[FREE IRAN Project] In The Spirit Of Cyrus The Great Forum Index [FREE IRAN Project] In The Spirit Of Cyrus The Great
Views expressed here are not necessarily the views & opinions of ActivistChat.com. Comments are unmoderated. Abusive remarks may be deleted. ActivistChat.com retains the rights to all content/IP info in in this forum and may re-post content elsewhere.
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

A third option on Iran

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    [FREE IRAN Project] In The Spirit Of Cyrus The Great Forum Index -> News Briefs & Discussion
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
blank



Joined: 26 Feb 2004
Posts: 1672

PostPosted: Wed Jun 14, 2006 5:27 pm    Post subject: A third option on Iran Reply with quote

June 12, 2006, 7:04 a.m.

Boxed In on Iran
A “third option”: support the dissidents.

http://mehr.org/USpolicy_shift.htm

By Mohammad Parvin

The Iranian regime’s policy of intimidation and humiliation of the U.S. is paying off—but President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad wants even more.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice recently announced that the U.S. is prepared to join other countries in holding direct talks with Iran on its nuclear program, on the condition that Iran first stop disputed nuclear activities. The U.S. ambassador to the U.N., John Bolton, had said a few days earlier that if the mullahs abandon efforts to enrich uranium, they can remain in power. It certainly looks as if nuclear weapons have bought leverage for a terrorist regime.

Some say the U.S. policy hasn’t changed, that this is just a tactical move; others believe there is a real acknowledgement of the regime’s legitimacy. In either case, one thing is clear: The policy is demoralizing for the Iranian dissidents.

Let’s say the Islamic regime eventually accepts the U.S. offer, after the U.S. meets all of the regime’s conditions—which include the lifting of sanctions, removal of Iran from the list of terrorist regimes, the release of frozen assets, acceptance in the WTO, more aid from the World Bank, and (above all) a guarantee that there will be no U.S. attempt at regime change. The strategy will have succeeded in bringing a member of the “axis of evil” into the approving embrace of the world community. Nothing could be more devastating to the democracy movement in Iran: Those who struggle for a secular democracy in that country would find themselves betrayed and facing a brutal regime that is now formally supported by the entire world.

But what if Iran rejects any and all U.S. offers? The U.S. has shown the world community that it has exhausted all the peaceful avenues. Then what? The Iran problem would be referred to the U.N. Security Council—which, if successful, will only force the brutal regime to accept the incentives that it rejected when offered by the U.S. What an achievement! Under this scenario, too, a brutal terrorist regime will join the world community; and it will end in a similar betrayal of freedom-loving Iranians.

Another possibility is military intervention of some kind. The Iraq experience has shown us some of the difficulties of this option; and Iran would be tougher than Iraq. In the event of a military strike by the U.S. or Israel, the Iranian regime would consider itself a victim of aggression, attracting the sympathy of the world community and crushing the Iranian opposition harder than ever. By standing against U.S. aggression, they would become the champions of the people—gaining greater support from terrorist groups and moving toward regional hegemony. This scenario, too, would be tragic. Iranians’ fight for human rights and dignity against a religious dictatorship would suffer a devastating blow.

Neither of these two U.S. policy extremes—making friendly overtures to the regime, and attacking it militarily—is in the interests of the Iranian people or of the world community. The rhetorical “regime change” stand of the U.S. has been masterfully portrayed by the regime’s supporters as the U.S.’s intention to resolve the conflict with Iran by force. By manipulating the current antiwar sentiment of American public, they have promoted the other extreme, the policy that advocates befriending the regime.

Ironically, the U.S. rhetorical stand of “regime change” that pro-regime forces are exploiting has never manifested itself in any meaningful action against the interests of the Iranian regime. The so-called sanctions mainly exist on paper. U.S. companies have been doing business with the regime. The U.S. market is full of Iranian goods: huge amounts of carpet, pistachios, caviar, and other products. It should be noted that the regime and its financial institutions have a hand in every deal; this has made a mockery of the sanctions.

On the diplomatic front, even though the U.S. has not had a formal relationship with the regime since the hostage crisis 25 years ago, back-door diplomacy has been under way; the terrorist regime has been legitimized in many ways, including being consulted regarding the Afghanistan and Iraq situations.

In spite of the U.S. law that considers any sort of association with terrorist regimes a crime, pro-regime lobbying groups and individuals have been openly rooting for friendly relations with the Islamic regime that is on the State Department list of terrorists. The American Iranian Council (AIC) has been in the forefront of such efforts and has continuously hosted high-ranking members of the regime in the U.S. Under the disguise of cultural exchange, the regime has organized many meetings, conferences, and exhibitions in the U.S., and even operates TV and radio stations here. The sponsors of the AIC, listed on its website, include all major U.S. oil companies.
President Bush and many others have used the words “Standing with the Iranian people” to describe the U.S. policy. Unfortunately, this expression still exists only at the verbal level; it has yet to be embodied in actual policies. My organization, the Mission for Establishment of Human Rights in Iran (MEHR), has been actively involved in defense of political prisoners and asylum seekers—and we have tried for months, in vain, to persuade the State Department to grant some sort of visa to a known political prisoner whose situation has been addressed in the State Department and Amnesty International reports. What sort of standing with the Iranians is this?

The State Department grant offered to Iranian dissidents is contingent upon changes in U.S. policy and can stop at any moment. This makes any serious planning by the dissidents impossible; credible individuals and groups are deterred from committing to a program to which its grantors are themselves not fully committed. Moreover, a big chunk of the State Department grant is going to radio and TV programming through Voice of America and Radio Farda—which have been promoting supporters of the regime, including Houshang Amir Ahmadi, who heads the AIC and was a presidential candidate in the recent Iranian elections.

The natural outcome of this type of “regime change” and “standing with the Iranians” is exactly what we are witnessing: The U.S. is humiliating itself to prove that it is not for the military option. And to do this, it has fallen into the other trap, the trap of befriending one of the most brutal dictatorships of our time.

The Iranian regime is a danger to the life and security of not only the Iranians but also the entire world. It cannot change and must be removed. This cannot be achieved by foreign invasion. There is a third option that, if adopted, can eliminate the danger of the regime. The details of this “Third Option” have been discussed elsewhere in a piece that basically argues that the Iranian people are capable of changing the regime if the regime is not supported by the West, and especially not by the U.S. http://mehr.org/third_option.htm One of the main reasons that many Iranian people who are against the regime are not active is that they are clever: They evaluate their balance of power against their enemy. They see that they are facing not only a brutal regime that is heavily armed, but an entire world that is falling over itself to support their oppressor.

Adopting this third option will come at no cost to the American people. It merely asks the U.S. to stop recognizing this regime, making financial deals with it, and legitimizing it. A smart sanction against the regime will show the Iranian people that the world community is with them and is willing to weaken their enemy. This will encourage the people to arm themselves with the weapon of nonviolence and civil disobedience and, by toppling this terrorist regime, eliminate the dangers it poses to the world.

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



MEHR
P.O. Box 2037
P.V.P., CA 90274
USA

Tel: (310) 377-4590
Fax: (310) 377-3103

E-mail: mehr@mehr.org
URL: http://mehr.org


Last edited by blank on Thu Jun 22, 2006 4:42 pm; edited 4 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Oppenheimer



Joined: 03 Mar 2005
Posts: 1166
Location: SantaFe, New Mexico

PostPosted: Sun Jun 18, 2006 7:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dear Blank,

Mr. Parvin may or may not be aware of the change in how US visas are processed since the establishment of the Department of Homeland Security. One applies for visa in the usual manner with the State dept. via embassy, but Homeland Security does the processing and approval.

Remember when Antar came to the UN and HSD and the US Justice Dept. determined him unfit for a visa on terrorism grounds, and Condi decided it was best to make an exception and let Antar hang himself with his own words in front of the whole international community?

Now there's an extreme example of how the process unfolds, but HSD does have say in any visa aproval.

So the fellow is talking to the wrong folks in the US gov. for expediant aproval of this dissident's visa, and I'm a bit suprised he hasn't been directed to them before now.

Let me pose to you a basic premis of what not simply the US, but every nation involved and "siezed of the matter" has placed before the IRI as a choice.

Accept the deal or accept "serious concequences" as Solana of the EU put it to the head IRI National Security.

This would place Amb. Bolton's comment in a completely different premis of interpretation as well, if one thinks a bit about it. What he was also saying is that if THEY DON"T accept the deal, the IRI won't be allowed to stay in power.

By consensus of nations, this is what has been determined I believe.

The rights of a nation do not superceed other nation's right to live in peace, and when a nation threatens the peace and security of the global community, no sovereign right will the IRI (or any nation) enjoy by claiming "They can do nothing to us."

Another basic premis that I figure is self evident is the fact that US policy is not the same as in other conflicts prior to 9/11. There is no half way measures once military intervention has been deemed neccessary. No limited strikes as a policy tool, which would in any case lead to all out war anyway, as conflict escalates.

Nope, my gut instinct tells me that it will be lights out for the regime (and you sure can't spin centerfuges without electricity, as a footnote) in short order (could be the shortest war in history), but only after all diplomacy has been exhausted, and the IRI has failed the test of whether the global community is dealing with rational people or not.

Change or be changed...that is the question before the IRI.

I don't have any confidence that the regime is willing to or even capable of the kind of radical change as an about-face of regime policy that has been demanded of it by the international community.

It isn't just nuclear issues, it's agreeing to a policy of non-intervention in other nation's affairs, of taking a proper policy of human rights internally to come into international norms of civilized behavior, and the total condemnation and pro-active antiterrorism policy (Gaddafi's backflip was small potatoes comparitively) to which, a number of years in good standing with international norms would be mandatory for change of status to be proven.

As Condi Rice put it, " They know what they need to do."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
blank



Joined: 26 Feb 2004
Posts: 1672

PostPosted: Thu Jun 22, 2006 4:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

برنامه تلویزیونی جدید گروه مهر


(تلویزیون پارس)


شنبه ها از ساعت ۱۱ صبح تا ۱۲ بوقت کالیفرنیا

چگونه میتوان به نقض حقوق بشر در ایران پایان داد؟


برای طرح سئوالات خود و یا ارائه نظر در این برنامه میتوانید با شماره تلفن زیر تماس بگیرید:

818- 881-3030


MEHR
P.O. Box 2037
P.V.P., CA 90274
Tel: (310) 377- 4590 ; Tel: (818) 831- 4938
Fax: (310)377- 3103
URL: http://mehr.org

MEHR’s Weekly TV Program

Saturday 11:00 AM –12:00 (Pacific ime)
Pars TV


“How to Expose and Stop Human Rights Violation in Iran”
You are welcome to participate in this program and express your views by calling

818- 881-3030

MEHR (Mission for Establishment of Human Rights-in Iran)
P.O. Box 2037
P.V.P., CA 90274
Tel: (310) 377- 4590
Tel: (818) 831- 4938
Fax: (310)377- 3103
URL: http://mehr.org
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
blank



Joined: 26 Feb 2004
Posts: 1672

PostPosted: Fri Jun 23, 2006 1:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

"sosiran97"
To: Undisclosed-Recipient@,
Subject: Say NO to Mortazavi's presence at the UN, at least for Zahra Kazemi Please
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2006 00:47:03 -0700

PLEASE SIGN THE PETITION AT THE BOTTOM OF THIS PAGE

Mission for Establishment of Human Rights in Iran

(MEHR IRAN)

Tehran chief prosecutor Saeed Mortazavi who is responsible for numerous imprisonments, tortures, and executions in Iran is going to represent the Islamic Regime in the first session of the newly formed UN Human Rights Commission.
As reported by Human Rights Watch and many other Human Rights organizations, Saeed Mortazavi has spearheaded the judiciary?s attack on press freedoms since the crackdown began in 2000. He is responsible for the closure of numerous newspapers, as well as the arrests and prosecution of journalists, which is detailed in the recent Human Right Watch report on Iran. Based on this report, after testifying to a presidential commission about their torture during detention, a group of Iranian journalists received death threats from Tehran chief prosecutor Saeed Mortazavi. The journalists? testimonies exposed Mortazavi?s role in authorizing their torture to extract confessions and in compelling them to appear on television to deny their mistreatment while under detention.

Please sign our petition at http://mehr.org/petition_mortazavi.htm and help us to let the world community know that it is a mockery of human rights if the chief prosecutor of a terrorist regime is allowed to sit on the human rights commission.

This petition will be sent to the UN authorities and other concerned individuals and institutions worldwide.

MEHR
P.O. Box 2037
P.V.P., CA 90274
Tel: (310) 377- 4590
Tel: (818) 831- 4938
Fax: (310)377- 3103
URL: http://mehr.org
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    [FREE IRAN Project] In The Spirit Of Cyrus The Great Forum Index -> News Briefs & Discussion All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group