicate its policies in other areas of the Middle East and pull the rug from under President Bush’s goal of a democratic Greater Middle East?

Well ultimately I would come at the question a little bit differently. We believe that ultimately the growth of a democratic Iraq on one side of Iran and the growth of a democratic Afghanistan on the other side of Iran will have more effect on the behavior of Iran than vice versa than Iran on either side of its two neighbors. Because we believe that fundamentally every person yearns for basic freedom, freedom of expression freedom of religion, freedom to vote in elections for people in elections that will govern and to demand accountability from their government in how they are ruled. And if the people are not satisfied with the way their government is working, they can vote them out and ultimately that is what we believe every person in the region yearns for.

Now the history of the Middle East and the region has been one that over the past 60 years of oppression. People had two choices, they could either work within a system of autocratic regimes or they could turn to violence and extremism. They didn't have a middle pathway. What we are trying to promote is a middle pathway that pathway where a political class can develop where people can differ in their views but can express those differences in a peaceful without fear of secret police knocking on the door or without fear of violent reaction. That is the vision of the Middle East that President Bush has and one people of the Middle East want. Now during this time, it is a time of great change in the region, you are going to see things like Hamas being elected that is what part of democracy is all about but we firmly believe that the Palestinian people voted not only for good governance and anti corruption but the also voted for peace when they voted for President Mahmoud Abbas. And so Hamas now must face a choice in how to fulfill the dual aspiration of the Palestinian people not only for a better way of life but also for a peaceful coexistence with the state of Israel. So it is Hamas that faces the choice.

And as for Iran's behavior throughout the region, it is a trouble not only for the United States but also for all of Iran's neighbors. Iran's support for terrorist groups is something that the world condemns and we are going to continue to work with our friends around the world and also in the region to try to convince Iran to cease its support for terrorism and where and when it won't do that to try to prevent Iran from spreading the creative violent and hatred throughout the region.

Q4. Apart from Presidential statements or talk for funding externally based NGOs what other practical measures can the US administration take to assist the Iranian people in their quest for liberation from theocracy and a genuine participatory democracy?

Well, we as well as other countries around the world, the Europeans, will continue to support rhetorically as well as with funding those people interested in the building of a true civil society those people interested in a developing a political space where they can have freedom of expression for men and women and all members of society regardless of religion or gender. But ultimately as any country throughout the region is going to be for the people of the particular country to decide what kind of course they want their country to follow, what kind of future they want for themselves and their children and their grand children. So we will continue to stand with the Iranian people as they aspire to greater freedom as they aspire to true democracy. As you pointed out, we will continue to provide funding to those NGOs that are interested in promoting those goals.

Q5. Is a meeting like the Bonn conference on Afghanistan and the London conference for Iraq envisioned for bringing the Iranian opposition together?
I don't know of any plans at this point for anything like that.

Q6. Is there anything you would like to add?
I would like to speak to the Iranian people...what they need to understand is that the world has a great appreciation for the Iranian culture for Iran's history. The Iranian people are a great people and what the Iranian people need to understand is that the action in terms of the international community with respect to Iran's nuclear program is not directed against the Iranian people they are directed at the behavior of the regime that the Iranian people don't deserve and the Iranian people also have to understand that the Iranian regime is not telling them all of what is going on. The world is not trying to prevent Iran from having peaceful nuclear energy, in fact, the world has made attempts to provide a proposal that would allow Iran to have peaceful nuclear energy but also provide assurances that the Iranian regime, those small number of people who control power in Iran won't try to use the rights under NPT to develop peaceful nuclear energy to in fact to develop the nuclear bomb.

[cyrus]

Creating Islamist Fear Society Is Not Called Democracy

[cyrus]

Iranians on the freedom path
Nazenin Ansari
14 - 2 - 2006

http://www.opendemocracy.net/democracy-irandemocracy/freedom_path_3264.jsp

The hopes of Iran's democratic activists for a fundamental shift in Iran's relation to the world are undiminished by the nuclear dispute between Tehran and the international community, says Nazenin Ansari of "Kayhan".

"Iran is my land. Although her name has espoused history since ever, the world has forgotten her since 27 years ago. Nowadays, my country's name is back on everyone's lips for a threat, bigger than ever, emanating from the idiocy of those theocrats who govern us, is hanging above us all. A looming menace that, with the sagacity of our people, we are determined to turn into an opportunity for awakening."
So commences a letter from Iranian student activists beseeching the "people of Iran" to unite and participate in a "Congress for the Freedom of Iran", and pleading with the international community "not to abandon us once again … when the atomic issue is resolved." The signatories of the 10 February letter include political prisoners such as Amir Abbas Fakhravar, Peyman Aref, Manouchehr Mohammadi, Arjang Davoodi and Akbar Mohammadi.

The letter is written at a time when the regime in Tehran has been given until 6 March to consider – in the words of Sean McCormack, United States assistant secretary of state for public affairs – "what pathway it wants to follow. Does it want to pursue the pathway of understanding and dialogue or does it want to pursue the pathway of isolation?"


Also in openDemocracy on the internal politics and external relationships of Iran, and the prospects for democracy in the country:

Ardashir Tehrani, "Iran's presidential coup"
(June 2005)

Emadeddin Baghi, "Iran's new era: nine lessons for reformers"
(August 2005)

Nazila Fathi, "The politics of illusion in Iran" (August 2005)

Trita Parsi, "The Iran-Israel cold war" (October 2005)

Nasrin Alavi, "Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's fear" (November 2005)


If you find this material enjoyable or provoking please consider commenting in our forums – and supporting openDemocracy by sending us a donation so that we can continue our work for democratic dialogue



On that day, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) will meet to discuss a formal referral of Iran to the United Nations Security Council, opening the door to possible trade sanctions.

According to Mehrdad Khonsari, a former Iranian diplomat who is currently a senior research consultant at the Centre for Arab & Iranian Studies in London: "from an Iranian viewpoint, going to the Security Council after nearly three years of time-wasting dialogue with the EU3 will mark the start of a new process of diplomacy when at least ten new political actors – namely the ten non-permanent members of the council – will need to get fully familiarised with the Iranian file. This will inevitably lead to the wastage of more time – in line with their wishes. Acting tough and defying the international community has clear domestic consumption benefits for the regime. Moreover, they have nothing to lose and indeed much to gain, if they play this game right to the very end, and essentially come to some kind of an agreement at that point."

In the meantime the three European union states known as the "EU3" - Britain, France and Germany – have come to learn to expect the worst from the regime in Tehran after it managed to subvert the framework of the Paris Agreement, suspending all uranium enrichment and reprocessing activity, that was agreed in October 2003.

The reaction of British foreign minister Jack Straw to the breaking of the seals at Iran's Natanz nuclear facility in January speaks volumes: referring to the sobriquet "Tehran Jack" conferred on him by Iran's members of the diaspora, he said that "I was not taken aback ... we held out a hand of friendship to them". But now Iran has rebuffed Europe's goodwill and cooperation.

Accordingly governments on both sides of the Atlantic are appealing directly to the people of Iran to try and alter the thrust of the nuclear policy of the Islamic Republic of Iran whilst at the same time denouncing the clerical regime as a threat to the future of the world.

Iran's place in the world

On 7 February, Sean McCormack spoke to the Persian-language weekly newspaper Kayhan (London): "I would like to speak to the Iranian people ... what they need to understand is that the world has a great appreciation for the Iranian culture, for Iran's history. The Iranian people are a great people and what the Iranian people need to understand is that the action in terms of the international community with respect to Iran's nuclear program is not directed against the Iranian people, they are directed at the behavior of the regime that the Iranian people don't deserve and the Iranian people also have to understand that the Iranian regime is not telling them all of what is going on. The world is not trying to prevent Iran from having peaceful nuclear energy, in fact, the world has made attempts to provide a proposal that would allow Iran to have peaceful nuclear energy but also provide assurances that the Iranian regime, those small number of people who control power in Iran, won't try to use the rights under NPT to develop peaceful nuclear energy to in fact to develop the nuclear bomb."

Potkin Azarmehr, an Iranian human-rights activist in London and an ardent campaigner for secular democracy, echoes the sentiments of many political dissidents in Iran. Azarmehr believes that "Iranians will only trust the intentions of the international community when the United Nations Security Council passes a resolution that not only condemns the nuclear intentions of the Islamic Republic, but also censures it for its abuse of the basic human rights of Iranians and its support for global terrorism at the expense of the prosperity of Iran."

Appealing to the Iranian citizenry, Jack Straw told the BBC World Persian Service on 9 February: "there are ways in which the street, the Iranian people, the Iranian intellectual elite, can influence even this government. And I think it's very important that they should try to do so."

But Shahram Kholdi, a fellow at the University of Manchester, believes that the majority of Iranians who vacated the political scene in 1976, save for the period when they voted in the reformists, will silently remain on the sidelines until April 2006, when the new Assembly of Experts determines the victor in the power struggle between the ideological guru of President Ahmadinejad, Ayatollah Muhammad-Taqi Mesbah-Yazdi, and Ayatollah Khamenei.

"They will then turn to the leadership they can trust, whether within the Islamic Republic or outside Iran." Kholdi maintains that an alternative leadership to the clerical system, that has gone unnoticed, could indeed emerge outside of Iran: "No one ever thought in 1976-77 that Mr Khomeini had the appeal to unite the internal and external opposition to Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi."

According to McCormack, the United States "as well as other countries around the world will continue to support rhetorically as well as with funding those people interested in the building of a true civil society, those people interested in a developing a political space where they can have freedom of expression for men and women and all members of society regardless of religion or gender."


openDemocracy's global security correspondent Paul Rogers writes a weekly column tracking developments in the "war on terror". Among his reports on Iran's security policy and the possibility of an extension of the war to Tehran:

"Confident Iran"
(March 2005)

"America's Iranian predicament"
(August 2005)

"The Iran nuclear chess-game" (September 2005)

"Iran in Israel's firing-range"
(December 2005)

"The United States, nuclear weapons, and Iran" (January 2006)

Paul Rogers has also written a report for the Oxford Research Group on the likely effects of a military attack against Iran's nuclear facilities, including the prospect of heavy civilian casualties:

"Iran: Consequences of a War" (February 2006)



However, few believe that the NGOs that have benefited from this support inside Iran have the potential to bring about a regime change in the same way that the mosques did in 1978-79. Furthermore, Kholdi argues that in a country such as Iran, where a homogeneous civil society has yet to develop, leadership, as the element to unify and galvanise the populace into a force for change, is indeed crucial.

Shaheen Fatemi, dean of the graduate school of business at the American University of Paris and the editor of the Paris-based internet news site Iran va Jahan (Iran and the World) believes that the atmospherics of the political situation inside Iran today, does not allow for the organization of people-power internally.

Like many Iranians, Fatemi argues that, were it not for the tragedy of 11 September 2001 and the spectre of a nuclear bomb in the hands of the mullahs, the international community would continue to ignore the abuse of human rights in Iran, in the same way that it had done for the past twenty-seven years. "No foreign power can ever care about us Iranians, more than we care about ourselves."

He states that, "the Islamic regime has complete control of all media and does not allow any citizen who is not from within the clerical system to actively participate in the affairs of the government. More than 150 publications have been banned. Any trade union activity is considered illegal and violently put down. Students are under tight control and those who dare protest are not only expelled from schools and universities but are also prohibited from enrolling in educational institutions ever again. Human-rights organisations are not allowed to be active. Overall, Iranian society today is under constant guard by the intelligence and security services."

He therefore argues that the onus is on Iranians who live in democratic societies outside of Iran to establish an accountable, transparent and democratic structure that can take the lead in bringing about change inside Iran.

Shaheen Fatemi wonders "why there has not been a meeting like the one held in Bonn for Afghanistan and in London for Iraq. Why is it that none of the parties concerned have shown any interest in asking the 'free' – those who can freely speak their mind – what do they think and how can they play a role?"

Notwithstanding, all sides agree that Iran is on the verge of a major political, social and strategic shift. With a rich history, a mature polity and a highly motivated population yearning for progress and modernity, if given a chance, Iran has the potential to reverse the situation both at home and in the middle-east region.

As the Iranian student activists write: "…None of us could be entangled in partisan politics, be it republican or monarchist, socialist or anything else for that matter. So long as our people are oppressed, our children raised as barbarians and taught to live as cave dwellers, we are Iranians aspiring to love and freedom…. We look forward to the extended hands of our sisters and brothers, to those of the children of Adam and Eve, those of the noble peoples of the world, to come to our rescue in helping us regain our due place in the concert of the civilized nations."